Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 16

UK Labour party consultative document
The new document is called Realising One Nation: Developing a new race equality strategy and says "The recent rise of the EDL and increase in Islamophobic attacks underscores both how far we as a society have yet to travel in stamping out racism as well as new questions of community cohesion which increasing economic and social inequality will only exacerbate." We should mention this document. It obviously makes a direct link between racism and Islamophobia, but does anyone here really think that tackling racism successfully wouldn't reduce Islamophobia? Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "does anyone here really think that tackling racism successfully wouldn't reduce Islamophobia?" Of course it would, just as having stringent gun laws has reduced the level of (but not removed) murder in the UK. Alfietucker (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I really must learn not to make asides. That really is not the thrust of what I am saying. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems very specific to the UK and problems within the UK. This link notes that in the USA “American Muslims are the most racially diverse group surveyed in the United States ... Forty percent of Muslims say they have a college degree, making them the second most highly educated religious group surveyed after Jews ... 78 percent of American Muslims voted Republican in the 2000 presidential election.  ... 56 percent of American Muslims say that most Muslims coming to the U.S. want to adopt American customs and ways of life ... “ Does the UK or Germany have such a racially diverse, educated, middle class Muslim populations? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it is UK specific, that doesn't mean we shouldn't include it in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Also, I mentioned above that we might need a section on geographical variations, perhaps in the Trends section. Jocelyn Cesari has a good discussion on nation-by-nation variations. Wiki aspires to be WP:WORLDWIDE in orientation. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a political document and reads like a sales presentation, so I don't think it's of much use to us.--Loomspicker (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a political document by one of Britain's two major parties. That's significant. Your reading of it is through your own vision of the world, which isn't shared by everyone. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, Doug, an encyclopedia shouldn’t be written by political bodies or political parties. I even find it jarring to see the EUMC in the lead section. I don’t expect to find articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica that start with statements from the British government, UN, or Soviet Politburo. Don’t you think it is best not to politicize Wikipedia? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any harm in mentioning it under "Reactions from political organizations" (changing the title of "Reports from governmental organizations"). It's not especially vital to the article one way or the other. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a report about race & equality, not about about islamophobia itself. So what useful and relevant information can we add from it?--Loomspicker (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because islamophobia is a form of racism and discrimination perhaps? // Liftarn (talk)

Islamophilia
Islamophilia belongs in this article since the sources say it is cognitively the same as Islamophobia. Both say X of all of Islam. Both make the mistake listed in Runnymede #1: "Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change." The only difference is whether they see X as good or bad. We have long had a book of essays titled "Islamophobia/Islamophilia" is the Further Reading section and have used that book as a citation in several places. This paragraph merely explains the central thesis of the book. Basically it is saying the Islamophobia and Islamophilia are two sides of the same coin. This is much stronger than racism which many authors (and editors here) say only overlap. This surely belongs in the article. At the very least it belongs in the next section Links to ideologies but I inserted in Identity Politics after the discussion of ontological traps as that and essentialising tends to be discussed together. I paired down the paragraph to include only that which is said about both as stereotypical "essentialising" about Islam. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If there are sufficient sources, start an article. Meanwhile, if this article discusses the concept at all, it should do so by attributing views to individuals, rather than making generalisations or implying that there is any consensus on this - I see little evidence that this perspective has widespread support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Most readers are not going to know what Islamophilia is, and if we have to explain it to them it doesn't belong here. As it stands it appears to be in the article solely to criticize the concept of Islamophobia. I am not at all convinced that the Allen quote is a summary of what Allen thinks about Islamophobia, but it is presented as though it is. As an aside, I note that we have a sentence that ends "Islamophobia is not racism" - hopefully it's a statement by the authors mentioned at the beginning, but that's not as clear as it should be. Anyway, the Islamophilia stuff doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doug, take a look at the book Islamophobia/Islamophilia. It is anything but an attempt to diminish the concept of Islamophobia. Stereotypes are damaging regardless if they are positive or negative in peoples' eyes. I'm surprised that you don't see the connection since it is common in the discussion of racism. Americans may remember how the sports announcer Jimmy the Greek was fired for saying "The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way ..." The whole point is that a demographic group described in a monolithic manner (good or bad) is denied the full potential of possibilities open to humanity. It is "essentialising" in the jargon of the authors. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be a related concept, but it really doesn't seem to belong on this page. You could create a page for it.  But honestly, I am not sure what Islamophilia is... is it the fetishization of Islam or something? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't know what it is, how do you know it doesn't belong? Jason from nyc (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Islamophilia is clearly about Muslims and as the authors show it is the same in important respect--stereotypical thinking about all Muslims--and there is yet no article for it. Racism has less of a reason to be in the article since there is only an overlap and not categorically true of all Islamophobia. However, that overlap is important in those cases where religious bigotry and racial bigotry interplay. One could, of course, have and article Racism and Islamophobia but we don't at present.

