Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 14

Alan Johnson in definition
Alan Johnson's opinion does clearly not have anything to do with defining the concept of Islamophobia. It does not fill the formal requirements for being a definition, by attempting to [|specify the necessary and sufficient conditions] for behaviour being islamophobic. On the other hand, it is a criticism of a specific group of islamophobes (namely outright racists) from a specific point of view. benjamil talk/edits 21:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He seems to be saying that what is called Islamophobia may actually be racism (or xenophobia) disguised as religious criticism. This follows (or should follow) Diane Frost's comment on the relation of Islamophobia and racism. It seems to clarify the connection. I'd think you'd welcome Johnson's view of Islamophobia as a type of racism instead of genuine religious criticism. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any vested interest in getting Islamophobia protrayed as racism beyond the extent to which the scholarly community does so. As a source for the definition section, his comment (that is what it is, it has definitely not been peer-reviewed), is quite sub-optimal. If he's written a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, his (possible) scholarly achievements in the field could be included in the first part of the section. His political corollary has nothing to do with the definition, and I'm really at a loss as to how that could be justified. It is a plainly political statement. benjamil talk/edits 12:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is true that racists will usually adopt any form of prejudice which allows them to vent their emotions. Although there is much more behind Islamophobia (many non-racists are Islamophobic because they feel threatened by an indomitably different ways of life), Islamophobia is certainly one of the vehicles used by racists to vent their hatred. Perhaps there should be a section discussing this? It seems from this talk page that there is much that can be said on the issue if I am not mistaken. Kaz 17:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * agree. note that there is already a section discussing this issue. there is a huge amount of academic sources that analyze the "racial" content of the islamophobia phenomena. i'll expand the section when i'm less pressed for time. you could also make an effort as there are a lot of sources. if you have time, read e.g. meer, n. and modood, t. (2009): "the multicultural state we’re in: muslims, ‘multiculture’ and the ‘civic re-balancing’ of british multiculturalism"


 * however, the discussions here have revolved around the lead: should islamophobia be defined as racism there, yes or no.--  altetendekrabbe   18:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

When you begin to feel threatened from "different ways of life (i.e. cultures)" you have already passed the border towards racism, IMO of course... --E4024 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * agree on that.--  altetendekrabbe   18:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Does this have that much to do with the article at hand? Though Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, one could easily argue otherwise, for example homosexuals feeling threatened by the fundamentalist conservative Christian American bible belt way of life may not be racist. Anyway, this debate and article building is ignoring the antitheist faction. An antitheist dislikes any religion, some may have more reasons to dislike Islam for example, and those sources of course don't list that as racist so let's keep it separate in the article. --Pudeo' 11:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism
I just reverted what I considered being vandalism from the user Clickenglish. He added a link to a non-existing wikipedia article. If someone disagrees with my edit, please discuss it here. PerDaniel (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Racism: dubious - discuss
I hate to bring this up again, but a red chair is not purple just because somebody can find a “reputable source” saying it is. You don't need a reputable source; you need logic. Don't confuse islamophobia with anti-Arabism. An ideology can only be racist if it's centered on race-based dislike; islamophobia is centered on a specific type of religion-based dislike, not race-based dislike; ergo, islamophobia is not racist. I rest my case. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, logic is subordinate to reliable sources, especially with regard to defining terms such as this.
 * Although I find your morphological literalism to be charming, language doesn't work like that. Terms get their meaning through usage, not through an analysis of their constituent morphemes (although that frequently plays a role, as well). You can't say that something isn't cool, simply because it isn't cold.
 * In the present case, it's more subtle. Several of the papers discussing this are quite interesting, and I would be happy to share them with you. Send me an e-mail through my user page if you're interested. benjamil  talk/edits 21:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't need to discuss this everytime someone brings up his personal opinion (unsupported by sources). Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Islamophobia is the recognized term for racism and hatred against Muslims, as demonstrated by numerous reliable sources. Which should really be the end of this discussion. JonFlaune (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You can say the same thing a thousand times over but there is no source to prove a phobia in the context that is given. I doubt many would argue that there isn't a Phobia of Islam because I am sure there is a Phobia of everything including butterflies. But there is real fear and there is a Phobia at least attempt to mention the real accepted fears of Islam.  This article is bogus as it is written.


 * --OxAO (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia tends to follow the elite political narrative rather than the commonsensical or logical. Racism has the most strength in shutting down criticism of this religion and so fits the elite narrative better. Commonsense is for conversation but print must be politically correct. Don't get the idea Wikipedia will actually attempt to open minds on anything, you'll be disappointed (and flamed).--Mastershallow 13:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your criticism (and Everything Is Numbers’s criticism) of the logic is sound but besides the point. If the concept is inherently illogical or absurd it is the editors responsibility to report usage, not recommend a better idea. Of course, there will be reliable critics who will point out the problems with the word as currently used. The question remains: is racism part of a mainstream definition? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe the editors have shown that it is a widely accepted definition. There may be fringes in academia that define Islamophobia as racism; and some use a new concept of racism (cultural racism) to advocate such a change (and that should be mentioned in the body, not lead of the article). A quick review of the archives shows this debate has been going on for over seven years. That there are references isn’t enough if this is a fringe definition; positioning it in the lead is ‘‘undue weight.’’
 * I didn’t revert Liftarn’s edit according to BRD because while I’m not convinced it is right (he’s been arguing this for 7 years) I’m not convinced it is wrong. By ‘‘wrong’’ I mean common accepted usage by a non-fringe sources. I believe this still needs to be discussed. This is a major change and we should seek a consensus by discussion rather than by default. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't had the time to follow up on it for a couple of days now, but in my opinion the way to settle whether it is fringe or not is to look at the literature. I don't believe the sources currently mentioned in the previous thread give the whole picture, it's just based on the references in the lead and the references in one of those articles again. However, I do believe that it is premature to assign it as WP:FRINGE. If editors posting here have institutional access to article databases it would be very welcome if they wanted to help in sorting this out. benjamil  talk/edits 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I’d welcome participation from other editors. I’d especially appreciate a review article that sums up the current theories and gives some idea of their acceptance in academia ... and also in the public debate. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good. I'll see what I can do, and post it if I find anything. benjamil  talk/edits 16:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that this issue is receiving the attention it deserves. Hopefully, the problem will be solved soon, even though the fact that this discussion has been going unresolved for some lengthy 7 years, as amusing as the fact may be, ignites pessimism. I dare to question whether this problem can be solved by citing a source. The request to cite sources is one of the three pillars in Wikipedian content policy, implemented to prevent groundless claims and original research from invading Wikipedia articles. Original research is surely unacceptable by Wikipedian policy, but “original research” only refers to empirical matters and not to mathematically- and/or logically-verifiable matters. Otherwise, we would have to cite a source proving that 2+2=4. I just want to add a statement about my suspicion that the only reason why we are having this discussion is because of confusion between race and religion—e.g., Arabs vs. Muslims, Jews vs. Judaists, Indians vs. Hindus—very similar in its nature, according to my personal observation and original research, to confusion between gender and sexual orientation. This confusion has grown so out of hand that at least one anti-Islamistic organization holds the following as its motto: “Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense.” Everything Is Numbers (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Islamophobia by Chris Allen probably is the book for you, Jason. It ends with an effort to redefine Islamophobia (because, as Allen writes in this paper, both the [Runnymede] report and its model have failed to stand the test of time and a detailed analysis highlights a number of serious flaws). Cheers, Ankimai (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "I dare to question whether this problem can be solved by citing a source." I agree because "Islamophobia is racism is an *opinion*. A source, however reliable, cannot transform an opinion into a fact. It should be worded "Some writers (or scholars or experts or whatever, citing exactly who is meant) see Islamophobia as a form of racism" or something along those lines, not just say "Islamophobia is racism".Smeat75 (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that we could solve this problem very easily by just thinking about whether we would consider for example anti-mormonism to be a form of racism. Probably not. Or say Anti-Pagan discrimination. Again probably not. What we can say with definate accuracy is that Islamaphobia is closely related to anti-arabism and therefore can contain racial connotations. However Islamophobia is not usually racism. And comparing it to antisemitism isn't quite the same thing. Historically Jews are considered an ethnic identity as much as a religious identity. So much so that if one is born of Jewish parents they are automatically considered Jewish no matter which religion they practice. The reason why antisemitism is considered racism is because the world uses the word Jew to refer to both ethnic and religious identity. Now lets just say we have two Muslim parents. They give birth to a daughter. She grows up and converts to Mormonism and cuts all ties from Islam. Is she still Muslim. No. If a Jew did the same thing they would still be ethnically Jewish and depending on which parent and which denomination could also still be considered religiously Jewish.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we use reliable sources, not thought experiments. And the sources say islamophobia is a form of racism. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Islamophobia cannot possibly be considered racism: 1) The most populous Muslim country in the world is Indonesia with a majority population of the Malay race, with no direct lineage from people of Arabic descent.  2) Anti-Christian beliefs are clearly not racist as Christians can be of any race, thus anti-Islamic beliefs cannot be racist either - Islam is a religion, a personal belief, not a zoological taxonomy.  3) The basis of being against Islam is the religious ideology, not the color of a person's skin.  For example, I may like Malay people but not Islamic Malay people because of their beliefs. 4) I can't believe something so common-sense even needs to be discussed, regardless of however many supposedly authoritative, but obviously biased references you can cite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.109.140 (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Related categories nominated for deletion
Also, several other Islamophobia categories are encompassed in the nomination. __meco (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is the most disgusting thing I have seen on Wikipedia. It is 100% biased towards a viewpoint on a concept that does not exist. Religion is de facto ideology, and can be disagreed with, held in contempt, you name it. That doesn't make the counter-position a "phobia." Even worse this links to several other articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not Islamic propaganda. Stop babbling about what you're going to do with this filthy article and just delete it, and all the links, and re-write several of the articles "Islamophobia" links to. This is shameful that the editors in charge of Wikipedia let it get this far. Giantfrogs (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrongNo555 (talk • contribs)

