Talk:Islamofascism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:29, 16 January 2006

This article survived two votes for deletion. An archived record of these debates can be found here and here.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (Apr 13 2005 to May 6 2005):

Meeting of Islamists and fascists during WWII

Wahhabism

Judgemental language

Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01#Aryan Nation material

SS photo

Definition of fascism

Proposed merger with Fascist (epithet)

how did this page get reduced to a collection if quotes?

Archive 2: May 9–August 11, 2005
Archive 3: April 13–November 29, 2005

Veiled censorship

Stop re-directing this article with neo-fascism or other non-sense

Blogs as sources

Please Stop Edit War!

Juan Cole and the 'F' word

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

User:Marudubshinki closed this WP:RM request on 25 Dec 2005. User:Slim Virgin has argued with his finding of a move verdict on his talk page. --- Charles Stewart 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This move is listed on Wikipedia:Requested Moves here.

Talk:Islamofascism (term) — Islamofascism (term) → Islamofascism – They're the same thing, no reason to have it at "(term)", there's no "alternate use" for the phrase. Chaosfeary 14:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Strong Support -- everyone who opposes it here makes the same arguement: islamofacism doesnt exist/its just a term that people like Bush use. IRRELEVANT! There is an article on giffen good even though many economists believe they don't exist. There is an article on Bushism even though many people claim that its just a term his opponents use. There is an article on god even though some people think that god doesn't exist. Etc. Etc. Having a succinct article title does not imply a point of view. The appendage of "(term)" should only be used for disambiguization, as per wikipedia's naming conventions. If some people argue that islamofacism doesnt exist that is something that belongs in the article and that would appear to appease all those who oppose the move. The point is that, even if "islamofacism" is a POV title, "islamofacism (term)" in the absence of disambiguization is even more POV. Can you imagine an article titled, "God (fictional character)"? As to creating a separate article, I think that has been substantially ridiculed here: this article covers all of that and more. Masterdebater 23:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chaosfeary 14:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karl Meier 21:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is the emerging concensus on VfD. Klonimus 08:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to note that this claim of the existence of an emerging consensus on VfD for this sort of thing remains unsubstantiated, despite two requests for explanation. --- Charles Stewart 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term). Several users requested the article be moved back to Islamofascism as part of their keep vote.—jiy (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. the wub "?!" 14:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support—jiy (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Wikipedia naming conventions. -- Zeno of Elea
Support LuiKhuntek 08:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --- Charles Stewart 15:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Imc 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. BrandonYusufToropov 21:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Term. Any doubts?! Call me fascist, call you fascist, call my mamma fascist, call your daddy fascist. Indeed, Fascists called temselves fascists with no red faces. Why not Islamomafia? Because Bush said it?. Is this wikipedia or a joke? Bush also said that Iraq got WMD! (i.e. Bushism and for a larger list Wikiquote). So do we have to have an article called "I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."?!. Please guys! Do we remember?! Notable people and organizations are saying Bush is an x and he's saying they are an y. Do you know what I mean by call me this, call you that?! I hope so. It's a term. -- Cheers -- Svest 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]