Antisemitism has even less of a reason to be in the article since it is another topic completely and it is there only for comparison. One could compare bigotry against Muslims with any of a number of prejudices: homophobia, sexism, ageism, etc. They all have nothing to do with Islamophobia. Thus, the first thing to remove from the article is the section call “Links to ideologies” since it is about other forms of prejudice that have their own articles. Why don’t we start there? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to create an article about islamophilia, then go ahead, but it does not appear to be a common topic in islamophobia studies. BTW your parallel of the African American runner is inapt.  Racial theory often ascribes superior abilities in some areas to minorities.  The real parallel would be "n***-lover", which was the term used to describe people who idealized African Americans.  I do not know if a politically correct word was ever developed for the term.  Anti-Semitism is in the article because of the obvious parallel, a prejudice that has both racial and religious components.  TFD (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a brief comment - if we are to include Islamophilia in the article (as the opinion of named individuals, rather than as assertion, obviously), we need to actually define it. Even ignoring the other issues, a statement that "Islamophilia is similar to Islamophobia..." isn't exactly enlightening... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly amused to discover that there was, it seems, once a Wikipedia article Islamophilia (neologism) which was cited in this academic paper by Professor Mohammad H. Tamdgidi of the University of Massachusetts, Boston. The citation runs:
 * Islamophilia is a controversial term (believed to have been first used by critic of Islam Daniel Pipes) employed by some journalists, media commentators and politicians to describe unwavering and uncritical admiration of Islam and used to counteract what many believe to be spurious accusations of Islamophobia. British journalist Julie Burchill also complained of a kind of “mindless Islamophilia” that was “considerably more dangerous” than Islamophobia owing to what she claimed was a white washing of Islamic History and its use as a way of stifling debate.
 * Curious that the article has, presumably, been deleted since that paper was published in Spring 2012. But it looks to me as though Professor Tamdgidi's paper as a whole looks like a possible source for reviving that article. Alfietucker (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The objections are interesting. 1) Not being a common topic to every study is a POV as not every article we cite discuses every dimension. Some studies don't discuss racism. 2) The criticism of Islamophilia isn't new but has precedent in the literature on Orientalism. Here too there is discussion of scholars and writers who obviously love the subject, people, and culture but their romanticized narratives have been disparaged by the anti-Orientalist school. Raphael Patai is one such scholar singled out in previous critiques of Orientalism and again in the critiques of Islampohilia as the latter is really a continuation of the former in many cases. 3) Why should the topic be included here? Reliable sources do. Notice that the book isn't titled "Islamophobia and Islamophilia" but "Islamphobia/Islamophilia." It is not just a scholarly comparison, which is valid enough, but a much more closely related phenomena. 4) While I agree with those suggest that a whole article can and should be written, reliable sources see both phenomena intimately connected just as critics on Orientalism did in the previous debates. It would be negligent on our part to leave out this connection. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Islamophilia was deleted several times. I suggest identifying literature specifically about the subject before re-creating.  TFD (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The real issue for me is the use of sources about Islamophilia to critize Islamophobia - looks like cherry-picking to me. There is actually a 2010 book published by an academic press, Islamophobia/Islamophilia: Beyond the Politics of Enemy and Friend. On page 2 it says "Across all these contexts, acts ol violence against Muslims, and legislation averse to certain traditions of Islamic practice, can be variously interpreted as racist, secularist, nationalist, or anti-immigrant. Islamophobia, as a unifying concept, brings all of these possibilities into a single framework, and the sensibilities nurtured within that framework produce a predictable range of stereotypes. Indeed, the content of this worldview has become so predictable that we can use it to generate a reliable profile, a stereotype, of the contemporary Islamophobe..." and "Both the European Union and the United Nations have embraced the concept, organizing high-profile international conferences that address Islamophobia and adding it to the several varieties of racism and intolerance they monitor and combat (see chapter 1)." It also says its definition and defeat are at heart a government agenda and possible reasons some people don't like the term. See pages 8 and 9 (note this is all an introduction to a collection of papers). So it's another source that mentions racism. One of the points I see it as making is that both extremes are misrepresentations of their subject, just as portraying Jews as subhumans and portraying Jews in general as perfect examples of humanity would be. Which is what the current version of our article is saying - Islamophobia portrays Muslims as a monolothic block (an evil one), Islamophilia also portrays them as a bloc, a good one. I think that is fine. Hm, I see we are using or perhaps misusing the book I've mentioned - interesting but another topic. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sources are indeed saying that both are making the same error of treating Muslims as a monolithic block. This source even says "Islamophobia and Islamophilia are two sides of the same coin ..." . Also note that this is not a right-left political debate. The author of this article relies heavily on Said: . The terminology may be new but these authors believe the phenomena has been discussed before in the context of Orientalism. I believe we need a paragraph to discuss this side of "the coin" as it is inseparable for these reliable sources just as it was in Orientalism. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No they are not. The source says that some in the West idealize Islam, not that one must either villainize or idealize it.  Hence George H. W. Bush was an Islamophile because he supported Muslim "freedom fighters" in Afganistan, and uncritical support of Saudi Arabia is Islamophilia.  Those btw are highly contentious statements.  He does not support the contention that one is either an Islamophobe or Islamophile, although he says Islaphobes accuse anyone who disagrees them of Islamophilia.  TFD (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The source says it is "two sides of the same coin." You're saying that there are other coins, i.e. "not that one must either villainize or idealize it." That's exactly the point. The author finds both terms important to convey "the coin" of faulty monolithic thinking. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was about to defend Jason, but he beat me to it (and due to the resulting edit conflict I've lost what I originally typed!). Just to add that a quick search of the term Islamophilia in art history shows that though Islamophilia often implies an uncritical view of Islam and culture associated with Islam, it can also imply (in that field at least) an interest in learning about Islamic culture in greater depth than the superficialities of 'Orientalism' - albeit perhaps still in danger of believing one set of Muslims represents all Muslims. At the end of the day, we're talking about labels (whether Islamophobia or Islamophilia) applied to organizations, trends or people. Of course we have to stick to reliable sources, but I think it's as well not to be sidetracked by the circular argument (which has been put forward earlier) to the effect "they don't like being called Islamophobes - ergo, they *are* Islamophobes". If we can dispense with that canard, I think we can treat more dispassionately the arguments raised for and against the term Islamophobia. Alfietucker (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Jason from nyc, you are taking the quote out of context. The coin is an irrational approach to Islam.  Someone may write for example that fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin.  That does not necessarily mean they are saying that one is either one or the other.  Surely you are not arguing that irrational love and hate are the only two possible ways for rational people to view Islam.  TFD (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But that is *not* what Jason is saying - he's actually agreeing with you by paraphrasing your argument as "there are other coins" - i.e. other than "The coin [which] is an irrational approach to Islam". Alfietucker (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I note we have Sinophile and Philo-semitism as articles. I've always seen these 'philias' as meaning love of the culture more than of all the people and I've never thought of it as extreme as xenophobias,, but my view doesn't count of course!Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A fair point. I think xxxxphobias and xxxxphilias have different weights and connotations, depending on what issue or behavior they're addressing, or depending how politicized their definition has become. Just to take some common examples, I often hear people described as a Francophile or as a Anglophile, which is generally taken to mean they are a) well disposed towards respectively French people and English people; b) they like their culture. But I don't think it's generally understood that by these definitions they tend to think all French people are the same, or all English people are the same. I say this not to infer a principle, but just to point out that one can't assume one brand of phobia or philia necessarily has the same weight of association as does another. So I guess we have to examine them case by case rather than attempt to draw general principles. Alfietucker (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Anglophile" of course merely means someone who loves the English, and its meaning can be understood by the context. But sometimes a combination of two words can take on a distinct meaning. Compare, "I know two American twins" and "I know two Siamese twins." TFD (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, my POV is more like Doug's rather than the sources. For example, I found the late sociologist, Raphael Patai, to be overwhelmingly sympathetic to his subject in his widely read book The Arab Mind. The literature I mention above also accepts this judgment but calls him an Orientalist and charges him with Islamophilia. Both Islamophobia/Islamophilia seem to have meanings other than the usual suffixes imply--similar to the point TFD makes. We report sources, not correct them. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Anti-semitism" being the classical example. I've run into anti-semites saying "I'm not anti-semitic, some of my best friends are Arabs", ignoring the fact that anti-semitism has always had only one meaning, hatred of Jews. Etymology can be a dangerous game. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Calm down everybody
I've not involved myself in the latest debate about the opening sentence, since in reflection I don't have very strong views about either of the proposed options and I can see reasons for either. But I do get the impression that some people here are verging close to not assuming good faith because they can't or won't see the other person's point of view. I hope that's not the case because I think everyone here is intelligent and seems perfectly principled rather than having an axe to grind. Or is there really such a terribly important principle at stake here? In which case, forgive my naivity. Alfietucker (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

POV Template why now?
What "spurious characters" are you talking about (and what does that even mean... you mean spurious characteristics?)? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was an "r" on the first line. . Was that meaningful? Jason from nyc (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, now I'm more confused. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jason's referring to a stray letter 'r' which was on that line, which he removed (see edit history). Alfietucker (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Widely Accepted Definition
The opening line should be changed to conform to the following claim on the widespread definition: “Islamophobia is the shorthand way of referring to dread or hatred of Islam - and, therefore, to fear or dislike of all or most Muslim, wrote the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia in the Runnymede report a decade ago.[page 1] Widely accepted as the definition of Islamohpobia, and given the report’s impact, it might come as some surprise that only five years ago, the term and concept of Islamophoiba had little discursive relevance or value beyond the UK.”

Here are the arguments: a) There is no competing claim on a widely accepted definition. There are other definitions by reliable sources but no claim that they are widely accepted. In the absence of such claims we should consider what Chris Allen wrote above.

b) Why Chris Allen? He was co-author of the 2002 EUMC report. His work is included in several anthologies. His book, Islamophobia, is about the terminology. In sum, he is widely respected in the field for over a decade.

Point 1: A definition is not exhaustive of a subject. Islamophobia may be “fear and loathing” by definition and still also be several other things upon examination. Let me give a neutral example of definition and further description to illustrate this epistemological point. A bachelor is an unmarried male. One can also say a bachelor is under 20 feet tall, less than 2 tons, and will die before the age of 200 years old. True as they are, these aren’t defining characteristics. They aren’t part of the definition. Thus, Allen’s statement about the definition doesn’t contradict that authors say much more about Islamophobia.

Point 2: Islam is not a monolith. But neither is Islamophobia. Actually these points are related. Several sources point out the the term Islamophobia differs by location and nation depending on the variations of Muslims (and their nationality) as well as the cultures of the nations they live in. Authors have pointed out the difficulty in describing the nature of the “fear” or “hatred” as it differs across the globe and within each country.

Point 3: The reliable sources are not a monolith. They can’t agree on the exact nature of this fear and hatred. Allen starts his essay with the above paragraph but by the end of the first page he says “Islamophobia ... remains an undifferentiated and bland term” and on page three notes it “remains a contested concept.” Is this a contradiction? Whatever it is, we report it. But it may not be a contradiction: the terms of the definition may be widely used if their exact scope and nature is debated.

Thus, I suggest we accept Allen’s report of the widespread definition followed by the statement of others that there are disagreements among experts. Perhaps this should be followed by a statement on geographic differences by users of the term. I’ve seen discussion of this in the literature but we don’t have anything on this in our article.