'''The term Islamophobia has been used by several imminent authors. The term itself makes appearances in international journalism and literature. Since Wikipedia aims to provide knowledge about all subjects, the article should stand, in my view. Just because a select number of people think the term is loosely defined, or altogether wrong, does not make the term not exist. Your viewpoint that Islamophobia is not a real logical term should be included in the criticism of the term section of the article.'''--Skhalid360 (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I really can't understand why Giantfrogs claims that islamophobia doesn't exist 12 months after the terrorist attacks in Oslo and on Utøya. PerDaniel (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the worst article on Wikipedia.
The fact that Wikipedia cites leftist cranks who believe that hatred of a religion is somehow racism is just ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view. Not citing those sources simply because someone sees them as "leftist cranks" would not be approaching the article from a neutral point of view. However from my experience, hatred for a religion is almost always borderline racism anyway. Brough87 (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * How is hatred for, say, Christianity borderline racism? That's a trick question, because Christianity isn't associated with any one specific ethnic group, whereas Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are. Nevertheless, religion is not race. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't Christianity associated with any specific ethnic group? I don't know how other people think, but I associate christianity with people of european descent. If you take a look at a map showing percentage of christians in the countries of the world, the highest percentages are in countries with a high percentage of people with origins in Europe, or where europeans have been influential in other ways. Islam has also spread far beyond it's original ethnic group. I would say that both hatred of christians and islamophobia are ideas that are partly racist. PerDaniel (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Christians today are spread fairly evenly between Europe, Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, with North America a distant fourth. They are heavily underrepresented in Asia and the Islamic world. But to reply to the original IP editor's concern: the article already notes that the classification of Islamophobia as racism is disputed. It is presented as a notable minority viewpoint, not absolute fact. Is there anything in particular you would like improved? It does not help us to solve problems if you do nothing but state how bad the article is and do not give specific things that need work. -- LWG talk 00:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Islamaphobia only as a result of 9/11?
How about the Madrid train bombings, the London July bombings, the countless attempted attacks, such as the shoe bomber, and transatlantic bombing attempts, the countless incidents of muslim attacks and killing across the world, including India (Mumbai attacks) and Indonesia (Bali bombings). Not to mention the radicalization of significant muslim populations living in western Europe, preaching hatred, murder and jihad. I think there is more to Islamaphobia than simply a reaction to a singular (if not spectacular) event.

YvelinesFrance (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The article does not say that. TFD (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Research reports
While reading up on the subject I found http://expo.se/www/download/research_the_anti_muslim_environment_final.pdf that might be useful. I also found http://expo.se/www/download/expo-4-07-kriget-mot-islam.pdf but it might not be accessible for many since it's in Swedish. Both are published by Expo (magazine) and features some havey academic names as writers. // Liftarn (talk)

http://frontpagemag.com/upload/pamphlets/Islamophobia.pdf provides a critical view on topic of islamophobia. Islamophobia or fear of Islam cannot be just passed on as totally irrational. --Gregorykarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * frontpage is vomit on the screen. it is not a reliable source for anything or representative of any view but the looney fringe.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Frontpage is not a reliable source. Expo is. Thanks for playing. // Liftarn (talk)

Quoting of Geller is inappropriate UNDUE coverage
Pamela Geller (and her ilk), while a perfect poster child for islomophobia, is a completely inappropriate to be placed as someone with a creditable viewpoint that islomophobia doesnt exist. Nor should the promotion of her newest hate-neologism be a part of Wikipedia. Her billboard campaign needs to be removed or covered only as textbook example of islomophobia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

More than one person has commented on Islamorealism. One is a notable political activist and the other is a prominent member of US government. Moreover the Mayor of New York has expressed willingness to be "Politically Correct". The matter is as credible as any other reference in the entire article. It is also of international significance as it has been widely covered by the media. Pamela Gellar might be islamophobic but it does not take her credentials as a politician away. One would not take away the article on hitler as he was anti jewish. The arguments by editor theRedPenOfDoom are not significant. Also Mr. Bryan Fischer has nothing to do with Pamela Gellar. Neologism?? The quote is in the newspapers and the press. Nothing unreal about it.--Aditya Saxena (talk)
 * the only people who have spoken about "islamorealism" are the lunitic fringe. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The act is open to interpretation. Pamela Gellar and Bryan Fischer are notable people. The relevant links exist towards their profiles on wikipedia. One can make a judgement on their own choice. The additions only convey the relevant details of the incident. I have quoted exact wordings from a newspaper article. I do not know how to change Islamorealism to something else. They are anti islamization is true but whether they are lunatics is a topic of debate. --Aditya Saxena (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia is a term which was invented by Iranian Fundamentalists to claim that Islam is non violent - French Philosopher Pascal Bruckner. --Aditya Saxena (talk)
 * (e/c) No, per WP:UNDUE we cover per topics the acceptance of their views by mainstream academics. The viewpoints expressed by Geller and Fisher are NOT accepted by mainstream accademics. There may be reason to cover their antics as instances OF islamophobia but the section is attempting to imply that their views on islamophobia are something other than the outer edges of the lunitic fringe is completely inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Only notable views should be shown. That someone is notable does not mean that their views are necessarily of sufficient weight to be included.  We establish weight by how they are reported in reliable third party sources and must explain the degree of acceptance if we report them.  Referring to Bryan Fisher and Pamela Geller as "other critics" gives their views undue parity with informed experts.  TFD (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved it to the "trends" as an example of high profile provociturism that is going on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The move of section to 'Trends' is welcome as it may not represent substantial and credible views. However the information is legitimate and correct. Whatever may be the case the information deserves to be on Wikipedia. It is true that Gellar and Fischer are not as credible and it may be the case of provocation. However I see that User: Adityasaxena.corp added a book with the Title : ISLAMOPHOBIA: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future. If one reads through the conclusion one can easily see the genuine argument behind the conclusion. Why has this been removed. --Gregorykarn (talk)
 * uh, no, just another fringe rant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with RedPenOfDoom on moving section to trends. The pamphlet Islamophobia cites Jonathan Turley. I fished out details about the claim. To some extent I agree that FrontPage Magazine is not completely neutral. However opinion by Jonathan Turley are very significant. Kindly review. http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/19/just-say-no-to-blasphemy-u-s-supports-eygpt-in-limiting-anti-religious-speech/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityasaxena.corp (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * kindly review WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Those voices and theories are SOOOOOOOOO far out of the mainstream of academic perception of the topic that including them ANYWHERE in the article is problematic, but particulary to give credence to them in the lead is ABSOLUTELY NOT going to happen.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

1) Jonathan Turley is a well knows Academic, Shapiro Professor, Champion of Rule of Law. No way can has attempted classify him as a 'RIGHT WING DEMAGOGUE'. Instead of making relevant changes some editors are vandalizing entire edits here. Which is sharply discouraged and criticized. Instead of reverting some edits blindly one must do a bit of research. I agree that right wing might be polarized but statements from "Jonathan Turley". --Aditya Saxena (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with inclusion of statements by "Jonathan Turley". It is not legitimate to consider him right wing. By any means. --Gregorykarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the text is not published in a journal or by a reputable publishing house, but merely on Mr. Turley's personal website. Wikipedia usually rejects self-published sources. And as this subject is a very controversial one and the article attracts lots of conflicts and disputes, I would tend to apply Wikipedia rules strictly here. Even more problematic is that the text does not directly refer to Islamophobia, but to anti-blasphemy laws. Concluding that his rejection of anti-blasphemy laws can be read as a statement regarding the concept of Islamophobia, is an undue interpretation. --RJFF (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Turley's comments, which are about blasphemy laws, have no relevance to this article. TFD (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Transferred to blasphemy laws. Kindly support with relevant links in this article to blasphemy laws --Gregorykarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The deletion of Turley should stand. Turley's opinion is not important unless it is noticed by observers writing in reliable sources. If Turley's blog entries about Islamophobia are not noticed by the larger world then they are unimportant. The only way that Turley's opinion should be introduced is if independent third party reliable sources can be cited to show that his opinion merits discussion. Same with Geller. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note. The Aditya Saxena and Gregorykarn accounts have both been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, and for edit warring: see Sockpuppet investigations/Adityasaxena.corp. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence is incorrect
"Islamophobia denotes prejudice against, or hatred or irrational fear of, Muslims".

