Talk:Islamic fascism

This article survived a vote for deletion. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

POV of this article

This article is full of original research that comes from an anti-islamic POV, especially this line "Islamic fascism is a combination of Islamic fundamentalism or Islamism and fascism." This is uncited and seems to have been made up by the creator in an effort to give definition to an obscure term. Yuber 06:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly not anti-Islamic.

As for original research, I have put up some of the links I will be referring to. But the main point is that I have barely started it.

As for the "POV" which means point of view, I don't think it has an anti-Islamic view at all, nor even an anti Islamic fascist point of view. Just like fascists themselves, this is a small, very small group within Islam and the article says that. It makes no judgements and nor should it.

I don't get how you can or would want to propose the deletion of an article and question its neutrality so early and without contributing anything positive and without discussing with me first. Is this how Wikipedia works? Walkingeagles 07:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In a word, yes! The Vfd is all about the concept of content being "unworthy"--not the CURRENT content, but what COULD be there. For example a page about banana eating will get nowhere, but a five-sentence page about nukes could evolve into an amazing overview. It is the concept that is being voted upon. The current content is largely immaterial, you could in theory start a crappy article and someone could come along and turn it into an awesome work. However if you improve upon the current content while the debate rages, the awesomeness of the new details may sway the voters to decide it isn't so bad after all. It makes its promise all the more visible.

The person didn't know what to make of it, so put it on Vfd for the rest of the community to give their opinion. Therefore, we assess what it might one day become.

What you intend to add to it is immaterial. Wikipedia articles are viewable immediately, so each edit must be as clear and useful as possible. Dozens of people could potentially come to a page under construction and be misled or confused by the content therein. So every little edit, every little word change, every typo fix, each must be done with the view of it being "perfect" and free of any trace of opinion. You must try to write as if you are a dull, mindless drone. It's hard, I know, but that's the way it is here. Master Thief Garrett 07:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks, I see that most of your discussion got a point. I believe Yuber is right in that it seems that This article is full of original research that comes from an anti-islamic POV. However,-as Master Thief Garrett stated, the article can be developed later to include different researches of different backgrounds. It is up to future contributions.

Walkingeagles is doing a good job but I still think that the article should be merged with Islamofascism as Firebug suggested earlier.

I support the idea of Vfd while merging this article with the main one. Svest 08:14, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

References

Walkingeagles, I think that the mentioning of the CNN article needs a reference (link to the article in CNN). Otherwise, the information would be removed. Svest 08:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

what makes it "Islamic"?

Header says it all. What makes these manifestations of fascism specifically Islamic, as opposed to ordinary fascism? Can anyone explain this in 100 words or less, preferably in the article's introduction? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Islamic/Islamo Fascism

For those of us learned in Middle Eastern history, it is clear that fascist-derived ideologies and Islamism have always been violently opposed (see:Hama Massacre). The fascist-derived ideologies in the Middle East such as the Kateab Party, the Baath party, and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party have been almost entirely supported by Christians or minority groups in the Arab world that feared Islamism. The founder of the SSNP was a Christian, as the founder of the Baath was Greek orthodox. The Kataeb was founded by Bachir Gemayel, a Maronite Christian militant. All these ideologies were officially secular but had mainly Christian support. Islamic fascism is a contradiction in all senses of the word. Islamism has no ideas about racial superiority either. That is why it is utterly ridiculous to have an Islamic fascism article.

My views on this article are that it is a way for WalkingEagles and Klonimus to insert their own judgement into an Anti-Islamic term that should frankly be listed under political epithets. Just because neo-cons have started using this term more does not make it factually or historically correct. I urge WalkingEagles and Klonimus to debate me here about the history of their supposed "Islamic fascism", I'm sure their extensive knowledge on Middle Eastern history and Fascism will help them.Yuber 16:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With your permission I'd love to include your thoughts on this in the article. I didn't really understand what your problem with the article was but I do now. Hopefully that will address the concerns people have.