(Thanks to TFD above for pointing out that Allen reports on the widespread definition.) Jason from nyc (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you want to cherry pick one specific definition to whitewash racism? As it is we say it is "prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear or racism against" (emphasis added) so we thus cover all major definitions as reported by reliable sources. To remove one definition just because you don't like it is not acceptable. // Liftarn (talk)
 * You're calling the Runnymede definition cherry picking? In that case you may want to delete the 2nd paragraph dedicated to the Runnymede study, i.e one specific study? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To Liftarn "Racism against" is already subsumed in the earlier descriptions: "prejudice against", "hatred towards", and "irrational fear (of)." Racism could be part of any of those. On the other hand, specifically saying racism against a religion [as opposed to the perceived race(s) of its adherents] is semantically awkward.Badmintonhist (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC) PS: Of course, racism isn't always a part of those other things. A school year or two before 9/11 I had a pupil in a history class with dark, "Semitic" features and complexion, a foreign sounding name, and a foreign sounding accent, who was absolutely FULL of bitterness toward Islam. He had grown up as Coptic Christian in Egypt. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As well as having a separate religion, Copts are an ethnic minority within Egypt and are not Semites. And nobody says that all opposition to Islam is Islamophobia or all Islamophia is racism.  Sources say that opposition to Islam may be Islamophobia, and Islamophobia may be racism.  "May be" does not mean "always is."  "May be" also does not mean "never is."  It means sometimes it is and sometimes it is not.  TFD (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Which is why I put Semitic in quotation marks and said that racism "could be part of any of those." More to the point of this whole discussion about definition, I think that Evergreenfir's above proposal has some promise. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your statement is similar to saying Germans and Poles look the same to you, and their languages sound the same, so Nazi hatred of Poles could not be racism. TFD (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not to get overly pointy, as you, of course, never would, but I suspect Nazi hatred of Poles had less to do with racism per se than an overweening sense of cultural superiority. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think that racism, like Islamophobia, is also a meaningless concept? TFD (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting my former assessment, TFD, you apparently ARE capable of being a tedious, pedantic fussbudget.Badmintonhist (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is not categorically true, it can not be a defining characteristic. Racism, xenophobia, anti-Sharia, anti-Islamism all become either sub-categories or separate concepts since it can not be said of all anti-Muslim sentiment. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we would use Allen's old statement. In his book, he wrote "Islamophobia is an ideology, similar in theory, function and purpose to racism and other similar phenomena, that sustains and perpetuates negatively evaluated meaning about Muslims and Islam in the contemporary setting in similar ways to that which it has historically, although not necessarily as a continuum, subsequently pertaining, influencing and impacting upon social action, interaction, response and so on, shaping and determining understanding, perceptions and attitudes in the social consensus - the shared languages and conceptual maps - that inform and construct thinking about Muslims and Islam as Other." The trouble is about definitions of sociological phenomena is that they are all contested in some form. And why not use the Runnymede definition? This article says it is the most widely accepted definition. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doug, I believe our definition is close to the Runnymede definition that Allen says is widely accepted (see my first line of this section). Of course, a lot more can be said about Islamophobia beyond the definition as is true of every subject. And comparisons between subjects are important too. But Allen gives us a statement of what is widely accepted as a definition (and he finds it problematic but that's another matter). Jason from nyc (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still this is the only statement on a widely accepted definition. No other source says there is another widely accepted definition. Note the Runnymede statement says "Islamophobia is the shorthand way of referring ..." which means that this true by definition (a tautology) and not description. Obviously Runnymede believes much more can be said and they have a whole list of points. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I cited a source that says the widely accepted definition is the Runnymede one cited at the beginning of this section. Who has provided a source that has another claim for a widely accepted definition? Jason from nyc (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, we have a well respected source who tells us the generally accepted definition. We have no source that tells us that racism is part of the generally accepted definition. We have only the original research of the editors who have done their own private survey and decided that enough writers put racism in the definition to make it the generally accepted definition. Original research can't substituted for the survey of a reliable source for the generally accepted definition. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop intentional twisting the facts. The tons of conversation on this talk page have given repeated citations to authors who include racism as part of their theoretical model of Islamophobia.  You are being disingenuous and counterproductive.  EvergreenFir (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, original research. I thought so. You don't have a source that says "racism" is part of the widely accepted definition. But we have a source for the exact definition that's widely accepted. Stop putting your POV and original research in the lead of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A review of the literature, providing names and links to peer-reviewed research is not original research. I suggest you re-read the meaning of "original research". This is not me running numbers on CDC or something.  You appear to be resistant to the fact that peer-review research includes racism in their models... and that's POV of you. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We did a review last year and did not find that racism was typically part of the definition. I did a review above (see "Sources disagree: only some see cultural racism") and found that it wasn't part of the widely accepted definition. You can do your own survey also but that's original research. We have a worldwide expert telling us what the widely accepted definition is. That trumps all of our own surveys. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you also don't understand what "survey" means. I did not do any survey on this topic nor did I use secondary data.  I used EbscoHost, a research literature search engine.  It's what us academics use to find articles.  I pointed out the fact that there are a lot of articles related to Islamophobia and racism.  You cite one expert (and I question your use of that term... are you familiar enough with the literature to identify the experts in the field?).  Allen does seem to be an authority, but one scholar's opinion is not the only one.  Each of the articles that come up in that search are by academics.  If hundreds of articles are published tying racism and Islamophobia, it's clearly not fringe.  I myself have not done a proper lit review.  But I am sure there a lit review published somewhere we can dig up. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're telling me how you did your study. Allen actually reads the literature and he gives us a "generally accepted definition." We go with reliable sources that tell us what the accepted definition is. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we speaking different languages? I did not do any study.  I looked at what scholars have published in peer-review journals.  There are a lot that include racism with Islamophobia.  You repeatedly rely on one author to proclaim that racism is not part of it.  Let me use Allen to prove my point.  I am creating a new section to address this... EvergreenFir (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are speaking different languages. I'm addressing the definition. You're talking about whether some scholar see racism in some cases of anti-Muslim prejudice. There's no denial of that fact. Xenophobia is also present in some cases. Fear of terrorism is found in others. Many things can be said about a concept that doesn't make it into a definition. That's why we don't have any scholar saying "racism" or "xenophobia" is part of everyone's definition. But we do have a solid scholar with credentials better than yours who says what the widely accepted definition is. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably futile and pov quest - just say "used to refer to...
We cannot say that there is a widely accepted definition. We can say, somewhere, that so and so says there is one, but we can't actually use that in the first paragraph of the lead - or I think anywhere in the lead. The first sentence of the lead at the moment says "Islamophobia is a neologism[1] used generally to refer to prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear of or racism against Muslims or ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim." That seems factual and neutral. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You mentioned before that we might want to use the Runnymede definition. I think that's a good idea because of its influence and because Allen says it is the widely used definition. NPOV means we take his POV as the expert of the usage of the term. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't recall - when did Allen say that? And I don't follow what you mean about NPOV means we take Allen as the expert. But that doesn't affect what I've said about the first sentence. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with the use of qualifying terms in the lead to reflect the ambiguous nature of the definition. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Allen says: “Islamophobia is the shorthand way of referring to dread or hatred of Islam - and, therefore, to fear or dislike of all or most Muslim, wrote the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia in the Runnymede report a decade ago.[page 1] Widely accepted as the definition of Islamohpobia, and given the report’s impact, it might come as some surprise that only five years ago, the term and concept of Islamophoiba had little discursive relevance or value beyond the UK.”


 * Why isn't this just the definition? Remember, the definition doesn't mean that other things can't be said about the subject or a large fraction of the subject. The definition defines the term. Since it is a neologism, it behoves us to define it when we introduce it. I've seen "fear and loathing" or "fear and hatred" or "fead and dislike" repeated in many authors statement when introducing the term (especially to a wide audience) but my findings don't count if we have a scholar who tells us that he finds another phrase as the widely accepted definition. Yes, sometimes I see other introduce additional terms. And some complain about the definition because the phenomena is driven by other factors. Cesari (see section below about "misquote") has a review of the subject matter in several nations and in her opinion xenophobia is huge as an explanatory factor. But she doesn't change the definition--she just finds it problematic. Many authors accept the definition and complain about it. Some advance new definitions. But we can't use our POV about who is right to "fix" the definition. We need expert guidance of generally accepted usage and Allen gives us that. (By the way, he's not happy about the definition either.) Jason from nyc (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer-review sources discussing racism and Islamophobia - What's the big deal again?
Okay... a number of above contributors are arguing about what "reliably sources" say. I mentioned a couple weeks ago that a simple search of EbscoHost, an academic article search engine, showed that there was a lot of people combining the two concepts and some arguing for their separation. This is not original research. This is a search of peer-review literature by experts. Here are some of the things I found, based on the first couple pages of results.

Arguing a link between racism and Islamophobia
"In doing so, and despite what critics suggest to the contrary, it does not espouse an ideology that can be seen as traditionally racist. However, it does espouse an ideology that can be seen as a form of 'new racism' or cultural racism (Allen 2011:292)" "Piaras Mac Éinrí argues that institutional racism can be witnessed in the failure of professional service provision to a particular segment of society through State “policies that may be unintentionally discriminatory, by omission or by commission ...”.129 The omission to record Islamophobia as a particular form of racism in Ireland by the governmental agencies evaluated here constitutes institutional racism in contemporary Ireland. (Carr 2011:585)" "Islamophobia has become a leading form of racism in Europe, according to numerous European government studies. (Webman 2012:224)" "In addressing differentialist racism, it posits Islamophobia as an ideological response that conflates histories, politics, societies and cultures of the Middle East into a single unified and negative conception of an essentialized Islam, which is then deemed incompatible with Euro-Americaness. In this context, the category of brown, once the signifier of an exotic Other, is undergoing a transformation in conjunction with the deepening of Islamophobia, a formation that posits brown, as a strategy of identification, as alterity to the Euro-Americanness, and as terror and threat. (Semati 2010:abstract)" These feelings find an outlet in racism and prejudice, especially among people with few cultural resources who are more vulnerable in the face of a generalized political and economic crisis. In this light racism is no longer to be understood merely as a disorganized and confused jumble of prejudicial attitudes but rather as a well structured and reiterated public discourse able to gain trust and political support. (Padovan and Alietti 2012:199)