The term says nothing about Muslims, it relates to the religion of Islam. This common misunderstanding is actually very dangerous, please correct it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.132.141 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 October 2012‎


 * Dictionaries say that Muslims are followers of Islam, just as Christians are followers of Christianity. If you have a different definition, then please provide it with a source.  TFD (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Muslim—an adherent of Islam. What did I add a “Don't confuse with anti-Arabism” template for? I thought that should do. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, TFD, for most strains of Christianity, a Christian is someone who is baptized a Christian. I assure you that a one year old baby is not a follower of Christianity or any other creed. Muslims have a patrilineal definition while Jews use a matrilineal one. (Actually, Muslims believe every child is born a Muslim .) "Following the religion" is generally an aspiration of the parents, not a fact. In many cases the label is purely nominal. The unsigned commenter may have an interesting and subtle point.Jason from nyc (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually quite a large parts of islamophobes believe it is genetic. Otherwise the eurabia conspiracy theory (demographic version) would not make any sense. // Liftarn (talk)
 * If not genetic, it is seen as monolithic. Since the term defines a bigotry, it describes a view that "Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc" as Runnymede statement #1 puts it. It's that lack of distinction and differentiation that gives rise to the current usage. Thus, the article correctly describes the current view that Muslims are seen as "monolithic." Of course, fundamentalist Muslims also see Islam as monolithic (but not something to be feared.) The broad-brush approach to Islam isn't restricted to those dismissed as Islamophobes. The lead describes how sources use the term. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The lede appears to be incorrect
THe lede currently states that "The term [Islamophobia] dates back to the early 1900s, but its modern use originates during the late 1980s or early 1990s.[4] It entered the common vocabulary after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.[5]". Regarding 'modern use', it took me little effort to find a source dating to 1970 which used the term: - on this basis, the lede needs revision, though I have to question the appropriateness of including such etymological detail in the first paragraph of the lede anyway. It is vague (what does 'modern use' actually mean?), and seems to be relying on WP:OR, or at least citing irrelevances - the last cite included a link to a BBC article that says nothing whatsoever about the first usage of the term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note. I have removed 'It entered the common vocabulary after the September 11, 2001 attacks...' as entirely unsourced. This still leaves the clearly untrue assertion regarding first 'modern use' needing to be dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the second statement. The word is not the subject of the article, the concept is, so this statement does not belong in the lede at all. Secondly, McGowen's statement (the source cited) is clearly wrong - it is a common misconception that earliest print usage is from 1991. There are plenty of sources from the 1970s, and even the 1960s (e.g. Surkano's autobiography here).--Claritas § 17:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems entirely reasonable. Just out of curiosity, is the OED still citing 1991 as the first recorded use of the word? If so, someone needs to let them know that we've found earlier sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That someone used an expression before a term was coined means nothing. You need to show that it meant the same thing and entered the language, using reliable secondary sources.  Your source does not appear to use the term in the same sense, it was talking about Stalin and mentioned "islamophobia" and "Judaeophobia".  Presumably since the latter term was used to imply something less than Antisemitism, the first term was not used with its current meaning.  You could tack on "ophobia" to every noun in the dictionary, publish it on a website, and claim credit every time a new phobia enters the language.  TFD (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is about the phenomenon which is routinely described as 'Islamophobia'. It isn't a discourse on the etymological roots of the word - and as such, we don't need to go into such details in the lede anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Does "Islamophobia" reflect a global perspective, or is it possibly primarily a regional one?
This question occurred to me, and I am not myself sure how to answer it, but I think that it is a relevant question to raise. We are, as I think we all know, supposed to try to reflect as neutral a perspective as possible. This would include neutrality regarding terms which are primarily used in one part of the world as an indicator of a global phenomenon. So far as I can see, one of the countries most likely to have strong "Anti-Islamic" tendencies would be India. Some of the other countries in the southern and southeastern Asian region may well also have some degree of Anti-Islamic tendencies. Is the term "Islamophobia" used as regularly in that part of the world, or are perhaps different terms used? If the latter, what are they? I tend to think that this would be very important if the article here is intended to reflect as neutral a position regarding global reservations about Islam and Muslims. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has many articles in which the topic is local, not global. Islamophobia is not one of them, as you can see by the list of scholarly works shown in preceding discussions, ones with a wide variety of authors, from many backgrounds. I would not be overly concerned if observers from one or another country have been silent on the issue, since there are so many other nationalities represented. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Granted that we have many articles on local topics. However, I think it would be important to determine in advance if this is one of them. Personally, I have no doubt myself that there is a significant amount of what might be called "Anti-Islamic" sentiment or feeling in India, given the nature of the partition of what was India into separate countries based largely upon religious affiliation, and the comparatively regular disputes between those states. But it would be useful to determine which is the primary topic as per WP:SS regarding opposition to Islam, and, thereafter, what titles to give the various extant articles. I don't doubt that "Islamophobia", based on the above, is the primary Western term for the subject of opposition to Islam, but at the same time I equally have no doubt that the West is not the only place such opposition has been clearly manifested. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Opposition to Islam and islamophobia are two different subjects. Instead of talking why not bring some sources and see what they say? // Liftarn (talk)

Proposal to rename article to "Anti-Islamic sentiment"

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: A pure count of !votes would seem to reflect consensus against the move. Those opposing the move also argue COMMONNAME quite hard, which is not overcome by the proponents supporting the move. Keep current title. No unique  names  14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia →  – (see talk page) -- Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I had first proposed to rename the Islamophobia template on its discussion page, but someone correctly pointed me out, that I should of defended my thoughts here rather.

I do realise that much discussing has been done regarding this matter, but I think it right to bring it up again. I propose a renaming of this article to Anti-Islamic sentiment. If this proposal passes, a rewriting of the article will be required as much of it concerns the word itself, its etymology, its use, and controversy, rather than anti-Islamic phenomena. I would follow-up by suggesting a re-creation, if the community deems it necessary, of the article Islamophobia in order to discuss the word's use, history, and criticism of concept.

There are many things to consider, but the central argument I wish to convey regards the word's controversy.

Islamophobia is a term that is widely used in the media and in the diplomatic world. Indeed, institutions as influential as UNESCO use it in an official manner. Nevertheless, the word has spurred controversy, especially in the Western world, over its implications and political inclinations.

One concern relates to the word's construction. Lexically speaking, the word refers to an irrational fear of Islam, and this acceptation is in use. However it has also evolved a second meaning which I could not convey as well in my own words as I could by quoting the article's opening sentence: "Islamophobia denotes prejudice against, or hatred or irrational fear of, Muslims." The use of this term to impart this sense has become almost legitimate, but it should not be so. This double entendre on the word allows unscrupulous (or dishonest) commentators to assimilate views that are critical of Islam to hatred against Muslims. This is particularly dangerous as it rebukes legitimate criticism of this religion by means of an agile blend of name-calling and ad hominem attacks.

Notice how the head of the article and considerable volume of the body addresses nothing but the word itself: definitions, usage notes, adoption by various entities, and criticism. Please compare this with the article named Anti-Christian sentiment (which I presume to be the Christian equivalent to this article, as Anti-Islamic sentiment redirects here). It consists of a very short introduction followed directly by general occurences and per country happenings of specific incidents.

Please take note, before one compares the words antisemitism and Islamophobia they must consider quite a few things. Antisemitism differs from Islamophobia for it isn't a controversial term. The mere number of times that this proposal for rename has been called for is a strong indicator of this controversy. This feeling is not specific to Wikipedia, many commentators have expressed similar discomfort with the term throughout the media, what you might be willing to call 'reliable sources'. An uncontroversial alternative would be as descriptive and would be better conformant to the neutral point of view.

Moreover, I find it difficult to lay hand on what would essentially matter in this article: examples of anti-Islamic sentiment. The objective, structured, and lucid article would, in my opinion, be layered as such: a display table of anti-Islamic sentiment.

I brief, the term Islamophobia is politically inclined and does not reflect Wikipedia's intended neutral point of view. There is sufficient popular opposition towards this designation to set aside the common name rule of thumb, in accordance to Wikipedia's article naming policies. See Common names and Non-judgemental descriptive titles for details. The article concentrates its efforts on a word rather than on anti-Islamic sentiment. I propose a rewriting of this article with this in mind. As "Islamophobia", the word in itself, has probably reached sufficient notability, it might be a good idea to devote a new article, with this title, that would detail word usage, history, lexicography, and relevant criticism in more neutral a way.