Oppose Yuber^(talk) 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support The appendage of "term" is only a distraction and confusing and it makes the reader instantly wonder "what then is the other thing then called Islamofascism without the "term" appended to it." --CltFn 23:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An unofficial voting section? Anyways the word should be treated the same other (term) articles are treated. There is NO confusion, all styles of this word redirect here. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Cberlet 14:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (term) rightly refuses to endorse the term as referring to something undeniably real. We should stay neutral as to whether there is such a thing as Islamofascism. Dsol 15:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How does Islamofascism on its own endorse the view that it is something undeniably real? Does God's lack of a (term) clarifier endorse the view that God exists undeniably? If you want to make it clear to editors that it is a term, do so using comments. If you want to make it clear to readers that it is a term, do so in the prose of the article.—jiy (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is the emerging concensus on VfD. How many times are we going to vote about the same issue . Many in the VfD voted "Keep, move to Islamofascism." - their votes should be counted here. Zeq 13:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and a lot of dead voters in Florida thought George Bush should be president in 2000. This would be a different vote, Zeq. If they have an opinion, they can express it here. BYT 13:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, many said that this move would be a bad idea. Should their vote be discounted? --- Charles Stewart 13:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Bill Levinson 14:30, 10 December 2005 (EST). I thought I voted a couple of days ago but I don't see my vote here so I had better re-post it.
Support simple common sense. Borisblue 19:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. its a term , not a concept/philosophy/fact . Everybody calls people he doesnt like as butcher , coward , **** , .... these are all terms , no matter whoever use them . Use common sence guys . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال}^/c21:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using this logic the term Nakba should be called nakba(term) Zeq 10:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Nakba is an article that is principally about what Nakba refers to, which, AFAICS no more than two sentences about the term itself. This article is principally about the term, with a long-standing agreement that it is unacceptably POV to talk at length on what the term refers to in an article by this title. Your example supports the oppose case. --- Charles Stewart 21:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is a term. Making it a non-Term article would totaly change the entire page. I support making Islamofascism as a separate article showing the lack of proof for Islam having facsistic tendencies. I also want to see more on american terrorism and Judeofascism.--Striver 22:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, you support creating another article titled Islamofascism? One article here and another article there?? That sounds messy. Babajobu 16:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This other article cannot fail to be POV, given this manner of dividing up the content. I would put it forward for AfD. Please don't create this article. --- Charles Stewart 22:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sure it's grand as it is. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Bits in parentheses after article titles (such as, in this case, "term") are disambiguations. As there isn't anything to disambiguate between, adding "(term)" is unnecessary. I see two main arguments to oppose: that it's a term and should be labeled as such, and that without the label "term," the article would sound like it is something undeniably real. The first isn't correct: we don't label the George W. Bush article (president) or (man), nor the Democracy article (politics). The second is also wrong: we have Holocaust revisionism, for example, with no modifier. Farhansher argues that "it's a term, not a concept/philosophy/fact." This is a red herring: we don't label concepts or philosophies or facts with parentheses. There is no need for parentheses. Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 01:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As per Blackcap. Given people on both sides trying to push POV, I'd rather have them do it in the article itself than in the title. IronDuke 01:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its already been moved but what the hell, reason per Blackcap. To be honest when I came I was expecting to see something about 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) or Amin al-Husseini - FrancisTyers 00:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Important point by nominator: Although Anonymous editor said this is an "unofficial vote", this is a completely legitimate vote done as per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Instructions and Wikipedia:Requested moves#Current discussions.