People arguing against the combination of racism and Islamophobia
We have argued for an approach that treats securitization, racialization and Islamophobia as analytically distinct. This is necessary first in order to recognize that various groups may be securitized, and that securitization is not necessarily logically tied to racism. It is also important to recognize that Islamophobia, racialization and racism interact in specific historical and political circumstances. In this way we have argued against some recent tendencies either to dismiss the existence of Islamophobia or to treat it as a special instance of cultural racism. As a result we are able to tease out the coming together of processes of securitization, racism and Islamophobia in constructing British South Asian Muslims as an existential threat to British society in terms of the outcomes for the views of some non-Muslims and the experiences of Muslims. The construction of Muslims as a threat was not simply a case of racism and Islamophobia, these pre-dated 9/11 and 7/7. The securitization of Muslims through political practices and media discourse has had clear effects through some non-Muslims’ views of Muslims. (Hussain and Bagguley 2012:731) "It is equally true, however, that these minorities can fall prey to racism or cultural racism without the Islamic reference coming into play. This therefore should not be described as Islamophobia, but simply as racism or cultural racism. (Bravo Lopez 2011:569)"

In short, there is clearly use of racism in research on Islamophobia, but there is also clearly debate in the research community about its inclusion. It is absolutely not POV to say that some scholars conceptualize and operationalize Islamophobia as either (1) part of a larger latent construct which also include racism or (2) constituted by factors (in the factor model meaning of the term) including racism. I cannot understand why anyone would be opposed to stating in the lead that some scholars view racism and Islamophobia as intertwined and that there is debate about is. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

PS - Full citations for quoted material can be found at my sandbox. If this is being read some time after the material has been erased, here is a direct link to the exact edit made. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No one has denied that some scholars see racism involved and some don’t. Benjamil tried to prove it is inherently apart of the concept by reviewing the literature last year and found the literature wasn’t in agreement on this matter as you just found. (see Talk:Islamophobia above) I looked at recent books (see Talk:Islamophobia above). And you did a review and found the same. We have long had a statement in the 4th paragraph that reads: “Although scholars have defined it as a type of racism,[14][15][16][17] this has been contested.[18][19][20]” so we have a consensus for what you, Benjamil and I have found. What I’m arguing about is the definition, not a full exposition of the subject matter. Allen says the Runnymede definition is widely accepted. That some people argue that the “fear and dislike” has to do with racism, xenophobia, anti-terrorism, secularism (in France) or any other matter doesn’t change the definition. It is further exposition on the subject matter. I appreciate your extensive search: more for us to read. But do we really disagree or are we talking at cross purposes? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I see where the disconnect was. As for the "definition", I'm okay with Allen as long as we keep the statements that racism is seen as related by some.  For a bit, that was not included in the lead.  On a side note, why aren't we adding the racism category?  This seems to be enough for it to be included. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Use or misuse of quotes
I've mentioned the book Islamophobia/Islamophilia: Beyond the Politics of Enemy and Friend above. I see we use a quote from it, which says "Islamophobia is still not a popular analytical term among scholars, many of whom think it is “imprecisely applied to very diverse phenomena, ranging from xenophobia to anti-Terrorism” reducing complex forms of discrimination and government policy to a single concept that cannot adequately explain them."

but that isn't what the quote says, or rather it is a selective rendition of what it says. It says: "In France, where Muslims have long been studied not as Muslims per sc, but as immigrant populations, or North Africans, or Arabs (Cesari 2002; Wieviorka 2002), Islamophobia is still not a popular analytical term among scholars, many of whom think it is "imprecisely applied to very diverse phenomena, ranging from xenophobia to anti-terrorism" (Cesari 2006:6), reducing complex forms of discrimination and government policy to a single concept that cannot adequately explain them." Making an excerpt from a sentence look like it is the full sentence is unacceptable, especially when we do make it clear in other quotes that words have been left out.

We shouldn't be using these quotes and we don't need to use them. Why do we have a quote from Kandel in the references and then in the article? I've removed the quotes and the double use of Allen and Kandel. The quotes oversimplify the issue, among other things. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That isn't a "selective rendition" - it is clear misrepresentation of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Andy and Doug - who is misrepresenting whom? Here is the original source of Cesari's comment (see page 6). From this, it seems clear to me that the preceding comment in Islamophobia/Islamophilia ("In France, where Muslims have long been studied...etc) is at best beside the point Cesari is making, and at worst prejudicial. It also seems to me, if anything, that the Wikipedia  editor who got that quotation (Jason?) rescued it from the framing given it by Islamophobia/Islamophilia. Alfietucker (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggesting that the editor of the book is misrepresenting a source is difficult to prove as there are two sources, not just one. Or 3 if you count the other source by Cesari. Maybe the bit you seem to objecting to is from the other author. In any case, we can't 'rescue' something from its context in the way the editor did who added only a partial sentence but made it look like an entire sentence. We should never do that, however justified we may feel we are. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Jason was quoting Shryock. And doing so in a way that omitted a clear qualification regarding what Shryock said. You may well be right that Shryock has been careless (or worse) with the Cesari quote (Cesari doesn't seem to be making a statement about specifically academic usage of the term at that point), but that doesn't justify misrepresenting what Shryock wrote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess the moral of the story is we have to be careful about attribution of quotes, or even (or perhaps particularly) quotes within quotes. Alfietucker (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the problem. I was away from a computer and I apologize for not taking part and contributing. The Cesari article is extremely interesting in that it is one of the few that describes the vast differences between anti-Muslim sentiment from country to country--mostly European countries. She points out that the Muslims in each European country come from vastly different Islamic nations and even from specific villages or regions within the nations. But notice the distinctions she makes: “The principal aim of this report is to highlight the multi-layered levels of discrimination encountered by Muslims. This phenomenon cannot simply be subsumed into the term Islamophobia. Indeed, the term can be misleading, as it presupposes the pre-eminence of religious discrimination when other forms of discrimination (such as racial or class) may be more relevant. We therefore intend to use the term Islamophobia as a starting point for analyzing the different dimensions that define the political situation of Muslim minorities in Europe. We will not to take the term for granted by assigning it only one meaning, such as anti-Islamic discourse.”

She starts with xenophobia since that most Muslims are of immigrant backgrounds. She notes the vast differences in ethnic and culture backgrounds (shared systems of values), which are variants of their Islamic identity. She points out the Muslims are part of the underclass in Europe but just the opposite in America. Later she says “Because of the position of Muslims in Europe, Islamophobia overlaps with other forms of discrimination, and becomes a sometimes indistinguishable part of broader phenomena such as xenophobia, anti-immigration policies and political discourses, rejection of cultural differences and anti-terrorist measures.”