This article, I believe, languishes, and I upbraid the title as being the figurehead of this discredit. I propose a rename and seek to discuss this option in a coolheaded fashion. Cheers.-- Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. 'Islamophobia' is a widely-recognised term, both in the mass media and in academia. 'Anti-Islamic sentiment' is a neologism. There is really little more that needs to be said - any word or phrase can be controversial somewhere, but that is no grounds whatsoever to falsely imply to our readers that such controversy is more widespread than it is - which would be the inevitable result of this attempt to placate what is clearly a fringe opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Palestinian terrorism" is widely-regocognized in mass media and in academia; yet our article is Palestinian political violence. "Climategate" has similar levels of recognition; yet we have Climatic Research Unit email controversy. The idea that Islamophobia is a slur is not a "fringe opinion"; that word is explicitly forbidden by such a mainstream and global organization as the Associated Press. Shrigley (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And will you be proposing that our Homophobia article be renamed as Anti-homosexual sentiment on the same basis? AP seems to have made a general decision (based on a false premiss, in my opinion) regarding the general use of words ending in 'phobia' in a political or social context, and nothing in the link you provide suggests that AP made the decision because of any particular concern regarding the word 'Islamophobia'. The word is still in widespread use elsewhere, and it isn't Wikipedia's job to tell the world not to use words with a clearly-understood meaning, particularly if we were to do it on the basis of a selective (miss)reading of the AP style guide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * comment from the peanut gallery: no, that proposal is coming from North.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If neither article could be renamed because the other exists, and if they cannot be moved with a multiple move request because the issues are so different (which they are), then they would never get moved. I referred to AP because you (and others) are trying to portray "Islamophobia" as the mainstream terminology, and opposition to it as fringe. Shrigley (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Islamophobia' is not even remotely fringe terminology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, with no prejudice against an article which is actually about the term and concept of Islamophobia being created at Islamophobia later on. As Nicolas points out, the current article is trying to be much more than the current title's scope can possibly account for, leading to concerns of neutrality and essentially making the current article into an unfortunate coatrack, which distracts from focused coverage of the term and concept of Islamophobia itself and at the same time shapes and colors our coverage of what is best neutrally described as Anti-Islamic sentiment. (On a related note, I believe that the core problem here runs quite deep on Wikipedia. You may also be interested in a discussion I started at Template talk:Islamophobia.) --195.14.220.226 (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Enough has been written about the controversy surrounding the term 'Islamophobia' to write an article about the word. It is primarily used to smear opponents in a political debate, and those who use it readily identify themselves as partisans. Neutral commentators seek to avoid the term. Some people may object to the new title on subtle issues of scope, but regardless of any imperfections, it is clear that the title cannot stay at 'Islamophobia'. Shrigley (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you could enlighten us as to which "opponents", in which "political debate" the BBC was trying to "smear" when it used the word "islamophobia" seven times in this article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at that one. The article is largely vague, but it does single out the British Police and one British political party as "islamophobic".  They don't identify themselves as such and reject the term, thus is what we call a "point of view", and an exonym. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If by 'exonym', you mean that Islamophobes don't usually describe themselves as such, that is firmly in 'so what' territory. Anyway, if you don't like that example, it takes little effort to find evidence that the BBC routinely uses the term to describe the phenomenon, in their own editorial voice. A few examples (I'm not going to waste my time repeatedly proving the obvious): . AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked "so what"? Well, if they (including the British police, the political parties etc.) reject the label 'Islamophobic' then isn't Wikipedia adopting a pov stance (and a political one at that) to say, no, they are wrong about what they are, they are Islamophobic anyway because that is an official non-subjective fact - the BBC says so.  Really?  "Did you really think about it before you made the rules" -- Bruce Hornsby Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you on about? The article says nothing whatsoever about the police rejecting any label. Anyway, I've amply demonstrated with other evidence that the BBC routinely uses the term 'Islamophobic' to demonstrate that your original claim that the term "is primarily used to smear opponents" is hogwash. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it not be safe to assume the police reject the label, or do you actually suggest perhaps they do claim themselves to be Islamophobes, taking BBC editorializing as some kind of gospel and ultimate political arbiter? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be safe to assume that you are attempting to ignore the insurmountable evidence that your original claim was false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, can't answer my question... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Humm, don't need to - case already proven with other evidence. Still, here's some more to add to the pile, before the Health and Safety Executive tell us to take it down in case it topples over and flattens someone: the Metropolitan Police use the term 'Islamophobia' too: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very impressive - except I notice the police in this document do not claim themselves to be the Islamophobes. Yet BBC says they are, so there ya have it...  If it's not a subjective opinion, whose opinion is right then? The BBCs? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The BBC are right to use the term 'Islamophobia', because the overwhelming evidence is that it is in common usage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, the BBC are right. And they identified the Metropolitan Police as Islamophobic. So then I suppose it would be perfectly NPOV if I were to add the Metropolitan Police article to a category for Islamophobic organizations - why that's a neutral fact, after all the BBC said it's so. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the source cited does the BBC assert that the Metropolitan Police are Islamophobic. Since you are clearly incapable of reading sources, can I request that you refrain from editing Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That argument seems a bit like sophistry since clearly, it is technically an article by the BBC reporting favorably, and uncritically quoting some other authority who has determined the London Police are "Islamophobic", and it doesn't seem to be an isolated claim appearing in BBC News over the past years. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to say - and I don't care. I have demonstrated that the BBC routinely uses the term 'Islamophobic'. I have demonstrated that the Metropolitan Police use the term 'Islamophobic', I have demonstrated (below) that the Jewish Chronicle use the term 'Islamophobic' - All you have demonstrated is that you don't care, because you don't like the term. Well tough cookies (as they say the other side of the Atlantic - us Brits are more scatological), WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And here's another one - the Jewish Chronicle appears not to have problems with the term: ,. Or are they 'partisans' too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with AndyTheGrump. Really, "Anti-Islamic sentiment" is not merely a neologism, but also a euphemism: it fails to acknowledge the strong emotions that Islamophobes have and how their actions are driven by these emotions. --Stfg (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The term is no more controversial that other social -phobias like homophobia, transphobia, ephebiphobia etc. You can also easily discuss the controversy of the term in the article itself.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The term is more controversial than "homophobia", which is a false equivalence, because it is a separate coinage (although etymologically similar). Homophobes readily acknowledge that their fear of gay people stimulates irrational behavior and violence; this gay panic defense has been accepted by some courts. Also, there is a major difference in that gay people are a persecuted and powerless minority everywhere, while Muslims govern totalitarian states (and when they are a numerical minority, autonomous substates) that structurally deny the religious, sexual, and political freedom of everybody else. Seriously, this reminds me of people trying to portray "anti-white racism", or "misandry" as equal in all respects to racism against blacks or misogyny. Just... no. Moreover, critics of Islam uniformly reject the label of "Islamophobe", and such criticism is much more prominent in academic circles, such as religious journals, than "criticism of homosexuality" (what is this even? it's not an ideology) could be. As for "transphobia", "ephebiphobia", these terms are out of the mainstream public consciousness and don't merit further comment. Shrigley (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can not tell me how saddened I am to here that discussion about Islamophobia reminds you of anti-white racism or misandry as being equals to other forms of racism and misogyny. The fact that you see Muslims as a group in power tells me that you have not spent long studying the sociological concepts of privilege. Christians are the ones in power NOT Muslims. Muslims are generally throughout most of the world considered to be a persecuted minority. Now do Muslims govern totalitarian states, well of course. Uganda denys people freedom to so blacks clearly run totalitarian states as well. Christians have run totalitarian states for years and have only recently been recognizing civil rights violations they've commited. Heck many people think Pagans are free from this and Pagans have never committed civil rights violations but look at how women and slaves were treated in Ancient Greece. I can think of no group on this planet (that dosn't mean they don't exist but I can't think of any) that are completely free of having at time committed serious civil rights violations heck even women rarely ran systems that denied people their rights. Now does that mean I'm excuseing the civil rights violations of the governments around the world controlled by Islam. No. But I blame the system not every Muslim. I don't blame every Christian for the burning times or the Inquisitions. I don't blame every pagan for the civil rights violations of Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and of course the atrocities of the Holocaust which Hitler borrowed extensive symbolism and ideologies from paganism. I don't blame every black person for what is going on in Uganda. I only blame the individuals responsible and not blame every individual who happens to be in that same grouping or say that they don't have the right to have a title for discrimination against them. Islamophobia despite its etymology is discrimination towards Muslims not Islam. If you want to find opposition to Islam and not Muslims go see page Criticism of Islam.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Moreover, critics of Islam uniformly reject the label of "Islamophobe"' So what? Antisemites generally reject the term 'antisemite', etc, etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: 'Islamophobia' is the well-established term for this phenomenon. --RJFF (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well-established among whom? Islamic advocacy groups, I could imagine, but not to the world public; not even in Muslim-majority countries I would gander. It's a neologism. Shrigley (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem.  nableezy  - 00:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The literature is full of books and articles with "Islamophobia" in the title, discussing the concept of Islamophobia, but very few with "Anti-Islamic sentiment". One of those very few is the Gallup poll analysis called "Anti-Muslim Sentiment Fairly Commonplace", by Lydia Saad. The overwhelming number of "Islamophobia" articles tells us that it is the commonly used name. Nicolaus Perrault III complains about the term's legitimacy, saying "but it should not be so". However, Wikipedia is descriptive rather than prescriptive. We do not try and change public habits. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to delve deeper into the issue. Is the term "Islamophobia" used in scare quotes; is it acknowledged as a term in public discourse but something imprecise and stigmatizing? Good scholars usually say something about such controversial terms before using them, or explain why they reject them. It would not be uncommon for an opponent like Perrault to exaggerate the term's cachet in order to prove a point. Shrigley (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * NO. We do not engage in WP:OR to try to devalue sources we don't like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Above, I chose to show one example of the "anti-Islamist sentiment" party because such examples are so rare. Have you even looked at the possible sources for "Islamophobia"? They are legion, which is why I felt like it was probably better to say how rare the other term is. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of high quality "Islamophobia" sources we can use to help write this article:
 * Islamophobia. Council on American-Islamic Relations.
 * Islamophobia. University of California, Berkeley. Center for Race & Gender. Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project
 * Is America Islamophobic? Cover of Time magazine, August 30, 2010
 * "Islamophobia Strikes Out in South". Huffington Post, October 15, 2012
 * "Comic talks Muslim humor and Islamophobia". CNN, November 13, 2012
 * "The Distorted Lens of Islamophobia". Center for American Progress
 * "Knowing Islamophobia when we see it". Al Jazeera
 * "Islamophobia, The Concept And The Polemic". The Brussels Journal
 * Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, by Deepa Kumar, Associate Professor of Media Studies and Middle East Studies at Rutgers University. ISBN 9781608462117
 * "The 10 most Islamophobic moments in the 2012 elections", Salon.com
 * Islamophobia: The Ideological Campaign Against Muslims, by Stephen Sheehi, Associate Professor of Arabic and Arab Culture and Director of the Arabic Program at the University of South Carolina. ISBN 978-0932863676
 * Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy, by Peter Gottschalk, a professor of religion at Wesleyan University, and Gabriel Greenberg. ISBN 978-0742552869
 * The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims, by Nathan Lean, a scholar of Middle East studies. ISBN 978-0745332536
 * Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century, editors John L. Esposito (Georgetown University Professor of Religion and International Affairs, Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding) and Ibrahim Kalin (Assistant Professor of Foreign Service, Georgetown University). ISBN 978-0199753659
 * "Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia", European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
 * "Not a Good Night for Islamophobia", The American Conservative
 * "Bishop warns of 'Catholic Islamophobia'", The Local
 * "'Homophobia' and 'Islamophobia' are the right words for the job", The Guardian UK
 * "Fighting Islamophobia in schools", UNESCO
 * "Islamophobia, not Islam, will be the end of Israel", Haaretz
 * Xenophobia and Islamophobia in Europe, by Professor Raymond Taras, Tulane Unviversity. ISBN 978-0-7486-5071-2
 * "Pushback Against Growing Islamophobia", Inter Press Service News Agency
 * Islamophobia, by Christopher Allen, Research Fellow, The Institute of Applied Social Studies, University of Birmingham, UK. ISBN 978-0754651406
 * "The Growing Christian Movement Pushing Back Against Islamophobia ", The New Republic
 * Islamophobia/Islamophilia: Beyond the Politics of Enemy and Friend (Indiana Series in Middle East Studies), edited by Andrew Shryock, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan. ISBN 978-0253221995
 * Islamophobia: issues, challenges and action: a report, Runnymede Trust. Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, Dr. Richard Stone, Hugh Muir. ISBN 9781858563176
 * Against Islamophobia: Quantitative Analyses of Global Terrorism, World Political Cycles and Center Periphery Structures, by Arno Tausch, Adjunct Professor (Universitaetsdozent) of Political Science at Innsbruck University, Department of Political Science. ISBN 160021536X
 * Islamophobia and Its Consequences on Young People: European Youth Centre Budapest, 1-6 June 2004, by Ingrid Ramberg, Editor in Chief at Multicultural Centre, Botkyrka, Sweden. ISBN 9287156735
 * Teaching Against Islamophobia, by Professor Joe L Kincheloe (founder of the Paulo and Nita Freire International Project for Critical Pedagogy), Shirley R. Steinberg (professor, McGill University), Christopher Darius Stonebanks (Associate Professor of Education and currently the Chair of the Research Ethics Board at Bishop's University). ISBN 9781433103360
 * Confronting Islamophobia In Educational Practice, by Barry Van Driel, Secretary General of the International Association for Intercultural Education, Editor-in-Chief of the academic journal Intercultural Education, and curriculum developer and teacher trainer at the Anne Frank House, Amsterdam. ISBN 9781858563404
 * From the Far Right to the Mainstream: Islamophobia in Party Politics and the Media, edited by Humayun Ansari (Professor of Islam and Cultural Diversity at the Department of History of the University of London) and Dr. Farid Hafez (wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Institut für Orientalistik an der Universität Wien). ISBN 9783593396484
 * Anti-semitism and Islamophobia: hatreds old and new in Europe, volume 28 of Paradigm, by Matti Bunzl, associate professor of anthropology and history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ISBN 9780976147589
 * Islamophobia and the Question of Muslim Identity: The Politics of Difference and Solidarity, by Evelyn Leslie Hamdon, Killam scholar in the department of educational policy studies at the University of Alberta. ISBN 9781552663394
 * A suitable enemy: racism, migration and Islamophobia in Europe, by Liz Fekete and A. Sivanandan, director of the Institute of Race Relations in London. ISBN 9780745327921
 * Thinking Through Islamophobia: Global Perspectives, by Salman Sayyid, Director: International Centre for Muslim and Non-Muslim Understanding, Division Office Research EAS, University of South Australia. ISBN 9781850659907
 * England's Secular Scripture: Islamophobia and the Protestant Aesthetic, by Jo Carruthers, RCUK Research Fellow in Performativity, Space and Place Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Bristol, UK. ISBN 9780826439376
 * Multicultural nationalism: Islamophobia, Anglophobia, and devolution, by Asifa Hussain, William Lockley Miller. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199280711
 * Islamophobia in the West: Measuring and Explaining Individual Attitudes, by Marc Helbling, Head of the research group 'Immigration Policies in Comparison' (IMPIC) at the Social Science Research Centre Berlin. ISBN 9780415594448
 * Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, by Hillel Schenker, co-editor of the Palestine-Israel Journal. ISBN 9781558764026
 * Global Islamophobia: Muslims and Moral Panic in the West, by George Morgan (Cabot College) and Scott Poynting (Professor of Sociology at Manchester Metropolitan University.) ISBN 9781409431190
 * The Relationships Between Racism, Islamophobia, Religious Dogmatism and Attitudes Toward War, by Venus M. Nicolino, Alliant International University. ISBN 9780542934124
 * These sources use the term "Islamophobia" straight, without scare quotes, discussing the concept. A fully developed article would pull from these high-quality authors. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose We should use the most common name, per WP:NAME. Also, there is a distinction between holding anti-Islamic sentiment and being Islamophobic, since the first could presumably be based on rational grounds.  There is a similarity with anti-Semitism and racism.  Rarely do anti-Semites or racists accept that label.  That does not mean however that they reject the concepts, just that they think it describes someone else.  Also, Islamophobia can be used as an epithet when it is not warranted, just as anti-Semite and racist can be.  Furthermore there are also problems with the construction of "anti-Semite" and "racist".  The term Semite includes Arabs, while older concepts of race are no longer accepted.  TFD (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Commonname is one of our considerations, but those favoring "Islamophobia" have not proved that "Islamophobia" is the most common name (and for what?); they have merely just asserted it. The scope issue is difficult because some defenders of the term "Islamophobia" will restrict it to a narrower definition than what is used "commonly". It is well-known that Islamic advocacy groups apply the word - and its stigmatic association with ignorance and irrationality - even to principled, academic criticism. By the way, "anti-Semite", although it has a unique etymology, is clearly similar to the proposal: "anti-Islamic". "Racism" and "anti-semitism" are still improper frames of reference, because they refer to ethnic prejudice, rather than criticism of an ideology (consider insetad criticisms of communist party rule, anti-fascism, criticism of religion, etc). Shrigley (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ideologies does not answer questions about the afterlife, religions do. The comparison of islamophobia and antisemitism is very valid and comparisons is done by researchers in the field. // Liftarn (talk)


