Talk:Islamophobia in the British Conservative Party

Blackman allegations

They should be in the article once. Twice is undue. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Recentism tag

As stated in the edit summary, 4 of 18 of the sources are from 2018 and none are before 2016. This therefore seems to legitimise the existence of a recentism tag. Alssa1 (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alssa1: I have to say I agree. I originally created this article as a SPINOFF of Racism in the UK Conservative Party (debatable as to whether Islamophobia is racism), but as with Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, the issue has only recently come to the forefront of British politics. I have considered changing the title to include the dates (e.g. Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (2016–present), but I'm not sure. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bangalamania: I agree with many of your statements here; particularly that of the name change to something along the lines of Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (2016–present). However to bring it away from a discussion of recentism, I do believe we do need to draw a distinction between criticism of Islam/Radical Islam/Salafism-Wahhabism and Islamaphobia (although I do concede the lines are in many cases blurred). Alssa1 (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alssa1: So sorry for the late reply. I agree that a distinction between the two should be made, but most of the articles which relate to this scandal don't go into much discussion on that and tend to focus on the Islamophobia aspect, particularly 2018 onwards. I have changed the title as there doesn't seem to be any objections to it, and have removed the recentism tag as a result. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Possibly useful sources

• https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/25/the-tories-are-institutionally-islamophobic-miqdaad-versi-takes-on-mps-and-the-media Zazpot (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/29/lady-warsi-says-she-fears-michael-gove-becoming-pm Zazpot (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

One more: Facebook posts about Sajid Javid deepen Tory Islamophobia row Doug Weller talk 19:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Political partisanship

While this articles does address some real issues, there is a heavy problem of misplaced political partisanship from a pro-Labour Party point of view here.

Boris Johnson has ridiculed the niqab (while still saying he is opposed to a ban), true, while Emily Thornberry of the Labour Party has said she wouldn't want a woman in Islamic dress "looking after her child". Leading Labour Party members regularly attack Britain's relationship with the Arab states of the Gulf (especially Saudi Arabia), who are Muslim and have even called for Brunei to be thrown out of the Commonwealth for adhering to Islamic law. As far as I am aware, there is no Labour equivelent of the Conservative Middle East Council which supports maintaining strong relationships between Britain and Muslim countries (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, etc). Labour foreign policy also brought Britain into the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, conflicts criticised by many British Muslims.