Overall, she talks about Islamophobia as driven by religious discrimination but notes that xenophobia and classism are far more important. She seems to dither when using the term between a religious discrimination and other forms, which she admits are impossible to separate. In her recent book, “Why the West Fears Islam: An Exploration of Muslims in Liberal Democracies” she mentions that the book isn’t about Islamophobia! It’s quite a problematic term for her but she uses it and explains what she means in each context. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: I summarized Cesari's important study in the section "Geographic trends." In this section the focus is on the overlap with various forms of discrimination on a nation-by-nation basis and not the problem of defining the term. I'd appreciate comment from others who have read her article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead
First of all aside from the lead suggesting that calling it racism is uncontroversial it also makes it sound like if one Muslim says something racist to another Muslim because they are Black, Asian or Jewish that is Islamophobic. Almost everyone would agree that attacking a person of an ethnic group because they are perceived to be Muslim would be racist. Why not leave it at that or at least find a definition that actually means what its supposed to.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Also if it must be mentioned in the first sentence the controversy should be mentioned with it the first time its mentioned so as not to confuse the reader.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding 'debatably racism' to the lead adds pov
No, it doesn't make it sound uncontroversial. "used generally to refer to prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear and debatably racism against Muslims or ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim" is pov. All we are doing here is describing ways in which the term is used, and note that this includes 'ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim". Prejudice against and hatred towards an ethnic group is racism, and that isn't controversial (well, it is for some, but so is 'irrational fear' - Islamophobes contend their fear is rational, so we could call that debated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That is weasel wording because it fails to say who is debating that Islamophobia can be racism. It is only debated by Islamophobes, who of course debate the entire concept.  TFD (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm all for the inclusion of racism against ethnic groups because they are perceived to be Muslim, however that isn't where the editors are trying to stop. They are trying to say and racism against Muslims. This implies incorrectly that racism against a Muslim because they are Black, Arab, Asian, Jewish is Islamophobic. Well no, that would be Anti-black, Anti-Asian, Anti-Arab and Antisemitic not Islamophobic. Unless they are attacked specifically because they are perceived to be Muslim because of their ethnicity its not racism. Any time someone is attacked because of their ethnicity it is racism which is why Islamophobia can be racism. However Islamophobia against Muslims for their religion is not racism. See for example religious antisemitism and racial antisemitism. I think we should handle this like antisemitism is handled.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * By your reasoning, Hitler was not a racial anti-Semite, because he persecuted ethnic Europeans who converted. And he was not a religious anti-Semite, because he persecuted Jews who converted to Christianity.  So what kind of anti-Semite was he?  TFD (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * By my reasoning Hitler was both obviously. However you are wrong in stating that he persecuted ethnic Europeans who converted. Please read about the Nuremberg Laws a person would need to have at least one Jewish grandparent to be persecuted as a Jew. Even then they were called a Mischling or half-breed. However that is not relevant to this article. Hitler was far more of a racial antisemtite. By the way it is not my reasoning it is how it has been defined for many years. If the editors want to discuss racial Islamophobia as racism feel free to do so but do it in a way as to define what makes certain aspects racism and why. And saying that Islamophobia includes racism against Muslims suggests that if Hitler attacked a Jewish Muslim and put them in a concentration camp, hypothetically according to the ledes reasoning that was due to Islamophobia which is nonsense.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A is not the same as B
 * C is A, therefore C is not B
 * C is B, therefore C is not A
 * Therefore C is neither A nor B
 * See the logical fallacy there? Four Four 4 (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can point out exactly what I said is A B and C of course that doesn't make sense. Both Racial and Religious Islamophobia are Islamophobia in the same way both cats and dogs are mammals however cats are not dogs and dogs are not cats. Translations Racial and Religious Islamophobia are separate however unlike cats and dogs they do sometimes overlap. However Islamophobia is not always racial.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That comment was directed at TFD, not you. Four Four 4 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Islamaphobia Racism?
Some have said that Islamaphobia can't be racism because Islam is not a race. There are Black Muslims and Asian Muslims and Slavic Muslims and Indian Muslims, ect. You can convert to Islam, and you can leave Islam. These people don't understand what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia reflects published sources, meaning that whoever is a college professor or owns a website that is "published," their opinions matter, and yours don't. Any of this logic stuff constitutes original research. Who cares if what these college professors say doesn't make any sense, if they say it, it is notable and should be included.Four Four 4 (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC) — Four Four 4 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As you appear to think Wikipedia is a platform for cultural Marxism, I doubt that you will be happy here. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is a platform to write about what is published by reliable sources. Not to publish your own private theories. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Well of course I have made few or no other edits outside this topic, as of this writing I have made three edits, two of them are on this topic! Four Four 4 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Good grief!
The second and third sentences of the lead, as it now stands, are WAY too much to throw at the reader at the beginning of the article. Way too "busy." A START to improving the lead would be to knock them out entirely. Let the debates be explained in the body. If we want to keep the basic idea of those two sentences, simply say something like "The causes and attributes of Islamophobia are much debated." Badmintonhist (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, I agree. (Sorry Jason.) Alfietucker (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I’m sympathetic to your concern, Bad & Alfie. The problem is that when we try to establish a summary statement no one is satisfied. I thought I did that here with the criticism sentence: and I stuck the references with quotes in the footnotes. I couldn’t get editors to agree on a stable summary statement. It wound up being a bland "the definition is discussed" which means nothing. Now the sentence that expresses the overlap with other problematic phenomena may also be hard to summarize. But I’m willing to try. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should just start by quoting the Runnymede definition and put "other connections" and the "various contentions" in two separate paragraphs. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the last two sentences of the lead already sum up the lines of the controversy. Weren't they the sentences which originally followed the first sentence? In any case, why don't we shunt them up there to replace the current second and third sentences? Alfietucker (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean make the last paragraph the second & third sentence? That is: "While the term is widely recognized and used, both the term and the underlying concept have been criticized. Although scholars have defined it as a type of racism, this has been contested." I wonder if that would achieve a stable consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm suggesting, yes. Any other thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of coatracking and WP:SYN going on. Do you have sources? // Liftarn (talk)
 * @Liftarn a) Just to clarify, who is "you" aimed at here? b) I'm not sure that clutter (which is what this discussion is about), if it's relevant, is "coatracking". Could you be a bit clearer what you mean by this? Alfietucker (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC:Should this article be included in Category:Racism
Should this article be included in Category:Racism. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Query What is the criteria for category inclusion? Does the topic have to be subsumed by the category and always an instance of the category? Or does the article merely have to mention the subject of the category? Jason from nyc (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A very fair question, and I'm not sure anyone's really attempted to answer this apart from Binsternet, and I'm not sure the reasoning he uses (comparing with a performing artist's different activities) is sound. Alfietucker (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion in category:Racism. The word "racism" is connected with the word "race", which connotes a group sharing common genetic kinship, but it is unclear what "race" specifically is to be understood here and this would seem like either endorsing a point of view, or an attempt to water down the common understanding of the English word "racism". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The simplistic argument that racism can only involve race is not supported by scholarly writings on the subject. Modern scholarship discusses Islamophobia in the context of racism. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You claim that "scholars" do not agree that "racism" involves "race"? So they say there is something they call "racism" having nothing to do with "race"? Which scholars? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that racism involves race plus other elements. For instance, scholars Robert Miles and Malcolm Brown wrote a book called Racism in 1989. They updated it in 2003 to include Islamophobia (ISBN 0415296773). A common synonym for Islamophobia is anti-Muslim racism. Racism scholar Liz Fekete writes that Islamophobia is part of anti-Muslim racism. John E. Richardson, the chief editor of Critical Discourse Studies, writes that racism is not just about "biological" race, that it is about maintaining inequity in social constructs. Richardson quotes professor Floya Anthias to define racism as being much larger than simple race categorization. Richardson writes that Islamophobia is part of this racism which is larger than race. See (Mis)representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers, ISBN 9027226997. There are many more scholars and studies which take this position. Binksternet (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * These are generally writer with a certain political bent. It is not generally discussed in that manner. Our section titled "racism" starts with the idea that it is anti-Arab and anti-Asian. Are Hindu attacks on Muslims anti-Asian? How about the situation in Burma? Clearly some writer are talking about a local phenomena and we strive for wp:worldwide. If it has to be categorical, it fails the test. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Anti-Muslim racism"? Are you serious? It seems use of this phrase would automatically imply the existence of a "Muslim race" in the mind of any thinking literate person. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please avoid ad hominem attacks. Remember, civility is a pillar of Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not ask our sources to be free from bias; these sources are topic experts and scholars. Your assertion that Islamophobia is "not generally discussed" as racism is unsupportable. Pointing to a Wikipedia article to support your view is a faulty tactic—there is every possibility that the Wikipedia article is not well written. You bring up examples that are outliers, not central to the question. Islamophobia is categorically racism. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Islamophobia is categorically racism - demagoguery and nonsense. Why else is Antireligion not categorized as 'racism'? Why is this Übermensch Islam above all other religions? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to chase after the reason why Wikipedia categorizes some other topic some other way. This RfC is about Islamophobia, and Islamophobia is what I'm addressing.