 * Comment: I think that this proposal should be synchronised with the one to move Template:Islamophobia. The template should be under the same title as the corresponding article. --RJFF (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Here's a link: Template talk:Islamophobia. --Stfg (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * oppose per common name. we are not here to correct irregularities in the evolution of grammar. when the phrase *"Islamophobia " becomes depreciated in the public and academic sphere by other usages, then we change. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no grand governing body that has the power to declare a term "depreciated in the public and academic sphere". Scholars in the social sciences quite often disagree with each other about even the most basic premises of each other's arguments, including terminology. Can you prove that "Islamophobia" is the standard term "in the public and academic sphere"? Shrigley (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * actually, at Wikipedia, there is. we are commanded by WP:UNDUE to make that assessment all the time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that it isn't? Can you prove that your endless attempts to counter every argument here with irrelevances and non-sequiters isn't driven by an attempt to steamroller your own views through on no better grounds than your own personal dislike of a common term? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. There should be two distinct articles for the phenomenon of (1) "Anti-Islamic sentiment" and the neologism (2) Islamophobia - the creation, evolution and uses of the term. The two overlap in certain circumstances, but Islamophobia is not a neutral descriptor and has broader applications. For example, Muslim states in the UN have used Islamophobia to push for controversial anti-blasphemy laws, which could conflate discrimination against Islam and Muslims with criticism of Islam  . Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the thousands and thousands of ussages in both mainstream press and academic works call into question the application of "neologism". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. A quick Google check reveals the word has been in use at least since the 1970s in an academic context:  . AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Note. As the relevant guideline suggests may be appropriate, I have notified WikiProject Islam and WikiProject Religion that this proposal has been made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The term is not decreasing but increasing strongly in academic use, with the current mode being in the ongoing year. See http://www.picamatic.com/show/2012/12/09/08/54/8874315_415x391.gif By the way, should we include this information in the article? --Zarathustra35 (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - The argument for opposing from AndytheGrump and RainbowofPeace is simply because there is an article titled "homophobia", therefore by extension moving 'Islamophobia' would be improper, without really clarifying the connection, which seems a bizarre one when the same logic is not applied to argue Christophobia and Judaeophobia would be better titles than anti-Christian sentiment and anti-Semitism. This is just yet another article that should be about describing how a contemporary buzzword concept is being disguised with a word implying a clinical malady, but instead of this viewpoint being described, it is instead assumed and adopted with the wiki seal of approval. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly are refusing to understand my statement. By the way a simple google test could show common name. It should be assumed that these searches were done in quotations("typed search).