I am sad you think I am anti-Muslim because that is simply not true and is simply not reflected in anything I've done, said or written. Like most Americans probably I am concerned about the threat of al Qaeda but am opposed to the seeming intolerance of Christian fundamentalism of Islamic fundamentalism equally. There seems to be many people keen to scream (virtually!) at each other over this topic, so I probably should have started elsewhere on Wikipedia like Lego or something. Although perhaps there are also such problems in Legoland. Anyway, I'm still learning so I hope you cut me some slack as the article evolves and contribute anything you can. I really appreciate you explaining you views in detail, I am obviously still learning and maybe others are too if they haven't closed their minds to new data. Walkingeagles 16:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Walkingeagles, We are still waiting for referencing your article. I am putting this comment here again in case you didn't see it above. Here it goes again: Walkingeagles, I think that the mentioning of the CNN article needs a reference (link to the article in CNN). Otherwise, the information would be removed. Svest 08:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) Svest 08:51, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Image

I've removed this again. First, its caption is extremely debatable (the identification of various Islamic groups as 'fascist' hasn't been justified). Secondly, it's not doing anything important in the article; its only purpose seems to be to turn the reader's stomach — presumably in order to stir her emotions against supposedly evil Muslims. Thirdly, have you considered the feelings of the friends or family of the victim, should they come across this? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is an important image, it is clearly associated with al Qaeda which the article identifies as an Islamic fascist group. I agree the image is unpleasant but it is factual and relevant. It has been a very widely distributed image as Google shows and even the video was widely distributed by those responsible for killing him. I have NEVER ever said that Muslims are evil or anything similarly racist. So I really ask that you stop making false assumptions about me and show me the respect and courtesy I show you. Walkingeagles 16:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note Yuber persists in deleting the image which is probably the most powerful visual image we have of the tactics of Islamic fascism. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the beheading, the article identifies al Qaeda as an Islamic fascist group so I can't imagine a more appropriate (although admittedly unpleasant) image. Walkingeagles 23:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How is the image relevant to Islamic fascism? What evidence of fascism do you see in beheading someone? Yuber 23:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Yuber; the image appears to be there either to pander to those sick individuals who wish that there really were snuff films, or to Islamophobes of one form or another. There is no good reason given for the claim that al Qaeda is fascist, and even if there were, the picture doesn't illustrate that fact (any more than a phot of bin Laden having his dinner), and even if it were, we don't need this sort of sensationalist stuff in Wikipedia. I notice that Walkingeagles didn't respond to what I said above, but only repeated his own reasons; that's not the way discussion is carried out. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed section

I've removed this from the article:

---

Overtures to al Qaeda by U.S. white supremacists

In 23 April 2005, CNN reported that while fascist groups such as Aryan Nation were seeking ties with Islamists such as Osama bin Laden for assistance in areas such as finance and organization, the FBI had found no sign of ties between the two. In an interview with CNN, August Kreis the leader of Aryan Nation praised al Qaeda, saying:

You say they're terrorists, I say they're freedom fighters. And I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our peoples' heart, in the Aryan race, that they have for their father, who they call Allah. I don't believe that they were the ones that attacked us," Kreis said. "And even if they did, even if you say they did, I don't care!

Kreis explained that the common cause he has with al Qaeda is that they have common enemies, namely Jews and the government of the United States. He gave a public message to al Qaeda: "The message is, the cells are out here and they are already in place, they might not be cells of Islamic people, but they are here and they are ready to fight". al Qaeda's response, if any, remains unknown.

During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had an alliance with Adolf Hitler. Following the war, many Nazis found asylum in Egypt, Syria, South America, and the United States.

The CNN's investigative reporter Henry Schuster also explained another connection:

Three years ago, I met a Swiss Islamic convert named Ahmed Huber, who began his life as a devotee of Adolf Hitler and moved on to praising former Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who led that nation's Islamic revolution and vigorously opposed U.S. policies.