 * Further up the page I linked to some scholarly works and quoted from them. Rather than point you to that section I will bring them here for perusal:
 * I recommend everyone here read some of the relevant scholarly writings on the topic, and accord these sources more weight than those from popular works. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Include Categories are navigational devices and people looking for topics about racism or related to it are likely to find this topic relevant.  TFD (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support As TFD says, categories are navigational devices. As far as 'racism' being connected with the word 'race', meanings change and we can't argue on the basis of etymology. It's like anti-Semites arguing that they can't be anti-Semitic because some of their best friends are Arabs - the map is not the territory. The only reason this shouldn't be included is if it can be shown that there is no link between Islamophobia and racism - who wants to argue that? Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. There are quite sufficient academic sources drawing links between Islamophobia and racism to justify the category. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as we have several reliable sources (papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals) to back it up and no reliable source saying otherwise. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Oppose Racism is about race; Islam is a religion.  Per Til Eulenspiegel. Heaven protect us from "sociologists".  Also, DBachmann was correct in questioning the article title and should not have been censored.  --72.66.30.115 (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sociology is the social science that primarily studies race, racism, and discrimination. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose this racism crusade is ridiculous. The antisemitism page isn't even included under the racism category and that is clearly passed down in heritage. The fact is that there are many types of discrimination. And all of them cause harm to people. I oppose it being in the category because that the article on racism doesn't dicuss Islamophobia and I think people are trying to get it under racism under the false belief that if it is racism it is magically worse than if it were religious discrimination. All forms of discrimination are bad. However apples and oranges are fruit and feta and mozzarella are chesses. All are food but apples and oranges are not chesses. The use of racism even in the article is controversial. I'm going to put an alert on the racism talk page about this as well.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please at least attempt to read a thread before commenting. There are multiple academic sources discussing the linkage between racism and Islamophobia - it isn't something cooked up by Wikipedia contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, referring to the dispute as 'a crusade' is tactless at minimum... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop putting words in my mouth I never claimed that Wikipedia came up with it. And I agree there is a link. However I do think if the editors believed so strongly that Islamophobia was racism they would be attempting to add their sources to the racism article. Take some time to compare between the Islamophobia and Antisemitism articles. I have put in that some scholars consider that racism and that is constantly being deleted yet this argument manages to stay up. Not to mention the anti-Semitism article IS NOT in the category Racism. I think that those who believe so strongly it is racism should add a header in the racism article. At least then I would believe that they actually believe what they are saying and are willing to fight for it without the safety net of being on an article page where almost everyone believes them already. So in short 1)Address why you think Islamophobia should be in the category racism when Hispanophobia and Antisemitism aren't. 2) Why there is no mention of Islamophobia at the racism article. and 3) Why this page has more editors willing to allow it to be called racism when the anti-Semitism article won't. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This RfC isn't about the antisemitism article, and nor is it about the one on racism. And neither is it supposed to be about what what Wikipedia contributors 'believe'. The discussion should (like any other Wikipedia discussion) be about how we reflect what is said in reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Calling people crusaders in a discussion about Islamophobia is insensitive. TFD (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok I'm going to try at this again. Of course Racism and Islamophobia are related. All forms of discrimination are related. I never argued there was no relation. However Racism is about discrimination against race (usually expanded to include ethnicity and nationality). Racism is not synonymous with discrimination. Otherwise homophobia would be racism, ageism would be racism etc. In order for me to agree for Islamophobia to be in the category racism one of two things will have to happen. 1) Racism will need to be redefined to include all bigotry. or 2) The great leaders of Islam will have to declare that all children born of Muslim parents are now Muslim even when they convert. In other words there would be Christian Muslims, Buddhist Muslims and even Wiccan Muslims. Now that I have stated my reasons I want to say I understand why they want it included under racism. They feel the media and education systems are not giving Islamophobia enough attention and I would stand with them stating firmly that Islamophobia is an evil form of discrimination that must be eliminated from the world. It is still however not racism. There are some exceptions though like when certain ETHNIC groups (usually Arabs or Indians) are attacked because they are presumed to be Muslim.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your last sentence is exactly what scholars in this field say is why these two are inseparable. Islamophobes don't hate Islam, they hate Muslims of color. You don't see attacks on White Muslims. You don't see profiling of White Muslims. Islamophobia is all about the intersection of race/ethnicity and religion. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If that is truly what you want in the article and why you want it in the category I agree with you. However, I have made edits trying to make that statement clear that racism only applied in those cases and they have been reverted time and time again. As can be seen the the reversion of this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamophobia&oldid=570619636&diff=prev that is clearly not what some editors are implying.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By the lack of response I'm assuming you don't understand what I'm asking or have no answer for it.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My lack of response was due to business. As for that revert, I completely agree with your edit and do not know why User:AndyTheGrump reverted it.  The Miss America 2013 case is a prime example of how the perceptions of the bigot matter, regardless of the true identity of the person.  EvergreenFir (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Modern scholars link Islamophobia as a form of racism. Stating that racism can only involve race is not supported by sources. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support It should certainly be included. In most English-speaking countries, there is a clear tie between Islamophobia and race/ethnicity.  Media depictions of Islam are overwhelmingly raced in that Islam is equated with people of color.  The attacks on the Sikh communities attests to the popular conflation of race/ethnicity and Islam in America.  Moreover, and perhaps more germane to WP, a simple search on EbscoHost (an academic article search engine) shows over 1000 hits for "Islmophobia" and "racism" searched together.  These include articles in journals such as Ethnic & Racial Studies, Sociological Review, and Race, Ethnicity & Education.  What's more, the idea that the two correlate has face validity, and I could likely find empirical support if you really want me to. Whether or not you personally agree with the general field's assessment or not, it's clear that there is a large community of academic scholars who see a theoretical link between the Islamophobia and racism in America and other English-speaking countries (and Western Europe in general, I might add).  As such, that is reason enough to include article within the racism category.  EvergreenFir (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This topic has a significant intersection with racism, as observed by many scholars. Whether they are right is not the question. Other scholars can argue the point, but because racism is on the table as a matter of scholarly debate, this article should be categorized as racism, among other things. Bear with me while I make a pop analogy: The biography of Jane Fonda categorizes her as an actress, as an exercise instructor, as a model, and as an anti-war activist. Fonda is not always an actress; just sometimes. She is not always an exercise instructor; just sometimes. She has not been a model for decades. Etc. Yet the categories are there because they are significant elements of Fonda's life. I see the same situation here, where racism is a significant element of Islamophobia. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that one can draw a parallel between a concept and an individual human being in this way. One may as well say one can draw a parallel between a concept and a musical form. Take, for instance, Sonata form: it is definitely the case that sometimes a piece of music in sonata form is definitely by Beethoven. It doesn't follow that every piece of music by Beethoven is in Sonata form, or that every piece in Sonata form is by Beethoven. Clearly it would be nonsense to claim that we should place the article Sonata form and all articles on works in that form in the category Ludwig van Beethoven. Alfietucker (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Regardless of whether we consider Islamophobia to actually be racist, the point is that there is a very lively debate surrounding it. This is such a contentious issue, with so many people on both sides of the argument, that it only makes sense to include the category. —  Richard  BB  14:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's similar to my reason for NOT including the category. We all know this is controversial, but categories are not supposed to be used to endorse or promote debated, controversial or disputed judgment calls.  Sometimes a new category is created for such disputed cases, but it's not a good idea for wikipedia continually to show its partiality and favoritism in this way based on the viewpoints of several editors. Seriously not a good idea, I predict you will never hear the end of it and it all goes downhill from there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's "controversial" in the academic sense that there is a current academic discussion of it. But it's clearly accepted by mainstream social science as an accepted theoretical argument.  As such, it deserves this category.  It is not an attempt to show favoritism, just an acknowledgement of the current science.  Also, you use a slippery slope argument, which is not sufficient to deny the category's inclusion. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority clearly is that Islamophobia is NOT racism. Whilst not exactly at the level of the theories that holocaust did not happen or Flat Earth theory, it is still a marginal minority view. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence for that? Judging by the number of sources it looks like a well supported classification even if there is no 100% support for it. // Liftarn (talk)
 * You are going to need to back your "overwhelming majority" claim up. I found hundreds of academic articles connecting Islamophobia with racism.  That sounds "overwhelming" to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per above Pass a Method   talk  17:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I’m sympathetic to the utilitarian advantages of listing the article in the racism category as has been noted by TFD, Dougweller, and Richard. I often use the categories to find articles that are fully or partially addressing a topic of interest. While I like it and find it used for other stuff I wasn’t sure if it was right and should be used here. That’s why I asked at the beginning of this RfC about the criteria of categorization. Now I see it is clearly stated, on the WP:Category page, that categorization should be by “essential—defining—characteristics of a topic” so that one “quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.” The point is forcefully emphasized in the Articles section: “A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.” Jason from nyc (talk)