Votes for page moves are done on the TALK page, not in a subsection.
Yes, this is different from a Vfd, but that's how it goes. --Chaosfeary 02:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- removing "(term)" would definitely be more in line with how other such terms are handled in Wikipedia, but I do think there is a benefit to adding "(term)" to the titles of articles on controversial terms: it reminds everyone that we should be describing how the term is actually used, rather than arguing about the accuracy of the term. So neutral for now. Babajobu 12:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do votes initiated by banned users. But no, I don't think the proposed move, predictable as it is, is a good idea. BrandonYusufToropov 12:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon, Jayjg already did a checkuser on Chaosfeary's IP and determined that he could not be Enviroknot. You can find Jayjg's comments on SlimVirgin's userpage, because Slim asked for the checkuser to be run. Babajobu 12:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: More personal attacks (see previous ones)

Brandon, if you want to leave messages for people that aren't directly related to this move, leave them on their talk pages, not here. It seems you're just determined to run smear campaigns on anyone that shares a different opinion than yours... --Chaosfeary 12:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- I generally agree with Babajobu. For reasons stated here, I see a useful distinction by adding the suffix (term). OTOH such a naming convention could lead to endless non-substantive arguments over what to call pages like Creationism --FRS 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Ambivalent For the same reasons as those given by User:FRS above. //Big Adamsky 01:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article used to be called islamofascism and became saddled down with edit wars about how to document the referent of the term. It seems that it is only by making it clear that the article is about the term that this situation is avoided. --- Charles Stewart 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to make it clear to editors that the article is about the term, then do so by inserting a comment into the page source. This is a sloppy remedy that conflicts with several infrastructural guidelines, namely not to reflexively disambiguate page titles. —jiy (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Call me fascist, call you fascist, call my mamma fascist, call your daddy fascist. Indeed, Fascists called temselves fascists with no red faces. Why not Islamomafia? Because Bush said it?. Is this wikipedia or a joke? Bush also said that Iraq got WMD! (i.e. Bushism and for a larger list Wikiquote). So do we have to have an article called "I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."?!. Please guys! Do we remember?! Notable people and organizations are saying Bush is an x and he's saying they are an y. Do you know what I mean by call me this, call you that?! I hope so. It's a term. -- Cheers -- Svest 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]
Comment Anyways the word should be treated the same other (term) articles are treated. There is NO confusion, all styles of this word redirect here. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Islamo-fascism (link=history) is locked and protected to redirect to Neofascism and religion. SlimVirgin, abusing your admin to help your friends Yusuf, Anon and Yuber again (like blocking people for "personal attacks" while ignoring the personal attacks on those people made by your friends)? I wouldn't be surprised...

There is no "confusion", but this does not make sense. There are not "two meanings" of Islamofascism, so there is no reason to have an article called "(term)". This is not per naming conventions and was solely done by the little cliqué of Yuber, Yusuf, SlimVirgin (admin) and Anonymous editor seemingly dedicated to enforcing Islamic POV and dogma on all relevant articles... --Chaosfeary 02:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, I agree with CltFn and Dsol. Term doesn't look or seem good but it also seems to serve a point. So, who knows. gren グレン 02:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both Klonimus and Zeq talk about "an emerging consensus" on VfD. What is this talking about? Links please. The most relevant such discussion, the previous VfD for this article before it was moved, favoured the term label over the article without. --- Charles Stewart 18:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When will this vote close? It seems to be going on forever and are we supposed to wait until the proponents of "move" get their way. So I think that the person who started this should end it now. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, I agree, this is a strangely elongated process. We may need to get an admin to weigh in. BYT 16:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the user who started this is in jail. He's been blocked twice for disruption caused in other articles [1] and [2]. Cheers -- Svest 16:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