Antisemitism		9770000 Opposition to Jews	188,000 Anti-Jewish Sentiment	71,000

Islamophobia		4740000 Anti-Muslim Sentiment	1710000 Opposition to Muslims	93700

Anti-Christian sentiment2840000 Christophobia 		54000 Opposition to Christians86200 This clearly shows that Antisemitism is by far the most used to refer to Jews, not Opposition to Jews or Anti-Jewish sentiment. Islamophobia is by far more common than Anti-Muslim sentiment and Opposition to Muslims and that Anti-Christian sentiment is far more common than Christophobia and Opposition to Christians. I would also like to note VERY CLEARLY that this term is about prejudice against a group of people and not the religion itself. I could name hundreds of things wrong about Islam. I could do the same for most religions but this isn't about Islam. This is about Muslims. Etymology does not always match up with proper meaning as has been said a ton Antisemitism is discrimination against Jews not all semites. Homophobia is not opposition to homosexuality its opposition to homosexuals. We are talking about people not an ideology which I would definately say that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Bahai, Hinduism. They have all had flaws and have had human rights violations commited in their name. However their followers have also had human rights violations against them and that is what this article is about.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that Til Eulenspiegel appears to have either failed to read my original statement regarding my opposition to the proposed change, or to be intentionally misrepresenting it. I argued 'simply' that Islamophobia is a common term (which it has been amply demonstrated by multiple from different sources to be true), whereas 'Anti-Islamic sentiment' is a neologism (which appears also to have been demonstrated). Straw man arguments based on (at best) failing to understand what is being said have no place in this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, on the basis of your argument, allow me to ask you: what makes homophobia and xenophobia, as opposed to Islamophobia, NO "contemporary buzzword" concepts that are "being disguised with a word implying a clinical malady"? --Zarathustra35 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You must not have understood me very well to ask a leading question like that, to which any answer would be entirely irrelevant to a discussion of "Islamophobia" regardless. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * well, then let me rephrase. In your argument, you state that Islamophobia is "a contemporary buzzword concept", correct? So, despite the fact that the usage of Islamophobia as a term has more recently become common than, for instance, the usage of "homphobia", what makes Islamophobia a "buzzword" concept that implies "clinical malady", whereas such a description does not apply to homophobia or xenophobia?--Zarathustra35 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's still a loaded question (which I meant to say instead of leading question) because it assumes I think that in the first place, when that's not quite what I said. Any word ending in the Greek suffix -phobia properly designates a clinical malady, this should be seen as distinct from popular usages that give it a more informal meaning, in rhetorical contexts. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME is relatively clear. If anti-Islamic sentiment even approached the type of widespread, mainstream, academic usage of the term Islamaphobia then "POV" could be taken into account. However, it doesnt, so it shouldnt.  nableezy  - 19:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears from this discussion that "Islamophobia" is not a term with a clear scope, with some arguing for a stricter interpretation excluding criticism of Islam, and some including that. This would explain why such a term has no direct equivalent. But, if the term is egregiously POV (which I believe it is), article title policy gives us license to use a descriptive name, such as Climatic Research Unit email controversy, rather than "Climategate". But still, you have to prove that "Islamophobia" is the academic mainstream; that this article has the current title is not proof enough. Shrigley (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have to prove anything of the sort - though it is blindingly-obvious to all but those who refuse to recognise it. You have to prove - or at least provide evidence, that there is a more common term than the widely-used term 'Islamophobia' - and no such proof has been offered. 21:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)
 * What ^ said. You have the burden twisted here, your the one that wants to change the name. And Binksternet's list should be sufficient even if you werent trying to switch the burden around.  nableezy  - 23:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - As Andy points out above, the term "Islamophobia" has been current since at least the 1970s, but not necessarily before then. "Anti-Islamic sentiment" has existed for far longer. I have no particular objections to perhaps a separate article on "Islamophobia" which might cover anti-Islamic sentiment from the 1970s, which I seem to remember is roughly the time of the overthrow of the Shah in Iran, takeover of that country by the "Islamic" government, and, yes, the brouhaha regarding the American embassy there. There does seem to me to have been a rather significant change, both in the severity of the sentiment since that time and in the specific qualities of that sentiment, but "anti-Islamic sentiment" still seems to me to be the best most neutral title for the main article on this subject. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify whether you are suggesting that the term "Anti-Islamic sentiment" was in common usage before 1970 - if you are, I think you'd need to cite a source that says so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two separate issues here: whether the title "Islamophobia" is acceptable or not, and if not, what to move this article to. Disagreements about the latter should not derail the progress of discussion on the former. Shrigley (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the term "Anti-Islamic sentiment" is necessarily more common, but it does seem to be less in a sense broadly prejudicial than "Islamophobia", which contains the very strong term "phobia" within it. "Anti-X sentiment" does not imply literal fear of the topic, which any term containing "phobia" does. So, in response to Shrigley, I believe the main article on the topic, covering all timeperiods, should be "Anti-Islamic sentiment," although I believe that there is sufficient basis to belief that a separate article about the more modern "Islamophobia" almost certainly meets NOTABILITY and other requirements. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the term "anti-Islamic sentiment" has ever been considerably in usage - either before the 1970s or after. Google books does not return a single hit for "anti-islamic sentiment" older than 1996. --RJFF (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not, as the word "sentiment" is not one used very often in newspapers and the like. I do note, however, that something along the lines of "Anti-Islamism" would probably more closely parallel the existing terms and articles included in our main "discrimination" template, including Anti-communism, Anti-homelessness, Anti-intellectualism, Anti-Masonry, Antisemitism, Anti-Catholicism, and a number of other extant articles on the broad topic of opposition to a socio-religious group. "Anti-Islamism" might be the title most closely parallel to these, but is also very much a clumsy and I think seldom if ever used term. However, I do think that some form of "Anti-Islam ..." title might be best for purposes of parallelism with those other articles. I don't have anything specifically against the current title in general, but it does seem to me to be perhaps the odd man out of similar articles relating to prejudice of various kinds. John Carter (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anti-Islamism would be a very poor choice as it would rightly be read as being opposed to Islamism, not Islam. It would apply to probably 20%-30% of the population of Egypt, to use an example in the news.  nableezy  - 04:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral - It’s not uncommon for Wikipedia to use a more neutral descriptor instead of the popular label. For example, instead of Pro-choice we have an article called Abortion-rights movement. The problem with Islamophobia is that it is a loaded word that even the experts find problematic. Overall, it appears that the aim is to denote anti-Muslim bigotry and indeed calling the article Anti-Muslim bigotry would be a major step towards clarity. Anti-Islamic sentiment is too value and broad--and fails to convey the severity of the matter. However, just like there is barely a consensus for a definition (see the archives), there will be even less reason to believe there will be a consensus on a neutral descriptor. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good recommendation Jason. Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Til Eulenspiegel Pass a Method   talk  20:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're hitching your wagon to the weakest support !vote on the page, one that first throws a red herring at the opposers, then fails to cite policy for support. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Regardless of the perpetual whining from people who claim that they really just oppose Muslim oppression, that fear of Muslims isn't a phobia because it's perfectly reasonable, and so on, this is the term in overwhelmingly common usage by reliable and neutral sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. None of the nominator's arguments are meaningful. That the nominator, like several sources in the article, is against the term does not matter, we should not cleanse an extremely notable topic due to an editor's personal dislike of a term. Sepsis II (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose since it both violates WP:COMMONNAME and changes the subject of the article from being about islamophobia (racism against Muslims) to criticism of a religion. As many have pointed out the term is well established and the most used therm for the subject. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Oppose - A very poorly thought-out proposal that reeks of touchy-feely political correctness This a widely-used, common name for hatred/racism against Muslims, there's no logical or rational; basis to call it something different just because people feel it is "controversial" or "loaded".  If Islamophobes feel offended by the term, perhaps spending more time in front of a mirror and less arguing on the Wikipedia would be best. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nominator's arguments are based on an etymological fallacy. Claritas § 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Binksternet's massive list. I see the point of the proposal but do not agree that this is the way to deal with the issue. What that way is, I'm not sure, but this is not it. Jus  da  fax   02:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I get the following results: on the web, 3,760,000 for Islamophobia, 565,000 for Anti-Islamic sentiment, in books, 43,000 for Islamophobia, 2,520 for Anti-Islamic sentiment, in news, 2,260 for Islamophobia, 1 for Anti-Islamic sentiment. Apteva (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Binksternet's list of sources. It seems this nomination revolves around WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yazan (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Binksternet and AndyTheGrump.-- В и к и  T  19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The words "prejudice" and "irrational"
Irrational? Whilst the object of Wikipedia is to do just that to remain objective, I think this article is loaded. The word phobia indicates a fear and or hatred of a certain stimuli, this is often thought of as being an irrational state, however the term phobia does not necessarily indicate irrationality.Thus the use of the word Phobia, to describe a fear or hatred of Islam does not necessarily mean that the fear is irrational,as is stated so blatantly in the first paragraph. This article seems to me too, at the very least, not to provide an objective over view of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.145.154 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The term islamphobia has two parts "islam" and "phobia", the term phobia means fear and the term literally means fear of islam. There is nothing in this word that denotes irrationality or prejudice and these terms and all allusions to irrationality should be struck from the article as superfluous and frankly pejorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.7.250 (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Logic has nothing to do with it. The references provide evidence of the definition and usage of the term. I believe that the main references also describe the term as a kind of racism and this should be in the lead sentence. Critics, who find the usage problematic, are cited in the criticism section. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Phobia means irrational fear. TFD (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A phobia is indeed an irrational fear so we may argue the whole term islamophobia is a loaded one and is being used to shut down discussion, much like for example Japan bashing which as you will see from our own sourced Wikipedia article, was a term created by a PR man employed by the Japanese government (to shut down any criticism of Japan's role in the world, whether justified or irrational). Mastershallow 12:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keizo Ibata (talk • contribs)

Islamophobia was coined by Iranian Fundamentalists to pass on any fear against Islam as Irrational. Though Islamic ideologies are often political the use of Islamophobia as irrational is uncalled for. This book gives a detailed critical assessment. http://frontpagemag.com/upload/pamphlets/Islamophobia.pdf--Gregorykarn (talk)
 * Do you have any credible sources for the claim that the word islamophobia was coined by Iranian fundamentalists? That "book" you are linking to is not a book, it is a propaganda pamphlet. Using "*phobia" as a word describing hatred against a group is not unique for islamophobia, see Homophobia. PerDaniel (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Media edits
Per this diff, I wrote: (rewrite media with material removed from Islamophobic Incidents and other relevant material; remove deadlink Esposito info couldn't find anyway; replace ref(s); see talk) I placed the Geller media publicity stunts in their proper context with relevant criticism of her and of Robert Spencer who also is a media "darling", among Islamophobes particularly. Left in a note about Fisher, but you really can't call a slogan a philosophy so it was totally inappropriate where it was before. Just being bold :-) CarolMooreDC 23:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"So there ya have it..." 'Islamophobia' is now officially an IDEOLOGY - as defined by Wikipedia
This article is still pure beyond ridicule, for blatant POV pushing propaganda intended mainly to display what POVs and opinions rule the roost on this websie without even a pretense of "neutrality".