 * The fact that racism is sometimes involved doesn’t allow us to put the article in that category. We need to show that racism is of the essence of Islamophobia. It must be part of the definition. It must always be the case. Alfietucker and Rainbowofpeace, among others, point out that isn’t the case. Do we have any reliable sources that say that “racism” is universally accepted as part and parcel of Islamophobia? Binksternet gives us a few sources that do see racism inherently a part of Islamophobia but are they indicative of the researchers in the field? Is it universally accepted? Jason from nyc (talk)


 * It turns out that “racism” is not universally accepted as part of the definition of Islamophobia in the literature. Iblardi notes this above when he/she wrote:


 * If it is not categorically true that Islamophobia is defined as a type of racism, it isn’t right to put it into the category. WP:Category tells us that “Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial.” I can jest and say two years of debating the matter in these talk pages suggests otherwise. However, the point isn’t that we find it controversial or not but that the sources find it uncontroversial; and the above quote shows us that it is highly controversial among scholars. That racism may sometimes be involved is not the question. Implying that it is always involved is an overgeneralization or in the jargon of modern sociology “essentializing.” Reliable sources do not universally and uncontroversially agree that “racism” is of the essence of Islamophobia. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are setting up a situation in which any single scholar or expert observer can veto the connection between racism and Islamophobia, even if hundreds point out the connection. This is not how it works. The connection between racism and Islamophobia need only be a matter of mainstream scholarly debate (as is the case) before we can determine that it is a central concept. If some fringe scholars were saying it was racism, and the mainstream scholars were ignoring it as not worthy of discussion, then my !vote would be against having this article appear in the category of racism. However, the case with Islamophobia is not that any scholar completely dismisses racism. Rather, the scholars are debating how much there is of an intersection; very little or a whole lot. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You’re saying that A, B, and C call it is racism (quote box above). From that we can only conclude about A, B, and C. I’m saying that X, Y, and Z describe the controversy in the whole field in regards to the role of racism. From that we can say something about the whole field. Racism’s role is controversial and not generally accepted as an essential of the phenomenon of Islamophobia. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Yet another attempt by ideologically driven editors to conflate something they regard as really, really bad with something almost everyone regards as really, really bad so as to bring that something into further disrepute. Lets see the progression: Anti-Islamic sentiments = Islamophobia (sounds like a psychological disorder) = Racism (can't get any worse that that these days). Badmintonhist (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything other than "I don't like it" to support your position? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in part. However I'm also trying to say that Religious discrimination and Racism are equally bad and devastating. Which hurts more seeing a black person die, a Jew, a Muslim, a homosexual? The answer is all of them hurt. Just because Islamophobia is not racism doesn't mean its not bad. Discrimination is bad.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just an appeal to emotion and amounts to WP:IDL. Others have given strong support for the inclusion of this category based on scholarly research.  Can you please provide support for your position (e.g., scholars arguing the clear separation of these two phenomena)?  EvergreenFir (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC
 * To young EvergreenFir, these semantic leaps have little to do with scholarship and tons to do with politics which you will notice after you've been around a little longer. I don't like seeing language debased in the service of political ideology. The "scholars" cited for conflations like this one are inevitably politically motivated. I'm sure there are plenty of "scholars" in Islamic nations who would still adhere to the 1970's UN formulation that "Zionism is racism." Calling something racism is basically what we do in modern times when we really, really don't like it. By the way, for every scholar who might have called anti-Islamic sentiments "racism" there are probably hundreds of scholars who don't even bother to dignify such idiocy by commenting on the subject. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are based on published sources. They are not based on the imagined opinions of imagined people who supposedly don't comment on subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh really! What are the scholarship requirements for determining this issue? How does one earn a degree in deciding what constitutes racism and then whether prejudice against the Islamic religion would qualify as such? Would anti-Catholicism also be racism? I'm sure that many scholars or at least academics have accused the US Republican party of being racist, probably far more than have explicitly said that it isn't racist. Should we then place the racism category under our article  the Republican party? No, the fact that a number of academics have conflated anti-Islamic sentiments with racism doesn't require us to acquiesce to their politics. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The academic subjects in question would be sociology and/or anthropology. One gains a degree as in other subjects, by studying the relevant material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Really. Why not psychology? Wouldn't experts on the human mind, psychologists and psychiatrists, be the relevant experts here? No, none of them are any more qualified than you and I. This is all quite subjective. If you think "Islamophobia" should be placed in the racism category by all means vote that way, but don't pretend that some academics saying that the two are linked requires us to do so. That's utter nonsense. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Psychology studies personality more than culture. But you are incorrect, about a number of things.  This is not a vote.  Wikipedia is not governed by popular opinion.  Wikipedia does not only include mainstream or "common sense" ideas.  It's an encyclopedia.  As such, it is meant to reflect the current state of human understanding.  Those who are experts, who live and breath this issue, who understand the data and theories, suggest that Islamophobia and racism are integrally linked.  You, an armchair philosopher, do not because it does appeal to your worldview.  That's fine, but we are not required to cater to your personal, un/undereducated opinion on the matter. If you wish to constructively contribute to this discussion by providing information related to the current state of understanding of this phenomenon, by all means do so.  But your repeated I don't like it and incivility are not constructive and do not further this discussion or the goals of Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, just as those who "lived and breath" the issue of whether "Zionism is racism" tended to arrive at the conclusion that surprise, surprise!!, WHY IT IS RACISM!! Yeah, when you collect a bunch of similarly minded ideologues together, rather than "mainstream" folks who are wise enough not to even consider such ideologically manufactured issues, you tend to come up with the conclusion that the ideologues wanted to reach all along. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So far you have come up with precisely zero verifiable evidence to support your arguments. I think it is safe to assume that accordingly, the person closing this RfC will assign them the weight due - i.e. none whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2013

Come on now, Andy, let's avoid personal attacks. LOL Badmintonhist (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that your arguments are entirely unaccompanied by evidence is not a 'personal attack'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - it seems a category like Category:Racism could be applied to all sorts of articles one could name as some kind of a political statement that would obviously be controversial. With this category (Racism) we should err on the side of caution and with respect to the page that says categories should not be used to make a point. This seems to be in line with what Badmintonhist is saying too. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion about 'all sorts of articles'. It is about this one. And adding a category because multiple reliable sources suggest that it is relevant is not 'making a point'. Unless the point being made is that this is an encyclopaedia, intended to cover topics in a manner consistent with reliable sources from the relevant field, and that it is not a platform for the promotion of the uninformed opinions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If You want a specific policy how about WP:DUE? Do any of those "scholars" cited by Binksternet and others have a Wiki bio about them here? Are they significantly cited as reliable sources for a variety of Wikipedia articles? 03:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wish to dispute the credentials of the sources cited, I suggest that you ask at WP:RSN - though before you do, I suggest you actually familiarise yourself with the relevant policy. There is no requirement whatsoever that an academic has a Wikipedia article before being cited as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was but are we talking about heavyweight academics here just or about some recently available folks from which to cherry pick the OBVIOUSLY recent notion (since the term "Islomophobia" is so recent it is still being red lined by spell-check) that Islamophobia is a form racism? Badmintonhist (talk)

Why this is very interesting! The second sentence of our article: The term Islamophobia is highly contested, and lacks a clear definition according to academics such as Chris Allen Now if that's the case, stated prominently in our lead, why would we be so eager to assume that it's largely about racism? This makes no sense to me. Shouldn't we allow the article to mature gradually rather than racing to create more controversy about the term.? Badmintonhist (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point. Wiki's criteria (re WP:CATEGORY) is that it should be uncontroversial. That Islamophobia is categorically racism is highly controversial. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That sentence was added very recently and is not supported by sources. // Liftarn (talk)


 * Opposite I think even in cases of Boniaks or Hui people they can be non-muslims as well. And quite the opposite, it is often that muslim majority countries which treat non-muslims the distinct peoples. Liberals fail to see that, but I could be wrong. Not to mention the dhimmi status under the historical sharia which many muslims call to restore, just the Egyptian ID listed a citizen as Muslims, Christians, or Jews, pose much problem for Bahais or Hindus or even Christians. They've been there in Pharaoh's time by now often targets of violent radicals. Malaysia, a moderate and democratic countries, would have the ethnic Malays status revoked after they convert to another religion, of course it is much moderate than those which kill the apostates. And their judges just barring Christians to use the word Allah despite the fact that the Church has established long before the birth of Mohammed. Pakistan, another democratic country, has passed a bunch of laws over years to restrict the Ahmadis. O may I call these racism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1636 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a new and controversial term whose meaning is imprecise and disputed according to academics cited in the second sentence of our article, but WE are gonna go ahead and place it firmly in our "Racism" category. That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Badmintonhist (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Category inclusion is all or nothing. No additional clarifications, no footnotes, its in category 100%. So pretty obviously including article in controversial category like "racism" (or "terrorism" or "war crimes" etc.) should be clear cut situation. This doesn't seem to be case here.--Staberinde (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per above arguments, I think WP:Category is clear: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." This article's brief section on racism (and this whole discussion) suggest that this issue is controversial.
 * I'm personally persuaded by those arguing that Category pages should be navigational aids erring on the side of inclusion, and I would be amenable to a rethinking of the Category guidelines. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suport - per reasons above. Most of the arguments against inclusion are spurious and tantamount to wikilawyering. StuffandTruth (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: per discussions above. Also, CATEGORY makes it clear that, in general, Categorizations should not be controversial and should not "spark controversy". Thanks !! ← Abstruce  12:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Til Eulenspiegel. Clearly a minority view.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Makes it seem as if WP is giving its imprimatur to a contentious label. IronDuke  23:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - having read more on the subject, I agree with IronDuke that WP should not give its imprimatur to a contentious label. I'm particularly suspicious of the circular argument that those who object to or criticise the label are themselves racist: where does that leave Kenan Malik, for instance? Alfietucker (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Runnymede definition—inherently flawed?
Our article says: ''the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, [the] fear and dislike of all Muslims". . .''

Isn't it a logical fallacy to say, for example, that if I think Anglicanism is a "silly" religion therefore I must also think that all Anglicans are "silly" people? (Apologies in advance if this has already been addressed in the archived discussions, and, apologies to my Anglican brethren and sistren for using them as an example). --71.163.153.146 (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTFORUM. If you want to debate supposed 'logical fallacies', you must do so elsewhere - this article, like any other in Wikipedia, is based on published reliable sources, and not on the opinions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(Serious responses only, please!) IP 71.163.153.146 The Grumpier.  (--71.163.153.146 (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC))

SIOE as a copycat of SIOA?
3.2 begins with a description of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and another American group. The first paragraph ends with "The organisation spawned copycat organisations such as Stop Islamisation of Europe.[citation needed]"

I don't think the [citation needed] even needs to be there. The sentence is just plain wrong. Even the page for SIOA says "It was founded in 2010 at the request of Anders Gravers Pedersen, the leader of Stop Islamisation of Europe, of which it is the American affiliate." SIOE, for the record, was at least three years old at that point according to their Wikipedia page.

Permission to just delete the sentence?