Huber wanted to forge a fresh alliance between Islamic radicals and neo-Nazis in Europe and the United States. And he cannot be simply dismissed as a crackpot: Huber served on the board of directors of a Swiss bank and holding company that President Bush accused of helping fund al Qaeda.

---

It's clearly not appropriate. The main text isn't about what Islamic people or groups think, but about what white supremacists say about them; the only relevant part is wholly in the form of a quotation, and concerns one person who's claimed to be a Muslim and a fascist.

I've also removed a couple of other unsubstantiated claims, reorganised the text to flow more smoothly, and corrected a number of internal links. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vfd discussion

The vfd discussion gained no consensus on 08:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC): Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamic fascism

No consensus?

I am wondering if this is a no consensus:

• 4 votes for keep.
• 3 votes for merge.
• 2 votes for redirect.
• 9 votes for delete.

Cheers and respect from Svest 08:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Unfortunately, "merge" and "redirect" are counted as "keep" votes. It's not obvious, and I think that people should be informed of this more clearly, but there you are. In this case, the votes are exactly balanced, even though only four out of eighteen people voted to keep. It's not clear whether the admin who closed the VfD merely counted votes (which is against policy) or actually looked at what people said (which is policy), because no explanation was given, but we have to assume good faith. A bad result, though, as the majority of those involved will agree. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's the situation. The vfd was up forever, because no admin was willing to address it. The discussion was long, confusing, and more than someone not involved could readily understand. And someone who is involved should not have taken on the task. So I did. As you point out, there are only 9 out of 18 votes for delete. This is not normally considered adequate consensus, and without consensus, an article is kept. Really I think the merge and redirect people most likely carry the day, but you're going to have to decide that yourselves. You don't need an admin or a vfd listing to merge (which can't possibly be the vfd maintainer's job, as that makes vfd maintenance just too onerous) or to change this to a redirect. If you really think I made the wrong decision, you can try re-posting on vfd; maybe the discussion will be clearer this time. But I'm not trying to be malicious, and it was a good-faith decision on my part. moink 10:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like you to note also that two of the "delete" votes are from users who have not yet registered, that the discussion continued a long time down the page, changing in tone as it went, and that the current version is quite different from the version nominated for deletion ([1]). All of these things are normally taken into account when evaluating a vfd discussion. It's never decided on sheer number of votes. moink 10:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes — looking at what I said I can see that it might have sounded like an insinuation of bad faith, but it wasn't meant to. I'm sure that you didn't merely count votes. My suspicion is that many of those voting "merge" or "redirect" would have voted "delete" if they'd realised that they'd be counted as voting "keep" (I often forget myself). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I do believe in moink good faith. However, she may have not known that there is already another mirror article called Islamofascism. Having two articles about a single thing is redundant. We cannot have for instance Islamic art and Islamic art history (in fact they are redirected and constitue one article). This is what some of the comments in the vfd were talking about when voted for merge or redirect. Svest 11:07, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I do know that article exists; that's why people voted for merge and redirect. I would have done the redirect myself but I will not do the merge part, as that requires knowledge of the subject matter. I will emphasize again that you are free to change this article to a redirect whenever you choose. moink 11:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

A good answer. We will try to discuss that. Cheers and respect from Svest 11:15, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

This is now the main article

The Islamofascism article is almost empty of any content now. Probably that article should redirect here now. 66.94.94.154 12:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree — especially as (despite the claims maed in the VfDs) it now seems to be admitted that the two terms have the same meaning. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If we agree about the above, than Islamofascism should be deleted and merged with this one?! Svest 15:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Pigs in flight

Redirected from pigfly.

Pigs in flight is a phenomenon cited by Christopher Hitchens. It is therefore a valid topic for an article in WP.