So now we have a section titled "Links to other ideologies". Do you get the significance of that? Even though it is missing from the intro sentence (but should certainly be there for consistency) Islamophobia may now therefore be defined as an official IDEOLOGY - showing once again that Wikipedia has singlehandedly run further with the ball, and is closer to making a touchdown, than any other player.

However, this must be the first IDEOLOGY in the world that is not self-defined with any actual 'adherents' to speak for it, but rather one that is externally defined - by those who exhibit the requisite wisdom above all other fellow mankind to be privileged enough to write these pieces - in other words, the world's first solely WIKIPEDIA-DEFINED IDEOLOGY. Good going, guys! What's next? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that the significance lies in the first sentence; "Recent scholarship considers Islamophobia as a form of racism". Imagine that, an encyclopedia citing scholarly sources.  What is the world coming to? Tarc (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, these scholars are clearly as impartial as the driven snow, devoid of any point-of view on the matter, and nobody must question their absolute impartiality either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

At any rate, since we have now thereby established that Islamophobia IS indeed an "ideology", (we should pat ourselves on the back for our collective feat here) then for clarity sake may we please add to the lede sentence in the intro, "Islamophobia is an ideology, that..." ? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not going to violate WP:POINT and disrupt Wikipedia in response to your sarcasm. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But why wait until halfway down the page to suddenly start considering it an ideology? If that's what it is, surely it would be more consistent and straightforward to state this up front, in the definition, wouldn't it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We understand your frustration for being outvoted in the deletion poll earlier. Nevertheless, this may be the wrong outlet for your emotional reactions Til Eulenspiegel. --84.215.86.241 (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that response reveals an utter lack of logic on your part, because instead of even addressing my actual argument at face value (which may be too difficult for you), you are attempting to divine what my unspoken motives may be. But not being a psychic of course, you are dead wrong.  Back on topic, the article continues to define "Islamophobia" as if it were some clinical malady at the beginning of the article, then halfway down the page, once it has become convenient, springs the sudden revelation that no, "Islamophobia" is now an IDEOLOGY, even though it lacks the intellectual honesty to state this consistently at the top.  Just one of the reasons why this article is a showcase of one of wikipedia's biggest laughingstocks, fiercely protected by a dedicated core of guardian editors who only see their own point of view. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the problem here, unless something has been deleted. Both places ideology is mentioned, it is said that interpreting Islam as (primarily? solely?) a political ideology is Islamophobic. I personally don't have an opinion on that one, but that's all I see in the text. CarolMooreDC 18:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please try to comprehend what that says. Interpreting Islam as an ideology is not at all the same thing as interpreting Islamophobia as an ideology, which the intro says nothing whatsoever about. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Islamophobia" is just a slur. "Anti-islamic sentiment" or "criticism of Islam" or "opposition to Muslim immigration" might be ideologies, and might be so labelled by opponents, but "Islamophobia" is just the transparent attempt to avoid debate by implying that your opponent has a medical condition, or a psychological problem. It cannot be a "phobia" and an ideology at the same time. If you have decided you want to smear a political view you don't like by implying it is a "phobia", you cannot then go on and call it an "ideology". A "phobia" is irrational, an "ideology" is a rational, intellectual construct even if it may or may not be an unsavoury one. THis article should be about the term itself, without suggesting that there is an identifiable concept of "Islamophobia" behind the name-calling. --dab (𒁳) 15:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not all ideologies are rational. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The main problem I see is that the majority of the article describes a term synonymous with Anti-Arabism. In the definition, it is described as "prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims." On a fundamental level, the first two descriptors of the term are in line with Anti-Arabism. It is only by adding irrational fear that the term takes its own identity, and yet throughout its usage in the article, there is virtually no discussion of the term in psychological contexts. In the Links to other idelolgies section we see comparisons to racism, but that still fails to differentiate islamophobia and anti-Arabism, as other terms such as antisemitism does not portend the existence of a phobia or psychological disability. Regardless of the expanse of its usage, there are clear aspects of the term that make it a Neologism. With no definitive criteria used in classification, each instance of usage appears to discuss a different topic. Mrathel (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The majority of Muslims aren't Arabs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, but then what is the difference between Islamophobia and Criticism of Islam, or Anti-Islamic? My main argument remains in tact; despite its wide-spread usage, the article fails to establish the validity of the claim that individuals are exhibiting phobias rather than mere prejudices. Mrathel (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article does not claim that Islamophobia is a 'phobia' in the medical sense. Instead, it considers the usages of the term as used e.g. in academia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am confused as to what the article is about, if that is the case. Regardless of the POV pushing in recent edits, the lead should probably explain that it is a Neologism, or a new and evolving word that is used in a variety of ways. For some of the cited sources the term offers umbrella coverage for all prejudicial actions and speech against Islam. For others, it requires an actual fear. Personally, I am not convinced that the term is accurate enough to house the information that would be better placed under an article on "Anti-Islam" or "Anti-Muslim," terms which redirect here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrathel (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 June 2013‎
 * The article goes into the origins of the term in some depth. As for asserting that it 'is a neologism' in the lede, that seems questionable (how old does a word have to be to cease being one?), and rather unnecessary - the word is in frequent use in mainstream media publications, and is likely familiar to most readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In what depth does the article explain the origin of the term? I see a phrase whereby it explains that it is a neologism whereby someone put phobia on the end of Islamo, but after that I see nothing but a series of usages. How old does a term have to be to stop being a neologism? From a cursory glace I see the earliest usage given here to be around 1996; while to the average WP editor that may seem like ancient history, it is quite possible that a standard definition of the term has failed to arise in such a time frame. As for my main concern that the article redirects from terms that are far more suitable for the majority of the content, I am curious as to the thoughts of other editors. Mrathel (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism
Discrimination against Muslims is commonly confused with discrimination against members of certain ethnic and/or racial groups, mainly Arabs. For this reason, a note on the distinction, linking to the anti-Arabism article, was introduced on top of the lead section, but later removed. Why should it not be restored? EIN (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question, I agree it should be restored 162.123.19.235 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Why is is "mainly Arabs"? Anti-Turkism is just as passionate. And some other "anti-"s . Anyway, in wikipedia, disambiguation notes are to navigate between articles with same or similar titles, not between any different things which people may confuse, like, wasps and bees. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a time, before the Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, when “Turk” was used interchangeably with “Muslim” or “Mohammedan;” no longer so. That privilege has now shifted to “Arab.” That is not entirely groundless: after all, Islam came out of Arabia and, as a result of multiple Arab-Muslim conquests under the expansionist foreign policy of the Caliphate, the Muslim world today largely coincides with the Arab-speaking world.
 * Discrimination against Muslims is most commonly confused with discrimination targeting all the ethnic groups of the Greater Middle East, all of whom—not only Arabs, but Turks, Persians and the rest—clueless people, as ignorantly as is typical of them, lump under the title “Arab.” Hence, anti-Arabism. To the best of my knowledge, there is no word in the English language signifying racism against Middle Easterners as a whole. Morphologically, the closest thing to that would be “anti-Semitism,” but of course, in effect, it only refers to one Middle Eastern ethnicity.
 * Anyway, read this: “ is a commonly used hatnote on Wikipedia, and so should be placed at the top of an article, linking the reader to articles with similar titles or concepts that they may have been seeking instead” (or read more here). EIN (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "or concepts" is a vague permission. Polonophobia is also a very similar concept. There is a "see also" section to list whatever you think similar, in quantities unlimited. Hatnotes clutter the top of the page and must be used sparingly. As for what is confused with what, I am afraid this is your opinion. I places where we have islamophobia, it is islamophobia and not anti-arabism. I don't think an islamophobe can tell arab from an iranian. I places where some muslims hate other muslims (e.g. Arabs or Sunnis, etc.) for whatever reason we are not talking about islamophobia. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW there is no such thing as discrimination against all peoples of Greater Middle Earth. at once. Yes, some people hate all GME, but either each piece is hated separately, for its own reason, or all of them are hated for a single big reason called racism.  Staszek Lem (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your third consideration—the risk of superflously packing the article with notes and comments to the point of cluttering—is actually the only reason why I still have some doubt about this.

If you have any experience talking to average Joes about Islam or, at least, listening to them talking about it themselves, then you should know very well that it's not just somebody's opinion, but a sad reality.