I also agree that this process has been strangely elongated. I suspect dark forces are at work. Dark, powerful, anti-Islamic forces. Babajobu 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the real world (i.e. away from the fevered world of sinister "parliamentary tricks" and mysterious vote elongations) the problem here is that talk page votes on redirects do not automatically summon the attention of an admin who closes the vote. Not sure exactly what the protocol is here, but we should get an uninvolved admin and ask them either to close or to tell us what the next step is. Babajobu 14:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. -- Svest 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Baba, I already did that before you started talking about evilness. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Evilness"? Whenceforth comes talk of "evilness"? Regardless, which admin did you contact and when? Let's get this issue settled already. Babajobu 20:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well we shall see who shows up. Anyways there is no reason to keep this vote open anyways. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<-------- back to start Yes, but so far as I know there is also no way to "close" a vote like this. We really need an admin to show up and tell us what to do. Now picture the scene in Superman (movie) where Superman wails over the corpse of Lois Lane, but instead of Superman and Lois imagine Babajobu and this vote, and imagine Babajobu shouting "Admin!! ADMIN!!!!!!!!". Just like that. Where is the f'shtinkin admin? In the meantime I've decided it's vaguely Islamophobic to apend "(term)" to the title of "Islamofascism", because it suggests that readers of this article, unlike readers of Zionist Occupation Government or Vast right-wing conspiracy or the readers of all the other controversial terms in Wikipedia that do not have "(term)" apended to title, do not have the necessary intellectual maturity to understand the difference between discussion of a concept and validation of that concept's existence. Still, I'm leaving my vote at neutral, because there is no doubt that this article caused confusion, anger, and hurt feelings in a way that those other articles did not. Babajobu 20:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait Babajobu and calm down. Until then the vote is closed regardless. It's been almost over 2 weeks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can't find any precedent for an article in Wikipedia that has "(term)" in the title even when no other article with the same name exists. Has this been done before, or are we only doing it to ward off confusion on Islam-related topics, and thereby implyng that readers of Islam-related articles are more likely than other Wikipedia-readers to get confused. Do we know of any precedents? If so, I would feel much better about this. Otherwise, it feels very condescending to Muslims. Babajobu 20:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's somehow a similar case, American terrorism (term). But there was a consensus about to use it. In our case, we haven't reached a consensus yet to use it or not. That's why we are voting. Cheers -- Svest 21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Yes, the concept of a vote is not novel or unfamiliar to me, Fayssal. Nor is it really relevant to the question I asked, which is whether "(term)" has ever before been used in a Wikipedia title for any purpose other than disambiguation. The article you cite appears to use "(term)" to disambiguate from another article on terrorism in the United States. I'm wondering whether by approving the use of "(term)" in the title of the Islamofascism article we will be implying that Muslim readers are less capable of recognizing such distinctions themselves. It seems a little fishy, considering Wikipedia articles on controversial topics involving other communities do not include "term", presumably because we think readers are sophisticated enough not to need this sort of disclaimer. Still, there is no doubt that "term" here has helped reduce emotional edit-warring, which is why I won't support the move to the non-(term) title. Just wondering what type of message we are sending, especially because we may be establishing a new wiki-precedent. Babajobu 22:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Babajobu. Particularly to the point is whether an article with this form has ever been up for AfD before. As far as I can see, it has not. --- Charles Stewart 22:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the (term) usage could be seen as condescending to Muslims. It's slightly strange, in that one might expect there to this article because there are other articles called "Islamofascism (film)" and the like, but it's easy to grasp the point that this is meant to restrict what one is to understand is covered by the article. --- Charles Stewart 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that we don't use "(term)" in this way for controversial concepts relating to any other community. Zionist Occupation Government or Vast right-wing conspiracy or Great Satan do not include "term" in the titles, presumably because we assume that Jews or Americans or political right-wingers do not need help to understand the distinction between having an article on a concept and validating that concept. But we are inventing a non-disambig use of "term" specifically for an article that is potentially offensive to Muslims. This could be perceived as implying that Muslims are less equipped to make intellectual distinctions that are easy for members of other communities--and that is a racist, Islamophobic implication. I'm just saying we should consider this stuff before setting a