Similarly, on a whole (with the exception of Gove), the views of Conservatives are closer to Muslims on issues of what children should be taught in schools regarding sexuality and gender (while Labour across the board supports the teaching of LGBT to children). There are some real issues of Islamophobia and hostility to Muslims from Tories, particularly the Israel first and some xenophobic elements, but the article as it stands is simply a political propaganda shill for the Labour Party, who also have problems. I propose a broader and more generic Islamophobia in British politics articles where we can have a more balanced approach. Ishbiliyya (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the Thornberry comment, none of these seem to show Islamophobia in Labour. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Singling out Muslim countries as supposedly "backwards" or "barbaric" (completely subjective concepts) just because they adhere to Islamic law is literally Islamophobia. There are numerous examples of leading Labour Party representatives doing this in regards to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states especially and now also the hysterical anti-Brunei campaign. If an entire article can be manufactured about the Conservatives, based largely on the bumbling Colonel Blimp-esque comments of Boris Johnson (who regularly puts his foot in his mouth on literally thousands of topics), then to avoid partisanship coverage also needs to be given to problems of Islamophobia within the Labour Party, from the likes of Thornberry and others, who push a moralistic white liberal supremacy whereby their values are supposed to be taken as inherently superior to Islamic values. Ishbiliyya (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It sounds as though you are accusing editor of not editing in good faith. The three recent major editors are User:MWD115, User: EddieHugh and User:Bangalamania, let's see what they think. There's no policy based reason not to have this article, but you can always start a deletion discussion at WP:AfD if you think it fails our criteria for WP:Notability. I think you'll fail. Doug Weller talk 09:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I find the characterisation of Labour's foreign policy as Islamophobic to be problematic. In 1999, Labour joined a NATO coalition to stop the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians (mainly Muslim) by Serbia. On Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, please don't shoot yourself in foot by opening that Pandoora's box. On the issues brought up here by @Ishbiliyya, a single minister of the British Labour party expressing anti-Muslim sentiment is not grounds to create a whole article on "Islamophobia in the UK British Labour Party". Other things mentioned like Brunei, Britain is a democracy and the same way as the law does not discriminate against the Muslim communities, it does not discriminate against LGBTQ communities. If a country applies discriminatory laws, a democratic country or its political and other social elements can call them out on it. Just because the left side of politics believes that all cultures are equal, does not mean that all cultural practises are equal or right. Labour criticising Brunei's decision to implement discriminatory laws against the LGBTQ communities is not Islamophobia and to claim so is a disservice to using the word, as when there is real anti-Muslim sentiment people will not take it seriously. As for the British conservatives being ideologically in tune with conservative Muslims, sure that exists but it does not mean its across the board and there is more that shows the contrary, its why this article exists.Resnjari (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Islamic law is an inherent part of Islam as a religion. Labour forwarding a foreign policy whereby a Muslim country such as Brunei is isolated for implementing Islamic law in their own Muslim majority country, with the support of their own Muslim population, easily fits within the definition of Islamophobia. We need to separate Islamophobia and xenophobia/racism, the two are different concepts which sometimes overlap. Political parties have agendas beyond their approaches to domestic concerns and I'm not sure why a wider picture should be played down. There is also a sectarian undercurrent to this, where the current Kremlin-Tehran cheerleaders in the Labour leadership regularly demonise and attack Sunni countries, while the Conservatives support strong trade and defence relationships with these mostly Sunni countries (making claims that they are inherently more "anti-Islam" a partisan proposal) . Ishbiliyya (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Salam @Ishbiliyya. Just on the record i would be the last person that would be a fan of the Kremlin. Balkan Muslims have borne the brunt of its imperialistic policies via ethnic cleansing, destruction of property, religious buildings etc etc done by certain state actors it created during the break up of the Ottoman state, a process begun with the Orlov revolt. The Arab world which was immune from a Kremlin intervention is now on the receiving end like Balkan Muslims have been for over 2 centuries. Yes, political parties have agendas, but Labour has every right to criticise Brunei as its part of a democratic system that allows to do so, done respectfully of course. Islamic law in Brunei is imposed by the royal family upon the populace. The population had no say if they really wanted it or not. Its also the same elsewhere in the Middle East where theocracies have been imposed on the people from groups of royals like in the Gulf countries. A group of elites who live debauched lives in private while hiding behind religious law. Its an untenable system and its cracks are bursting all over the Middle East. And it showed this decade when the Arab world wanted real democracy. But as many times in the region it gets hijacked by a dictator under the tacit support of a Western power that wants to extract oil or gas and keep the region feeble or the hard right that wants religious law all over the place. Has anybody bothered to once ask the people, hey what do you guys really want? Nope. Anyway on words, Islamophobia has become a catch all word that encompasses dislike/hatred/fear of Muslims and also dislike/hatred/fear of the religion of Islam. Yes i agree with you, this is a problem as it lumps both a hatred of people and the religion together. A more apt word would be Muslimophobia, like for this article and when discussing acts of hatred, violence, xenophobia, racism etc aimed at Muslims and not the religion itself.Resnjari (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

:::"Islamophobia" is a rhetorical nonsense word and shouldn't be used for any opposition to Islam. Samantha Priss (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Its the word that got coined and managed to enter the mainstream, not Muslimphobia, which would refer to a phobia of Muslims as opposed to the religion Islam. Anyway we work with what we got now.Resnjari (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've struck through an edit by yet another sock of the racist Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

My edits (MWD115) I added my edits as I personally found the article a little too biased (as is mentioned it seemed to have a pro-Labour bias, and indeed pro-MCB too), so I included the section on Criticisms and Rebuttals for balance to show that non-Tory commentators and members of the Conservatives like Sajid Javid have disputed the MCB, and that the word 'Islamophobia' itself is justifiably seen as debatable, has been used to silence legitimate criticisms of Islam and that people have tried to liken it to racism and antisemitism.

I also thought adding this section seemed fair since the Antisemitism in Labour article also included and Criticisms and Rebuttals section.