Hitchens was recently quoted in the Oceania Times as acknowleding that neither "pigs" nor "flight," in their technical "you, know, old-style-dictionary meanings," accurately described the phenomenon he had in mind, but insisted that "there is this thing, and I wasn't sure what to call it, and I realized I kind of liked calling it pigs in flight."

According to Hitchens, pigs in flight refers to the practice of drunken men throwing dwarves as tavern entertainment. "The activity itself has certainly become one of our cultural reference points," he insisted in a recent interview, "and the plain fact is that since I started using the term pigs in flight to describe dwarf-tossing, other people have laughed a couple of times, clearly an indication of wide acceptance of the term."

A controversial epithet

Opponents of the term pigs in flight (or its associated epithet pigfly) apparently are hung up on words actually carrying discernable meanings, though this approach has been designated as thoughtcrime in certain sections of Oceania. Some even claim the terms in question are offensive, but those individuals are under investigation.

An anonymous fan of Hitchens offered this response from the blogosphere: "Look, Hitchens said it. And he didn't just, like, say it. He said it more than once. That's what people aren't considering in their brains. And you know what? He also wrote about it. Hitchens did, I mean, with like a computer and everything. Again, he did this more than once. Plus a pig is a mammal. Are you saying a dwarf isn't a mammal? And plus, like, when you fly, you leave the ground, right? Are you saying someone who throws a dwarf doesn't make that dwarf leave the ground? Christopher Hitchens says that's flying, so that's what it is."

That the term is regarded by certain Muslims and other unpersons as not only offensive and inaccurate, but self-contradictory, is a point with which we need not concern ourselves here.

History had already been rewritten, but fragments of the literature of the past survived here and there, imperfectly censored, and so long as one retained one's knowledge of Oldspeak it was possible to read them. In the future such fragments, even if they chanced to survive, would be unintelligible and untranslatable. It was impossible to translate any passage of Oldspeak into Newspeak unless it either referred to some technical process or some very simple everyday action, or was already orthodox(goodthinkful would be the Newspeak expression) in tendency. -- George Orwell, The Principles of Newspeak

So, if I understand the point of the analogy, if a word or phrase is deemed wrong, inflammitory, or offensive, (forget, for now, who is doing the deeming) it should not be listed as it is Orwellian Newspeak? User:BrandonYusufToropov, I have never understood that argument. As if denial of the word itself will somehow erase the thoughts and idology that espouse it. Eliminating documentation from here will not stop the neo-cons, politicans and the American media from using the term, and will eliminate a forum for an objective critique of it. 66.94.94.154 19:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, Anonymous. Just want to be sure I understand your position.

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of commentators in the Arab world who make a habit of referring vaguely, and ominously, to a Global Zionist Conspiracy to control the global media.

Me personally, I think that's sloppy thinking, and I think there's no evidence of such a conspiracy. That means, to my way of thinking, that the verbal shorthand these commentators use describes a condition contrary to fact. (By the way: that's what I'm taking exception to primarily about Islamofascism and its cousins -- by "Islam" proponents of this phrase do not actually mean "the doctrines of the Qur'an," and by "fascism" they do not actually mean "the system of corporatism practiced by Musollini and Hitler." They mean, as another editor so eloquently put it, something closer to "Yo mama she fat." As an insult, it's offensive, of course, but let's table that for the moment.)

I'm not saying that the terminology "Global Zionist Conspiracy" doesn't exist, or that people should be forbidden from maintaining that there's a global Zionist conspiracy, even though I disagree with that assertion. I'm saying you shouldn't write (allegedly factual) encyclopedia articles about delusional partisan beliefs, and that doing so smacks of phrases like "Wise and Fearless Leader". No matter how much someone may like or agree with that phrase, "Wise and Fearless Leader," I hope you would conclude that it is inappropriate as a title for an article about George W. Bush.

But under your reasoning, we should in fact have an entry for Global Zionist Conspiracy," right? Because people somewhere are in fact using it?

