Talk:Islamophobia

Template:Skip to talk Template:Talk header Template:Wpbs Template:Notaforum Template:Calm talk Template:Oldafdmulti Template:Controversial

Islamophobia bill in Belgium

There has been talk on recent years of Belgium criminalizing 'Islamophobia' [1].

According to the authors of the resolution, a person would be guilty of Islamophobia if he or she:

• Considers Islam to be a single monolithic bloc, closed and static, incapable of adapting to new situations;
• Considers Islam to be separate and "different," devoid of having any aims or shared values ​​with other cultures, not influenced by other cultures and not influencing other cultures;
• Considers Islam to be inferior to the West, to be barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist;
• Considers Islam to be violent, threatening and supportive of terrorism, actively engaged in a 'clash of civilizations';
• Considers Islam to be a political ideology, used for political and military purposes to establish its hegemony;
• Rejects out of hand criticisms made by Islam of 'the West';
• Shows hostility towards Islam to justify discrimination and social exclusion of Muslims;
• Accepts hostility toward Muslims as natural and normal.

This definition of Islamophobia, which is based on a 1997 report published by the London-based Runnymede Trust, would effectively outlaw any critical discussion of Islam in Belgium under the guise of combatting racism.

Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

criminalizing 'Islamophobia' should be added to the article. Why hasn't it?

Thank you OxAO (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC) (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?— 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#Debate_on_the_term_and_its_limitations and Islamophobia#Proposed alternatives. 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.— 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.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:41, 11 March 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."<ref>[http://motargument.se/2014/02/23/terminologi-islamofobi/ Terminologi – islamofobi] ''"rasistiska och diskriminerande uttryck gentemot muslimer. Dessa uttryck kan resultera i våld och hot eller genom exkludering av muslimer."''</ref>

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?— 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.— 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.<ref name="Greaves 2004 p. 133">Greaves (2004) p. 133 *[[Chris Allen (academic)|Allen, Chris]]; Nielsen, Jorgen S.; Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001 (May 2002), EUMC.</ref>

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

History of the term

I removed this:

</nowiki> Richardson states that the first English print usage was Edward Said's 1985 article "Orientalism Reconsidered". Another early documented use of the word was by the American news magazine Insight on the News in 1991, used to describe Russian activities in Afghanistan, and this is the usage listed by the Oxford English Dictionary. </nowiki>

because whoever Richardson is, he/she has it wrong. The word is first attested to in English per OED in 1923. Furthermore, "the usage listed by" the OED is wrong in a number of ways. There are multiple attestations in the OED, so the definite article is wrong, and this is not amongst them, so that claim is wrong too. I replaced it with correct information cited to the actual OED.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine for the history section. But the obscure and rare usage of the term before the 1990s is less important than the influence of the Runnymede Trust report (RTR) for the current definition, widespread usage, and recent debate. Almost all studies touch base with the RTR. Thus, the lead is better served by restoring the influence of the RTR for the subject as currently debated. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This sentence: As currently used, the term entered contemporary discourse with the publication of the Runnymede Trust's report in 1997. Is manifestly unacceptable. First of all, it's manifestly false. Note the OED has this example from the Times of London in 1994: 1994 Times 28 June 21/5, I suspect that Islamophobia, under the guise of fundamentalist scaremongering, is being deliberately promoted in the overseas media. This is one instance amongst others quoted there that are earlier than the Runnymede Trust report. Second, even if it were true, it's far too trivial for the first paragraph of the lead section.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources overwhelmingly refer to the RTR as the source of the current usage and its widespread usage. Remember, as you pointed out, this is not an article about the term but the concept. It's not a dictionary but an encyclopedia article on the idea and phenomena as sources tell us. Rare usages before the RTR are interesting as historical background but the modern era really starts with the RTR as most sources note (usually in their first page.) It's not clear the lead has to say anything about the history of the word. However, so many of the sources use the RTR as a spring board that if some piece of history is included in the lead, surely it should be the RTR. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you give sources that say that and/or add material about it to the body of the article to support its prominence in the lead? As the article stands now I don't see how such a sentence is supportable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few of the sources we use. They mention the occasion usage of the word prior to Runnymede, but for them the subject really starts in the 1990s with Runnymede playing a major role in the subject in the mind of the public and scholars:

[2] change in meaning in the 1990s; Runnymede mentioned in 1st paragraph

[3] 1st sentence: Runnymede

[4] See title

I can't go into the books right now but I remember the same emphasis. The subject takes off post Runnymede. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The first source there says "The term has been used increasingly amongst political circles and the media, and even Muslim organizations, especially since the 1997 Runnymede Report" This doesn't support the sentence we now have in the lead because of the hedge "especially."

The second source says in 2006 that "Widely accepted as the definition of Islamophobia, and given the report’s impact, it might come as some surprise that only five years ago, the term and concept of Islamophobia had little discursive relevance or value beyond the UK." That would be in 2001. The source is silent on the use of the term in the UK prior to 2001, so it also doesn't support the sentence we currently have in the lead.

The third source says "The term came to be formally coined and defined in a report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All, published in the United Kingdom in 1997 by the Runnymede Trust" This is factually wrong, so I don't see why we should believe anything it says about it. I know that Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus is fallacious in some contexts, but if we're relying on a source for information about the usage of a word and it's flat-out wrong about when the word was coined, I don't see how we can consider it reliable.

I'm not opposed to talking about the influence of the report on the use of the word, but I think we need to find a more nuanced way to do it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying the word was originated by Runnymede and neither is anyone else. They stress Runnymede's role in setting the terms of the debate. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Read our section “History of the term.” The word was used in many ways. Chris Allen notes it was used by fundamentalists to criticize liberal Muslims. Others found similar usages to current usage (anti-Muslim bigotry) but that was in retrospect. There is little continuity according to our sources as the word seems to be re-invented as needed. The exceptions you found are interesting as few people, prior to 9/11, talked about Islamic terrorism. It was always Arab terrorism. The common complaint in the US was about anti-Arab prejudice. In the UK is was very different (as a few of our sources point out.) The UK had a large Pakistani immigrant class that was too often an underclass. Here xenophobia was at play. In the US, Muslims tend to be more successful and middle class (voted Republican prior to 9/11 with 70-90% voting for Bush) than the general population. Thus, the growth of the subject in the UK when there was little usage of the word in the US. Our sources document changes in the word in each decade. We can do original research and note the growth of the usage in the decades before; but our sources give Runnymede an important role in advancing the concept and subject, even when they criticize Runnymede. Again, we need not mention the history of the evolution of the term at all. But if we do, it seems undue weight to pick the occasional use in 1923 or 1980. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I realize you're not saying that the term originated with Runnymede, you're saying As currently used, the term entered contemporary discourse with the publication of the Runnymede Trust's report in 1997. When I argued above that the sources you provided don't support the sentence, I meant this sentence. They don't support it. The first says "especially since the report." That's very different from "the term entered contemporary discourse with the report." The second says that before 2001 the term was little heard outside the UK. That's silent on whether the term entered contemporary discourse with the report. The third thinks the term was invented by the report. That's just wrong. We don't have to discuss the evolution of the term. In fact, I'm not so very convinced that the term evolved all that much, but in any case, I don't think we have good sources for discussing the evolution of the term. I just don't want it stated as a fact that "the term entered contemporary discourse with the report" when that's so obviously untrue and we don't have sources which support it in my opinion. We can probably work something out based on your first source, but I would really like to see us get the sense of the "especially" in there. That seems right to me. It was in contemporary discourse before the report, but the use increased in the mid 1990s, especially after the report. Like that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

All of this is getting too far into the realm of original research. We have conflicting sources in front of us, so it would not be wise to try and establish an official history, in the absence of such an official history stated by multiple sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And how do you see that playing out in practical terms with respect to the lead section?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