new precedent here, if in fact that's what we would be doing. Because I would not support adding "term" to any of the other articles we mentioned, or to the article on Clerical fascism, or to future articles on "Jewish fascism", et cetera. So what will it mean to only use "term" for non-disambig purposes on Islam-related articles. Just saying we should think about that. Babajobu 22:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think guys we are confusing eachother. For me, people who voted support believe that this should be a separate article (separated from Neofascism and religion, where all religiofascism articles are being packed). People who voted oppose believe the opposite and argue that it already exists Neofascism and religion#Islam, and therefore, this article should be about the use of the term. In other words, it is simply a difference between this [3] and this [4]. Cheers -- Svest 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Fayssal, the current debate is not about the content of the article, but about whether the title should include "term" as a a disclaimer. Regardless, because mainstream sources disagree as to whether "Islamofascism" is a real phenomenon or a slur cooked up by bigots, Wikipedia could never have an article simply describing "Islamofascism" as a phenomenon. We can only discuss how the term is used, and how it is understood by those commentators who use it and criticize it. This is consistent with Wikipedia's coverage of other controversial concepts. I recognize that the "term" disclaimer has soothed hurt feelings relating to this article, but I wonder what message we send by singling out controversial concepts relating to Islam for special treatment in their titles. Why do Jews, Americans, Hindus, Catholics, and left-wingers not need to help understand the difference between having an article on a concept and validating that concept, but Muslims do need that help? It seems like we're begging that question by singling out "Islamofascism" for special treatment. It's just something to consider before we set a precedent here. Babajobu 23:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Babajobu. I was right than saying we are confusing eachother. Now, what is your advice and opinion? I believe that there's no Islamofascism as I believe there's Islamist extremism and terrorism. We have no guarantee that if we remove the (term), the article would stay stable and nobody would restart again the edit warring. Intelligent readers (be them Muslims or not and depending or not on the content of the article) already know about the topic. What about the rest (and I say especially when we would be having a non-stop edit warring and protecting)? So the issue now, is about what goes in the article. If it is only about removing the (term), I have no objection at all as per the reasons you presented and the logic behind it! Cheers -- Svest 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Fayssal, I share the concern that removing "term" would kickstart the edit warring once again. This is why I'm hesitant to vote "Support". But I do think we should all think carefully before setting a new precedent here (assuming this is a new precedent: perhaps there are already articles out there that have "term" in the title for disclaimer rather than disambiguation purposes). As for what goes in the article, I really think all we can do for a controversial topic such as this is describe how it is used, what users describe the term as meaning, what the term's critics say, and the grounds on which they criticize it. That's more than enough for 32 kb! Babajobu 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(re Babajobu's point) - I'd like to have the precedent that things like Zionist Occupation Government should have (term) attached to them, to make it clear that WP doesn't regard it as NPOV to describe, in this example, the Israeli government by such a title. But you are right, we should probably advertise this precedent at WP:VP to get more input on whether this is a good idea or not. --- Charles Stewart 23:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I would not support changing Zionist Occupation Government to Zionist Occupation Government (term). It's not necessary. In order to abide by Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability and NPOV, the article is written so as to convey that this is a term used by some, but disputed by others. That's all that's needed for me. It seems silly to shout in the title that "This is a term and a concept, boys and girls, as distinguished from an indisputably real thing such as a building or a mountain!" Adding "term" to the title of the ZOG article would seem like a pointless bit of intellectual condescension that no one needed. I feel sort of the same way here, but I also have to deal with the fact that the article has been much more stable with "term" in the title. Anyway, I agree with you that we should solicit feedback from WP:VP before setting a new precedent of using "term" as a disclaimer (rather than as a disambiguation tool) in the title of articles on concepts that may be offensive to Muslims. Ultimately I think it should be up to the voters, though, rather than the admins, and the voters seem to be choosing the title with "term". Babajobu 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that it's not so much the offended Muslims I'm worried about with this article, so much as the war of civilisations crowd. I'll post something to WP:VP(policy) (it's not actually a policy proposal, but it could result in that). --- Charles Stewart 00:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Qualifying articles with "(term)" --- Charles Stewart 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