I appreciate any efforts by other users in bringing this article to be more neutral. I will admit that the way I wrote initially it was biased and I am not against a rebuttal section being brought in, provided it is proportionate. I have trimmed the section a little to avoid repetition and removed a tweet from Maajid Nawaz (not saying Nawaz or Quilliam aren't RSes for this article in and of themselves, I just question the use of their tweets in this article if they haven't been cited elsewhere). --Bangalamania (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The origins of the topic probably lie in left-leaning, pro-Labour/anti-Conservative circles, seeking to reduce attention on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. But those circles are in the media, not Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia operates by reporting what reliable sources (RS) state. As RS have covered Islamophobia in the Conservative Party, its also on Wikipedia. The question, then, is 'Is the existence of a separate article on it justified?' There's already Racism in the UK Conservative Party and having a separate article such as this one always encourages the dumping of any remotely relevant material into it. I'd prefer to see it back in the Racism article, or as proposed in this discussion, which led only a day later to the Islamophobia article being set up, putting everything in a new Discrimination in the UK Conservative Party article. That could include the ignored topic of attitudes in the Party to women. As it is, having three articles – racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia – all on one party is too close to POV content forking. EddieHugh (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Scope

What is the scope of the article? It only covers events from 2001 onwards, but the Conservative Party has existed since 1834. Either the article needs to cover events from 1834 onwards, or it needs to be retitled, justification given for the cut-off point of 2001, and the scope clarified in the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I've added some information to the article now, but I agree that the scope is very vague (my apologies). A lot of sources (included the one I cited) seem to agree that Islamophobia began to be studied/enter the British political sphere as a specific phenomenon around about 1997 with the publication of Islamophobia: a challenge for us all. Obviously 9/11 furthered this in all political discourse (not just the Conservatives). I agree that this article should probably be renamed, but to what? --Bangalamania (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. I guess the problem I'm having is that Islamophobia in the Tory party obviously didn't start in 1997, but if it began to enter political discourse at that time then a cutoff of 1997 does make sense as the scope of the notable topic. Personally I'd recommend Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (1997–present) but it might be worth seeking wider input. — Bilorv (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (1997–present)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 23:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   At the moment, several formatting issues, including; inconsistent use of sfn (it should be used either for all sources, or just sources with multiple page ranges, or nothing); and harv errors

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   Several issues with synthesis.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Essentially a list of accusations; see comments below for further detail.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Largest concern. See below.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Not really stable; considerable amounts of material keep being added to this.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Failing per comments.

Comments

While I acknowledge the difficulty of the subject matter, I'm afraid this isn't up to GA standards at the moment, and the issues are serious enough that I see no purpose being served in prolonging the review. In addition to the points mentioned above, here are some concerns that should be addressed before the article is nominated again.

• Scope/framing. This is perhaps the most serious issue, because it is going to require rewriting the article. At the moment, the article is a list of accusations and rebuttals. It isn't an article that discusses the phenomenon of Islamophobia in any substance. What you need to do is build the article around sources that discuss the phenomenon of Islamophobia in the conservative party. If such sources don't exist, then the article shouldn't exist, and should instead be titled "accusations of Islamophobia [...]". As an aside, the "1997-present" in the title is weird and unnecessary; if sources say that the phenomenon drew attention after 1997, just say that; the current title implies older Islamophobia that isn't covered here.
• Original research. A lot of quotes are used that have no clear relevance, and whose relevance isn't established by the current sources. Murray's quote about the uses of the term Islamophobia are not obviously connected to this topic; conservatives speaking about Islamophobia aren't necessarily opposing it's existence in their party (what does the title "opposition" even mean in this context?) Rees-Mogg's quote is from his own opinion piece; by including it, Wikipedia is asserting that that piece constitutes opposition to Islamophobia; which is both original research and a violation of NPOV, because that assertion needs to be made by a secondary source for us to treat it in this manner. Cowling's critique of Rushdie is the worst example; there is certainly no consensus that Rushdie's book is Islamophobic, and in any case Rushdie isn't a Tory leader. The relevance of those quotes needs to be established by independent sources, and if it hasn't, they need to go.
• Sources. There are a considerable number of academic sources on the topic. While the GA criteria do not require the best possible sources, achieving neutrality in a topic as complex as this is going to be impossible without scholarly sourcing; and the authors need to use those whereever possible. At the moment, it's built entirely on media sources, which aren't unreliable, but which are necessarily going to be dominated by "X said this, Y criticized them, Z defended them" sort of stories.

There are a few other concerns, about prose and formatting; but it isn't worth spending time on them at the moment, because the article requires a substantive rewrite to address the concerns I've raised here. I would recommend reaching out to one of several editors who have written GAs and FAs about British politics for assistance. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)