He favors leaving it out (see his edit) and I'm inclined to agree. It always struck me as specifically British and not universal. While Runnymede may be important in furthering the use of the word, that may now be less important to the lead. But I'm open to arguments that it should be in the lead. User talk:Rainbowofpeace, below brings up the topic of a neologism. It's long been in the lead so I assumed there was a strong consensus for it as WP:NEOLOGISM is an issue for Wikipedia. Thus, we've removed all history of the origin, rise, and common use of the term. But perhaps its time for that to go. There are more important matters for the lead, especially given the large number of controversies about the concept and its use. We selected one in the lead paragraph (racism), I added another. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, maybe you misunderstand me. I've stated very clearly that I believe it is not a neologism. The usage goes back at least to 1982 which as I've said below is the same time another word which is heavily controversial for similar reasons was introduced (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome aka AIDS). Both of these words are about 32 years old. There have been a ton of words that have been established in that time period. Do you really think we need to jeopardize Wikipedia by listing what would surely amount to at least thousands of articles as neologisms? I STRONGLY advise against that for this issue. 32 years is older than I am by 10 years.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing last night. There's no reason to call it a neologism. As you say, many if not most words are neologisms. We're not going over to quark, neurosis, or t-cell and trying to force the descriptor "neologism" into their leads. I can just imagine it: Sure, your bombs blow up, but, after all, "thermonuclear" is a neologism.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Uses of term prior to Runnymede Report

NB these links are super-unstable. If they're not working right try again or close tab before opening next. I can provide quotes if necessary.

• 1990
• 1991
• 1993
• 1994 (the one the OED mentions
• 1995
• 1995
• 1995
• 1995

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A few more:

• 1976 (possibly an alternate meaning, hard to tell from context)
• 1982
• 1985 (the famous Said source)
• 1988
• 1994
• 1995
• 1996
• 1996
• 1996
• 1996
• 1996

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Google ngram viewer data

It doesn't seem to be possible to get raw numbers out of this thing, although maybe I'm missing something, and obviously we can't tell the sense in which the word is used, and it's true there's a spike in 1997, but really, I don't think the assertion that the Runnymede thing was the beginning of the modern usage is tenable at all:

• ngram data for "Islamophobia" from 1985 to 1996
• ngram data for "Islamophobia" from 1985 to present

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is fairly ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that the word existed and was used before the Runnymede Report. Does that mean I'm debating that the Runnymede Report brought it center stage and made the world more aware. No. Absolutely not. However I think that the purpose of those wanting the Runnymede Report to be the starting point is to attempt to make it appear to be a neologism. I'm sorry but we have definite sources going back to 82 and a possible going back to 76. And realistically we have words that are newer than that which don't face the same scrutiny such as AIDS was also first used in 1982. The fact of the matter is I do believe that usage before the Runnymede Report was rare but most certainly existent and therefore think it should be mentioned in the history of the term.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversies in the lead

According to WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." We mention that there are controversies and discuss one: racism. However, equally prominent in our article is the misuse of the word to suppress criticism of Islamism.

On Islamism we have “Cesari writes that "academics are still debating the legitimacy of the term and questioning how it differs from other terms such as racism, anti-Islamism, …” “Islamophobia is sometimes misused, those who claim that hatred of Muslims is justified as opposition to Islamism actually undermine the struggle against Islamism.” “Roger Kimball argues that the word “Islamophobia” is inherently a prohibition or fear of criticizing of radical Islam.” ”… warning against the use of the term Islamophobia to prevent criticism of "Islamic totalitarianism”. “… the term was invented … in order to denounce what he feels is legitimate criticism …”