The backlog at WP:RM goes back to 15 November, and most admins are reulctant to close votes which are still active, like this one. It is possible to ask for the vote to be closed, either by approaching an admin (be careful how you go about this to avoid the impression of cherry picking an admin who is likely to favour your side: very bad, and admins don't like to be used this way), or by asking on the WP:RM talk page. Personally, I'm happy to wait. This isn't urgent. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, as long as it's standard procedure. So these sorts of move votes can go on indefinitely? Babajobu 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It turns on how many admins are interested in closing the discussions. The backlog on WP:AfDs is much shorter than on RMs. It could be another week before the discussion is closed: if it's still open on Friday, I'll pester someone to close it. --- Charles Stewart 20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources!

Chaosfeary, I have to go against you on this latest revert dispute with Brandon. I agree with you on a lot of things, but it's not okay to insert comments like that without providing sources. Imagine if Brandon just did a brain-dump into the article, adding whatever content he thought was accurate and relevant. You wouldn't like it, and you would be right not to like it. We need to demonstrate that whatever content we add is backed up by reasonably mainstream sources, otherwise this article will turn in to an endless revert/edit war between people who prefer their own interpretation of the term to the other side's. Babajobu 12:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, removing it now (if not already gone). Sorry. I think it's pretty NPOV though - All it does is explain why most groups, even those sharing views that would traditionally be seen as "fascist" do not label themselves as fascist because of the negative images/history associated with facist groups/governments. That's basically what I mean. --Chaosfeary 12:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. The thing is that it suggests that the groups are publicly denying their fascist nature in order to avoid the pejorative power of the word "fascist". I think it's more likely that it would never even occur to these groups that they are "fascist", because they don't think in terms of that kind of western poli sci category. But regardless, what I'm saying is that what I think or you think or Brandon thinks can't be presented in the article as fact. When we're dealing with such a hotly disputed topic I think we need to not merely cite sources to affirm a given comment as "fact", but actually just cite sources and attribute particular views to them. Say, "Chaosfeary, a columnist for National Review Online, has argued that "Islamofascist" groups disingenuously deny their fascist nature because they hope to avoid being associated with the Nazi movement." Or something like that. Because no one can disagree with a comment like that, even if you despise NRO and the term "Islamofascism", you have to agree that Chaosfeary does indeed argue that. Anyway, you know all this already, I don't know why I've just spent so much time spelling it out. Babajobu 12:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Cole and the 'F' word

Interestingly, Juan Cole, who is quoted in this article as criticising use of the term Islamofascist, is not beyond using the 'F' word himself, at least as applied to Likud and Zionist Revisionism

"*A group of Israeli rabbis has issued a call for the Sharon government to cease its policy of cavalierly allowing the killing innocent civilians in the Occupied Territories in the course of its military operations against radical groups. They say such actions are inconsistent with the essence of the Jewish religion. Too right! Judaism has given us so much that is noble in ethical religion, and what the Likud is doing is an insult to that long and glorious tradition. Likud's real roots lie not in the Bible but in Zionist Revisionism of the Jabotinsky sort, which is frankly a kind of fascism."[5]--FRS 15:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, can anyone find a cite for the claim in Juan Cole that he won the "Legion of Iran" award in 2003? This 'fact' was introduced to the article on October 9 by an anon IP [6], and the text reached its present state on October 11. A Swarthmore PR [7] dated October 18 has, word-for-word, the exact statement as the WP article: "He received the Legion of Iran, the highest official honor for a foreigner, during a visit to Iran in 2003." There's nothing in Cole's c.v. or on his website to support the claim. It sounds like a subtle defamation to me, taking into account that a lot of Cole's critics would not exactly consider this "honor," well, honorable. --FRS 18:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian's ascription

Moved comment from entry:

The Guardian attributes the term to an article by Muslim scholar Khalid Duran in the Washington Times, where he used it to describe the push by some Islamist clerics to "impose religious orthodoxy on the state and the citizenry" [8].

It was likely not the Washington Times that carried this piece, if it was indeed published, since LexisNexis carries no story appearing in that paper between 1981 and 9/11 in which either "islamofascism" or "islamo-fascism" appear.

Can someone verify a cite?--Cberlet 21:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this before. I carried out the LexisNexis check. I'm pretty sure the author of the Guardian article screwed this up: and it's rather bad of the Guardian not to check this. Khalid Duran may have used the term before 9/11, but if so, it was almost certainly elsewhere. --- Charles Stewart 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering paragraph

I'm baffled by the following section:

Several other outspoken critics of Islam go further, and claim that Islam itself is fascistic^{[citation needed]}, arguing that Islam shares with fascism what they claim are its essential characteristics, such as supremacism, leader worship, exclusionism, totalitarianism and glorification of violence. These critics do not generally discuss the philosophical bases of fascism, nor do they tend to cite fascist thinkers, but rather approach their understanding of Islamist philosophy by operating a checklist of perceived evils that they consider Islamism and fascism to share.^{[citation needed]}