70.239.5.142 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree, but it's only been a month since the CN was added. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Slash Direction in Islamophobia icon
The "No symbol" (circle-and-slash) on the "No-mosque.svg" symbol for Islamophobia is backwards. The slash should always go \. I often make this mistake too— but do a Google Images search on "no smoking signs", and it's \'s but only occasional /'s. The article "No symbol" explains how a \ is the international standard. (The reverse directionality of Arabic isn't an issue— Google Images search on «» shows generally \'s.) I hope this can help spiff up Wikipedia a bit. —Sburke (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Word Breakdown
The word "Islamophobia" is made up of the word "Islam" the joining "o" and the word "phobia". "In Arabic, the word 'Islam' means submission or surrender" and phobia is defined as a "fear". Shouldn't this be clearly stated at the top of the article? That this word essentially means "A fear of submitting or surrendering". Yes, Islam is either a religion or a political movement (depending on perspective), going more for the word meaning here. 101.170.213.64 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct meaning of islamofobia
In the beginning of the article it is stated that "islamofobia generally to refer to prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of Muslims" This is not correct. Forbia means fear of therefore islamofobia means "fear of islam" and NOT hatred or prejudice. I strongly suggest that the text in the article is corrected as the word hatred and prejudice supports the claims of some muslims that the rest of the world hate them and have prejustice against muslims, when the fact is that the surge in suicide bombing and terrorist attacks by fundamental islamic groups has caused fear and not hatred against islam (Arneessa (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC))


 * See etymological fallacy. The subject of our article is Islamophobia as it is currently understood by reliable academic sources, rather than being based on a simplistic analysis of what contributors think the word ought to mean. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussed many times. The meaning of a term does not necessarily accurately reflect the words that compose it.  Hence West Indians and do not come from India, Siamese cats can be born in the U.S., sea horses are not horses.  TFD (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While it may not technically be accurate this is what reliable sources use. It's the same reason that we use xenophobia and homophobia etc and why the same argument has been rejected on the homophobia page as well.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Kenan Malik
We have a lengthy section about the views of Kenan Malik and the only source is "Malik (2009): p. 132". A better description of the source and how it is notable would be nice. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Fair enough. Before adding more, I'll just check critical response to the source (From Fatwa to Jihad) to see what might be mentioned on that front. Alfietucker (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, if that is the source it should perhaps say so. The question remains if it is notable enough. If we should have long sections where everyone who has ever written or said anything on the subject the article would be very long. // Liftarn (talk)
 * The source was given in the citation, but I've now named it in the actual text. The book, published in 2009, has been widely and positively reviewed (The Observer, Washington Post, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, Sunday Times etc), but perhaps saying so here is WP:UNDUE - I'll consider whether some comments from these reviews should be included in the Kenan Malik article. Alfietucker (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I still haven't seen any sign of notability and sine Malik is a layman I will remove it as non-notable unless something to prove the notability is shown. I have tried google and most hits are various blogs. // Liftarn (talk)
 * To disregard a view by an academic, published in a book which has been widely and respectfully reviewed by the quality press, simply because he is, in the view of an editor, "a layman", seems highly specious. Are you seriously suggesting that only fully-paid-up-and-qualified sociologists (as opposed to any other academic discipline) are able to comment on the term Islamophobia and its use? In which case we'd have to remove a great deal of material in the article as it is; and, with due respect, the term is no longer purely in the purview of tenured academics. And are you quite sure there's a Wikipedia policy to support your claim that Kenan Malik's comments should be removed? Alfietucker (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He is not an academic in a relevant field (he is neurobiologist) so yes, he is a layman in this field. So unless he is in some other way notable (none have been given yet and googling found nothing either). Would you also claim Robert Faurisson as a reliable source on the Holocaust since he's an academic? // Liftarn (talk)
 * Comparing the term "Islamophobia" - essentially a concept/label along the lines of "Homophobia" - with a historic event such as the Holocaust is a total non-starter. Alfietucker (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether an opinion is significant. Qualifications do not mean that every word that proceedeth out of one's mouth is necessarily important enough to include.  Incidentally, homosexuals were also persecuted during the holocaust.  TFD (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Qualifications do not mean that every word that proceedeth out of one's mouth is necessarily important enough to include" - glad to agree with you there. The fact Malik's book is widely read, respected or at the very least noted (see here, here and here) goes rather a long way to suggest that his comments are more noteworthy than that of "qualified" but generally unheard academics, particularly on an issue which affects the everyday Western world today. Alfietucker (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think anonymous comments at an online bookstore is a reliable source. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Liftarn, did you bother to click the Amazon link I provided? If so, you'd see it led to a browse book function - though not, unfortunately, the page I wanted to link to (for some reason the book is not browsable on Googlebooks). No matter, my point has been adequately made by the other links I've provided (see below). Alfietucker (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

None of your sources quote Malik on islamophobia. We have for example sources that say the Runnymede Trust definition is the most widely accepted, and then explain what that view is. You need to find a similar source for Malik. You do not need to show that his views are the most widely held, merely that they are significant. TFD (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK - how about this from Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century (OUP, 2011), this from Xenophobia and Islamophobia in Europe (Edinburgh University Press, 2012) and this from Unsettling Sikh and Muslim Conflict by Katy Sian (Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), which explicitly states "One of the most influential academic criticisms of the concept of Islamophobia has been advanced by Kenan Malik (2005).". Alfietucker (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first link is to a bibliography of hundreds of articles - it does not say what weight should be applied to this one. I am only commenting upon your first hit because I do not want to encourage editors to present google searches and ask me to do their research for them.  TFD (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, that last reference shows Malik is indeed respected as an academic critic in this area by some in the sociology community. Sian's book actually can help us expand our article beyond a Euro-centric focus, but that's another point. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD - my intention was to try to give links to relevant pages: I'm sorry the first link (for Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century (OUP, 2011)) didn't do so, and that your WP:AGF faltered as a result. The first reference I was intending to link to (and didn't type out - I have RL work to do as well) is on p. 67, and starts: "Political activist and social commentator Kenan Malik has also rejected the idea of Islamophobia in the influential essay "The Islamophobia Myth". In that same paragraph devoted to Malik, it later says, "The charge of Islamophobia can be potentially utilized as a vehicle to suppress discussion, as well as disapproval, of the cultural traditions of certain Muslims and their societies." Alfietucker (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It would probably be better to use that source (the essay) in describing his views, because it explains what aspects are significant.  TFD (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that no source still haven't been given to support that those quotes have received any independent third party coverage. Thus they are still not notable. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Sorry, but this seems an unreasonable expectation - that every quote should have "independent third party coverage". I have already provided evidence of Kenan Malik's notability and recognition in this field; and the quotes given are from a often cited published book. I am not aware of there being any need of further qualification for including a quote, other than that it is pertinent to the article (which the quotes from Malik certainly are). Alfietucker (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As he is not an expert in the field and his strawman have received no independent cover it obviously not notable. // Liftarn (talk)

LSE definition
A paragraph after all of the definitions and etymological debate is about a definition by the LSE Students' Union. Is this due: for example, is their definition one of the most well-recognised and quoted, or is it just another one? Áccénté Áígúé (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It should not be included unless there is evidence that it has received substantial coverage in the literature. TFD (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Integrationsverket's definition
I removed this from the "Definitions" section: Integrationsverket defined Islamophobia as "racism and discrimination expressed towards Muslims. These expressions can result in violence and threats or by excluding Muslims." because (a) there's no reason to think that this is a reliable source for a definition, (b) even if it is reliable the definition isn't that different from the other definitions given,m and (c) the last sentence, "These expressions can result in violence and threats or by excluding Muslims." is (i) not part of a definition and (ii) pure speculation and, whatever its place anywhere, does not belong in a definition. Thoughts?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Integrationsverket (the integration board) is a govenment agency so I would say they are reliable. // Liftarn (talk)

Unannounced education project?
Was this page set upon by undergraduates at some point? There's an awful lot of idiocy in here of just the type they like to insert. More news soon.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

EUMC material removed from lead
I removed this paragraph from the lead as it seems far too specific. It's plausible that the EUMC report should be mentioned in the lead, but I'd like to see something more in line with the appropriate weight due this report. I'm not arguing for the amount of weight due specifically, but this much, cited essentially to the report itself, makes me suspicious. In May 2002, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a European Union watchdog, released a report entitled "Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001", which described an increase in Islamophobia-related incidents in European member states post-9/11. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What does it mean for a word to be "valid"?
We have this sentence in the lead: "The causes and characteristics of Islamophobia and the validity of the term itself are still debated. I have no problem with the first half of the sentence.  I don't understand the second half.  What in the world could it mean to say that a word is "valid" or "not valid"?  Validity is a quality that arguments may have or lack, not words.  I don't even understand what claim is being made.  If someone actually understands what an attempt at saying is being made here, let's change it.  If no one does, let's delete it.  What part of the body of the article does it reflect, anyway?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My guess would be that people are still arguing the etymological fallacy saying that it's not about "fear". But it might be referring to Islamophobia and Islamophobia. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be right. But I've never thought it made sense. I'm for deleting it. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I just took out this much: "and the validity of the term itself" as the minimal possible amount to remove so that the sentence is sensical and arguably true. If anyone who can figure out what it's supposed to mean has a proposal we can figure out what to do with it then, I think.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It should have read "validity of the concept and the definition of the term are still debated" but it was shortened. We have largely deferred to academic debates over the legitimacy of the concept, its use and misuse, proposals for redefinition or abandonment, etc. Taking this out of the 1st paragraph changes the emphasis of the lead but moving-up another sentence restores that emphasis. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that that particular edit of yours is fine, by the way.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)