My recent edit, reverted by Doug, was to give a fully description of the controversies and not just arbitrarily single out one. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What I reverted was "Commentators charge its been abused to suppress criticism of Islamism." Besides the grammar ('its' is possessive, 'it's' is a contraction which we wouldn't use), I don't see how that is a summary. We already have "both the term and the underlying concept have been criticized. Scholars have defined it as a type of racism, but this has been contested." So we are saying clearly that term and concept are criticized in the 2nd sentence of the lead. Your Cesari quote says nothing about suppression of criticism. I don't understand how your sentence relates to the second quote - perhaps you can clarify that. Kimball doesn't mention Islamism. And Bruckner is talking about Islamic fundamentalists in the 1970s, not the current use of the term by non-"Islamic fundamentalists" - in fact the Bruckner bit might be better elsewhere - it seem more about the history of the term. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to use the Paul Jackson quote, not the Cesari quote. Here's what our article says about Jackson: "Paul Jackson, in a critical study of the anti-Islamic English Defence League, argues that the term Islamophobia creates a stereotype where “any criticism of Muslim societies [can be] dismissed ...” The term feeds “a language of polarised polemics ... to close down discussion on genuine areas of criticism ...” Consequently, the term is “losing much [of its] analytical value”." Jason from nyc (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

They don't all use the term "Islamism." Some use "radical Islam." However, they are all making the same point (except Cesari who makes a more general point about the relationship) that the term "Islamophobia" is abused to suppress critical assessment of fundamentalism, radicalism, political Islam, or Islamism. I'm not quoting them; I'm summarizing their view that the term is used to suppress critical debate. How would you phrase it? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

I think some mention of the information is justified because there's a lot in the body about this. We had "Commentators charge its been abused to suppress criticism of Islamism." How about something like "Commentators charge that the concept of Islamophobia has been abused to marginalize criticism of Islamism by conflating it with prejudice against Muslims."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and inline with much of what is said in the article. I'm not wedded to the word Islamism as opposed to "more radical variants of Islam." However some would say that Islamism isn't a bona fide variant of Islam. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarise the article. No question about that or that at the moment it leaves stuff out. This is probably among the things that need to be included, and that's a better version. Although Jason brings up an interesting point, I think 'radical variants' is better.

Can me move the Bruckner stuff? Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. "Radical variants" is better. I don't like the word "Islamism" for very many reasons anyway, not least of which is that people who use it want to criticize the word "Islamophobia" while committing the etymological fallacy but refuse to see that their arguments used on "Islamism" would render it meaningless.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's go with that. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources in the lead

Teaksmitty wants to take this: The causes and characteristics of Islamophobia are still debated. Some commentators have posited an increase in Islamophobia resulting from the September 11 attacks while others have associated it with the increased presence of Muslims in the Western world. out of the lead because it's not sourced. Here they take it out again with the edit summary Everything need a source.

Now, WP:LEADCITE says: Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Now, there is a citation for every part of that removed material in the body of the article. Sometimes more than one citation. Do we need to put them in the lead again? Why? Is the material so very hard to find in the body of the article? Perhaps Teaksmitty can explain what part of the removed material is so problematic that it needs to be cited in the lead because it's not adequately supported in the body? How do others feel about cluttering up the lead with inline cites?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The lead section is a summary of facts in the article body. As far as that is true, the lead section need not be supported by references. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Item I removed from see also but failed to replace in external links

Is this: *''Islam: The Arab Imperialism'' ([http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=790 book available online]) It seems to fail inclusion criteria for both "Further reading" section and "External links" section due to being self-published propaganda. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 April 2014

I do not object to having links to notable islamophobic texts, because they are of value to students of the subject. I do not know if this book which was by a prominent islamophobe, Anwar Shaikh, is sufficiently notable. TFD (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Neologism

Wouldn't "Islamaphobia" be correctly classified as a political neologism? Kezzer16 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It would have been when it was first used, as would every other political term. It is included in "Category:Political neologisms". Why do you ask? TFD (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Simply because it's not anywhere on this article. Kezzer16 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

See archives. [5] Note in particular the long list of usages of the term in this discussion [6] which demonstrates that the word is in everyday usage in sources which don't feel obliged to explain that the word is a neologism. Incidentally,the earliest use of the word in its modern sense that we've been able to locate seems to date back to 1970, [7] suggesting that as neologisms go, it isn't exactly new... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)