Hey, you got it! Exactly! The fact that people allege that Global Zionist Conspiracy exists, propagandize about it, and commit violent acts based on the idea means that the use must in fact be documented or else we are engaing in a Salinist sanitation of history. If we remove all refrence to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion from our history because it is a fraud, in a misguided attempt to "fight" anti-semitisim and wrong-headedness, we willingly blind ourselves to an odious philosophy— and philosophies like that only grow well in the dark 66.94.94.154 13:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

PS-- you inspired me to add an entry for Global Zionist Conspiracy (Oh, and sign your comments, would you?) 66.94.94.154 13:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This, then, 66.94.94.154, would be a point on which you and I disagree. There are a lot of people who feel as you do. I certainly respect your point of view. I do have some questions for you, though.

• In our new article on the Global Zionist Conspiracy, we are going to make clear to the reader that the contention that Jews are conspiring to control world media outlets is a fraudulent one, yes, 66.94.94.154?

• You mentioned The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 66.94.94.154. That article, too, we will, as good editors, compose in such a way as to make it clear to the reader that the document is fraudulent, yes?

• With me so far, 66.94.94.154? Now -- how about Islamofascism? Or its cousin, Pigs in Flight-- sorry, Islamic Fascism. Are we going to point out cearly and without ambiguity that that's a fantasy, too?

• Does it matter, 66.94.94.154, that actual fascists in the Mideast are the sworn enemies of Islamist parties?

• Supposing your viewpoint on this article's status to be the majority (and I think it is), doesn't the fact that fascists and Islamists oppose each other in the real world merit reference in, say, paragraph one, sentence one -- where similar disclaimers about the authenticity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion appear in, for instance, The Columbia Encyclopedia? Or does fascist mean whatever neocons want it to mean at any given moment, even if their meaning conflicts with reality?

• The big problem hereabouts, 66.94.94.154, has been certain people insisting that, because Hitchens has defined a movement, it therefore exists in, you know, the real world. On Hitchens' terms, and more or less as he described it. If he said Muslims were inherently Marxist, would that be "controversial" or "disputed by those who oppose the term"? Or would it be, um, horse-puckey? If the neocons like it, though ... it's apparently a trend to watch.

• Final questions for you, 66.94.94.154: If I were to declare in some blog that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was in fact the result of an actual meeting of power-hungry Jews (it wasn't), would you thereupon revise the opening of the WP articlee on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article to accommodate my (extremist, delusional) viewpoint? Would you describe the finding that the Protocols were composed by the Russian secret police as "controversial"? Would facts matter in that article? Do they matter in this one? BrandonYusufToropov 13:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You mix a lot of different arguments into this, the two primary ones being:

1. the validity of the article's existance
2. the factual basis for the article's content
3. the article is not NPOV

1) There is a consensus here, both versions survived VfD: The article(s) should exist. 2) AFAIK there is no current factual distpue on the current content of either. In fact the Islamic Fascism article makes most of the points you're complaining about: ie. it's a neocon neologisim that has nothing to do with 1930s Italian politics or the ideologies that derived from them. 3) You have a point about prior versions of the article but I do not believe it applies to the current form. Arguing against the article based on past bias or potential future bias is a good way to shut down the whole wikipedia. Saswann 15:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. Current opening paragraph states:

Islamic fascism (also:Islamo-fascist) is a term adopted by journalist Christopher Hitchens intended to refer to a small number of Islamist extremists, including terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. The term has gained wide currency in the United States, particularly among neo-conservatives. Since the term is both pejorative and coined by critics of militant Islamist groups, there are no self-identified Islamic fascists.

The paragraph does not reference the following facts:

• Fascism is a political ideology combining state and corporate power, and embracing corporatism. (It's not merely totalitarianism -- Stalin was not a fascist leader.)
• There is today no Muslim state pursuing such an ideology.
• Islamists and fascists are both present in the contemporary Middle East, and they are bitter enemies.