First of all, Poland is not a Muslim-majority country; consider that. “[O]r concepts” may be a vague permission, but don't disown the subsequent clause: “that they may have been seeking instead.” How many people could have come to this article about Islamophobia “seeking instead” an article about Polonophobia? Contrastingly, myriads of people confuse the former with anti-Arabism.

Yes, the “See also” section may also be a suitable place for it, though “See also” sections are dedicated more to related concepts than similar ones.

That those people can't tell an Arab from an Iranian, or vice versa, speaks in support of, rather than oppoistion against, restoration of the note. It spares us from having to list the smaller ethnicities, which was a concern of ours as it could lead to cluttering. EIN  ( talk ) 08:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Greater Middle Earth" indeed. These "discrimination" articles are a perpetual troll magnet on the wiki, and because of this all edits must be well-sourced and well-balanced. Just waving your hands and claiming that this is "often confused" with that goes nowhere. "Islamophobia" or "Polonophobia" aren't real things, they are just a matter of perception and propaganda. If you have a decent analysis of all this hysteria, by all means cite and quote it. If you want to  "talk to average Joes" and then write a piece on what you heard, get a blog. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The dabnotes in wikipedia are to help navigate among similar article titles, not among things an Average Joe confuses. The article Chinese people does not a hat note "for articles about other slanted-eyed people see Korean people or Mongol people" just because all of them are "chinks" for an average "hick". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How about article on Kafirophobia or Infidelophobia?
Let's take a look at the term phobia from Wikipedia article: A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.. So, people fearing Muslims suffer from anxiety disorder? Do they go to any extent to avoid them(like how Muslims avoid non-Muslim women to be taken as wives)? Any person has phobia of Doomsday & Judgment day, why not make phobia article on it? So, a person who fears Hell or Heaven suffers from phobia, why not make a big article on it? I see those articles as stubs : Stygiophobia. A person who fears god also suffers from kind of phobia, why not name it? Why not an article on godophobia??. Can we have Infidelophobia or Kafirophobia article in Wikipedia please, because non-muslims are not allowed in Mecca and are not given rights to practice their religious practices in certain Islamic countries. Apply it to everything else, or take neutral stance!I wish Wikipedia maintains NPOV! - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As much as you may be personally affronted by the title of this article, it is very strongly supported by reliable sources. A large list of them can be seen at Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_14. Check it out... If you can get such a list together for other 'phobias then you'll have a topic for an article. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for sounding rude. (Read my replies thinking of me grinning from end to end) Actually, there should be NPOV and I think of it while reading an article. But, when I read this article, I felt it is biased to large extent. Why? Because the sources that were quoted does not talk about the other side. The reliable sources were not neutral and no mainstream media has the guts to publish any article on Infidelophobia or godophobia. By the way, I think this is about improving neutrality of this article and I am not trying to make this as a discussion forum.-Vatsan34 (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No mainstream media has the guts to publish articles on words you've just made up? How appalling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not just made up, friend. I have seen it in many blogs and social media networks. Infidelophobia has been mentioned by many people before me. Again, I am not against this topic, but I wanted a balance and neutrality. Since we do not have reliable source, maybe we have to wait till some newspaper gets some time to see the other side. But, still I feel, this topic is boasted too much and lacks NPOV.-Vatsan34 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not reliable sources. I suggest you start looking for reliable sources and then come back. Since the article gives the mainstream view as well as some notable (or not so notable) fringe views it is balanced. Giving the lunatic fringe as much space as the mainstream academics would be unbalanced. // Liftarn (talk)

Where's the specific neutrality dispute?
This article got tagged this month as possibly biased, but I can't find specific points of notice on the talk page. Can anybody fill the rest of us in? Indiasummer95 (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was added by a user named Dbachmann after large scale rewites they tried were reverted.--174.93.167.9 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what other peoples neutrality dispute is about but I don't like the fact that Islamophobia is being called racism without acknowledgement that defining it that way is not agreed upon by all scholars and certainly controversial.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will start by discussing the neutrality of the opening sentence.
 * The first line of the lead suggests an established definition of Islamophobia as though it were the standardized definition.
 * "Islamophobia is prejudice against,hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims" So all prejudice towards Muslims is Islamophobia? All hatred of Muslims is Islamophobia? But then why is there such a schism among the voices in the article as to the relevance and proper usage of the term? This oversimplification of the definition denotes a clear editorial voice from which the article never fully recovers.
 * A more accurate and less imposing definition would state something like: "Islamophobia is a term used by scholars and social scientists to describe perceived acts and expressions of prejudice against,hatred towards, and irrational fear of Muslims." I believe that the word neologism belongs in there somewhere, but will try to keep from stepping on toes.
 * While the article does provide several different descriptions of Islamophobia, it fails to define the term in a clear way that allows the reader to understand what is meant during each usage.
 * In the second paragraph, the Runnymede trust's definition of the term is given, though the reader should not be forced to take this particular definition as the defining voice on the subject. If the reader does so, then this one organization's voice is given undue weight.
 * In the third paragraph of the lead, we have a description of the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance declaration on islamophobia, but at this point, we have virtually no idea how they are defining the term. If one takes the article's text at face value, then the Stockholm definition is the same as Runnymede's. But there are many voices below that disagree with the use and definition of the term, and to allow these two voices to define the term is to base the entire text of the article on a narrow view of the overall debate regarding the use of the word. This reference talks about combating islamophobia, but it does not provide text that one normally finds in a lead paragraph, which should lay a foundation for discussion with a broad view of the subject, instead a very distinctive usage is provided that complicates the overall voice and neutrality of the article.
 * I apologize for the poor layout of my argument, but my point is simple: the lead portion of the article is clearly slanted towards a definition given by Runnymede and does not give a neutral view of the term itself. Mrathel (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't actually speaking about the lede and my argument is not that all attacks on Muslims are not Islamophobic my argument is that Islam is not a race, ethnicity or nationality. The closest equivilent in racial/ethnic terms are Arabs however I'm Arab and I don't practice Islam. The controversy I have is not over whether it is wrong (I believe it is wrong to judge someone by their religion), its whether its racism or religious intolerance. This article only states once after its called racism that that designation is controversial. I even acknowledge the term racism is used but believe it should be designated as an unagreed upon use of the term racism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I agree that since Islam is not a race it is logically problematic to suggest it is a race issue without equating the term to Anti-Arabism. For the term to differentiate itself, it seems logical that the phenomenon must go beyond a hatred/prejudice against Arabs to a fear of all individuals who practice the religion. However, since my concerns regard the neutrality of the article, I would like them to be addressed before the tag is removed. Mrathel (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But there are no races (all people belong to Homo sapiens sapiens) so that should, by your way of thinking, show that racism does not exist. This is obviously false. // Liftarn (talk)
 * I honestly do not understand your logic at all. Perhaps you can backtrack and explain more clearly how the the failure to categorize followers of a religion as a race negates the existence of all races? Mrathel (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote in question is "since Islam is not a race it is logically problematic to suggest it is a race issue" and it made me think you was one of those that claim that there can be no racism as NNN is not a race (which is true sine the human species consists of a single race). By using the argument "NNN is not a race so hate/prejudice/persecution of NNN can not be racism" you can prove that nothing is racism. For instance "black is a skin colour, not a race so KKK can't be racists", "Judaism is a religion, not a race so Adolf Hitler was no racist.", "Pakistani is a nationality/national origin, not a race so paki bashing is not racism." and so on. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Then we are simply dealing with a misunderstanding, as I assume you will grant that religion is not the sole signifier of race. Mrathel (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cats have races. Dogs have races. Humans does not have races. Anyway, that is irrelevant anyway since racism does not require any races in a scientific sense for it to exist. // Liftarn (talk)
 * The first sentence says, "Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims." Of course that is the definition."  The only question is what comes under this definition.  And the article does not define islamophobia as racism.  21:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)
 * I disagree that that is the the definition of the word. While the neologism has been used many times in recent years by a wide variety of sources, it does not have such a cut and dry definition as is evident by the wide range of differing opinions of how the term should be used, and many of those criticisms are listed in the article. By beginning with a limited, unsourced definition the article cannot hope to regain its neutrality. I know it may seem a small point of contention, but I believe the opening sentence should be broader in scope and acknowledge that, as a new word, it enjoys a variety of evolving usages. Within the article, there is the Kunst quote:
 * "As opposed to being a psychological or individualistic phobia, according to professor of religion Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, "Islamophobia" connotes a social anxiety about Islam and Muslims.[23][24] Some social scientists have adopted this definition and developed instruments to measure Islamophobia in form of fearful attitudes towards, and avoidance of, Muslims and Islam,[25][26]arguing that islamophobia should "essentially be understood as an affective part of social stigma towards Islam and Muslims, namely fear"
 * Here we have a clear statement that that the phobia portion of the word is interpreted different ways, and it also states that it the fear is an essential part of Islamophobia. However, according to the definition currently in the article, mere prejudice against Islamic individuals or hatred of them can be called islamophobia regardless of the presence of fear. Mrathel (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * With the addition of racism into the definition, it is now perfectly clear that what we are dealing with is not a distinct definition of the word. It is not the place of editors to define a word based upon their own selected group of sources. I believe the article on homophobia does a better job of explaining how a term encompasses a wide range of ideas which are not properly described by a made-up definition. By beginning: "Islamophobia is..." the article begins on a very shaky and contentious foundation. Mrathel (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)