The fact is that people who try to make these points get shouted down whenever we try to introduce these facts into the opening sentences of the article where they belong -- this seems to me to be part of the problem here. (Please recall that Columbia and WP both make "fraudulent" an important part of the opening sentence of Protocols of the Elders of Zion.)

Better idea still: redirect to a page about neofascism in various religious movements, not just the one the neocons are frothing at the mouth about this week, and then apply a real-word standard to the poli-sci terms used there. BrandonYusufToropov 16:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is a lot of material to cram into the first sentance of an article. And I might note that the article (Islamic fascism) does make the latter two points. The first one is properly part of Fascism. I think (trying to believe the best of everyone) shouting down is due more to the fact that it is very hard to make a NPOV edit on something you are passionate about. Also, while your last point may be well-meaning, it will never work in an encyclopeda that documents real-world usage; (see Talk:anarcho-capitalism) Saswann 16:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Again -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent document. We are correct to say so up front. The notion that Islamists and fascists are on the same side (or even remotely compatible) is fraudulent, whether or not it suits Hitchens or any other ideological ax-grinder to say so. We should state as much in the opening sentence, or redirect to a discussion of neo-fascist movements in contemporary religious movements. BrandonYusufToropov 16:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

So, if I gather correctly, your issue boils down to the fact that the point that this is used solely as a epithet, and that point is not made strongly enough in the lead paragraph? Saswann 17:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Propose redirect

I have created an overview page Neofascism_and_religion and am proposing that this page be redirected to this larger and more detailed article. --Cberlet 14:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. BrandonYusufToropov 15:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree: I might point out that by re-directing to an article called Neofascism_and_religion you are implicitly making the case for what seems to be the primariy objection to this article, i.e. you imply that what the American neocons refer to as Islamic fascism is actually a Fascist/Neofascist political movement. It will also make it less clear about the usage of the term and its issues since any disclaimers, most importantly the fact that it is a derogitory epithet and not some global political movement, have to be buried within the body of a huge article-- which people searching for Islamic fascism/Islamofascist may not bother to read all the way through. IMHO, it is much more sensible having a short pithy article stating; "This is a slur, this is where it came from, this is how it is used." Saswann 16:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying Fascist means something specific, and (as far as I can tell) Neofascist can mean a whole lot of things to a whole lot of different people. That seems more in line with what the neocons are saying, and with the level of precision to be found within their argument. I do agree, though that a two-sentence article explaining that Islamic fascism is a made-up insult would be better than what we have now. BrandonYusufToropov 16:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's the problem. There are serious scholars of fascism who write that some specific forms of Islamic totalitarianism are neofascist. It's not just a slur. There are also a lot of Islamaphobic bigots and pro-intervention political activists who use terms like Islamofascism without any scholarly intent or content. This usage is often a slur. I am proposing moving the discussion to a broader page where this can be explored in the context of looking at both usages. Folks can't just deny that there are serious scholars who write about Islamic neofsacism; and folks can't just ignore the popular use of the term by people like Hitchens. Would you rather keep arguing on this page forever, or redirect to a larger article that looks at both the scholarly and political usages of such terms in the context of several religious traditions?--Cberlet 17:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That's probably the best idea we've had in weeks. BrandonYusufToropov 17:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My issue is not that per-se. I just think that a redirect is not going to address the same problems we're talking about. It is nearly inevitable that such a broad article will become unwiledly, and eventually break out sub-categories into thier own articles—, such as Islamic fascism— puting eveyone back where we started. I don't have any problems with a Neofascism_and_religion article, but it doesn't really address the core issues with the Islamic fascism article, it just moves them. Saswann 17:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Which issues, specifically, do you mean when you write, "a redirect is not going to address the same problems we're talking about"? BrandonYusufToropov 18:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

1. The move changes nothing about the POV of the material
2. The move changes nothing about the facts contained in the material
3. The move will not render anyone less passonate about it, or limit any edit wars, etc. etc.

The argument is about content. You cannot change the issues over existing content simply by surrounding it with more content-- That might address sins of omission, and context, but is seems to me that these aren't the primary issues. Saswann 18:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have my own thoughts on 1), 2), and 3), above, but I'd like to hear what other people think about your list. BrandonYusufToropov 18:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think CBerlet is on the mark here. I think it will help (1) to get this out of the context of a particular religion and (2) to discuss the inappropriate use of epithets like this and (3) to discuss the several cases where adherents of various religions -- Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, possibly others -- have, at times, adopted ideologies that blend neo-fascism and religious sectarianism. Fascists in the Muslim world tend to be relatively secular, but there is a better chance of getting that clear in a more broadly contextualized article than in one like this, which is an almost guaranteed perpetual battleground. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:57, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am sensitive to the fact that the idea of Islamic Fascism can be used in a bigoted way, but by moving to a page that talks about several religions, the issue can be put in greater context, and can lessen the focus on a single religious tradition. --Cberlet 21:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add support for a redirect. The Neofascism and religion page is, IMHO, a good example of a wiki page on a potentially controversial topic, in that it leaves the reader with many options for further investigation, and provides contextual imformation to examine the issue as it may apply to various religions. It also provides a good grounding via the opening discussion about the nature of fascism itself. Thanks illWill 23:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I would as well like to add support for a redirect, perhaps we can get this whole thing settled once and for all (been going on for over a month now).Yuber^(talk) 23:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Great to see blue skies again. Everybody is agreeing about the redirection. Redirect has been my option since the birth of the me-u-fascim articles. We even tried to merge them in a single article Fascist (epithet) that User:LeeHunter created. The problem is that everytime we felt that we were almost achieving a consensus, some literally just-yesterday-new account-users would come up with an objection as if she/he's been participating in this discussions since the beginning. This is not against the rules but surely against the ethics. Since the discussions begun, everytime that just-yesterday-new account-users felt losing ground, she/he'd leave and would be replaced with another on the spot. We've come up to solutions a couple of times but we experienced the sudden ressurection and arrival of NAUs with a veto to the deal. I believe this is time to decide this for once. Now, we have to decide if it is possible to avoid redundancy by merging Fascist (epithet) with Neofascism and religion. Cheers and respect -- Svest 01:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I hope to help rewrite Fascist (epithet) to avoid redundancy and add some text. It really is a problem that goes beyond religion. We can move the Orwell quote back in there, and provide several cross-links in the Neofascism and religion page.

I might point out that Neofascism and religion is an inherently different category than Fascist (epithet) the latter is properly concerned solely with the term used as a political slur against any group (ie, not particularly a religious group), whereas Neofascism and religion might cover religious groups who are acually fascist in philosophy (some fringe white power groups come to mind), so if the content is to move, it might be better as a disambiguation page pointing in both directions. Saswann 23:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Saswann. Cheers -- Svest 23:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

This makes a good point. I would be willing to discuss it further if anyone else has input.--Cberlet 01:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Disagree This has been gone over multiple times. Islamofascism was the target of an apparently successful defacement campaign following a failed Vote for Deletion, and appears now slated by less-than-unanimous consent (given Mel Etitis' misrepresentation of at least one user's comments) to be merged into Islamic Fascism. To then merge Islamic Fascism away is beyond ridiculous. It goes against the objection of the editor Mel Etitis misrepresented as well, which was that the merge was fine provided the content of Islamic Fascism was not then defaced. There are also the objections of Klonimus at the talk page for Islamofascism to consider]].

EnviroknotEnviroknot 21:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Next steps?

Does anyone have a clue how to make the redirects work properly? I presume we need to archive the pages first? Three pages are in play Islamic fascism, Islamofascism, and Christian fascism. Plus, one page is protected.--Cberlet 13:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop right there, there is NOT a consensus. EnviroknotEnviroknot 21:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)