As you can see from the bits in bold, it starts out talking about some anonymous "critics" (?) who supposedly equate even Islam with Fascism, (and by the way everything they claim as essential to Islam is pretty much the same in Christianity) but then we wander back again into the "Islamism is like Fascism" line which was already covered earlier in the article. This seems like a bunch of blather that someone pulled out of their ... uh .. heads. This should be rewritten so that it make sense or be deleted. --Lee Hunter 02:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff was commented out not too long ago, pending citations being provided. I don't think the article benefits much from them, frankly.

As for the 2nd para of the intro, I'm going to disagree with you, Lee, that "tactics" are irrelevant. It's tactics, much more than expressed ideology, that "earns" political figures, regimes, or militant groups the name "fascist." Actions of both the Bush and Clinton admin's have been labeled fascistic (see Neo-fascism#Clinton_Administration and Neo-fascism#Bush_Administration), and to the extent using the term is anything more than name-calling it is mainly because the conduct so described has something to do with perceived fascist tactics. __FRS 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can't support nonsense in one WP article by pointing to even worse nonsense in another WP article (and even at that the Clinton bit you quote doesn't seem to have any mention of tactics). Fascism is identified by ideology not by a set of tactics. Those tactics are used in a broad spectrum of political movements and criminal organizations. For example, cracking skulls of your opponents does not somehow qualify a person as a fascist. --Lee Hunter 02:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll refer you to here then: Talk:Islamofascism/Archive03#The_Latest_Obscenity_Has_Seven_Letters

" Gentile is said to have defined Fascism as: "A mass movement, that combines different classes but is prevalently of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy."

"“Other characteristics on most scholars' checklists: the rejection of both liberalism and socialism; the primacy of the nation over the rights of the individual; the demonization of the nation's enemies; the elimination of dissent and the creation of a single-party state; the dominant role of a charismatic leader; the appeal to emotion and myth rather than reason; the glorification of violence on behalf of a national cause; the mobilization and militarization of civil society; an expansionist foreign policy intended to promote national greatness.”"

Don't you agree that many of these characteristics are about tactics and that several are (at least arguably, and in accordance with the thesis of those who use the term) attributable to certain self-described-as-Islamic regimes or miltant organizations?--FRS 02:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of critical view is intro appropriate

I think a summary or synopsis of the criticsm section is appropriate and warranted in the intro, presumably one editor disagrees with my interpretation, what do others think? zen master T 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necesarily object to a (longer) summary of the criticism section (we have already the statement that the appropriateness of the term is "hotly disputed.") The reason I deleted "Critics view the term as Rhetorical device, propaganda and as profoundly insulting to Muslims" is that academics have criticized the term as historically inaccurate while Silvio Berlusconi has criticized it as unfair to "real" (Italian) fascists. On the article as it exists presently, and as far as I know, the only notable critics expressing the view that it is "profoundly insulting to Muslims," are themselves rather extremist (one being "skeptical" of the HolocaustTalk:Islamofascism/Archive03#Joe_Sobran, and the other using the 'F' word himself to describe a present-day Israeli political party). --FRS 21:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency check -- show of hands, please

I want to see how sincere this latest discussion is. I have a question for everybody who has argued that it's simply a matter of objective WP policy -- rather than eagerness to legitimize a smear against Muslims --- that the word (term) should not be used in this article title ....

Would you, or would you not, consistently apply your argument by committing right now to support a move of American terrorism (term) to American terrorism? Please indicate below.

WILL commit here to supporting that move by voting "support" when I raise the issue:

Support, so long as other editors of that page agree with BYT that "term" does not serve a disambiguation purpose. Readers of that article do not need simple intellectual distinctions pointed out to them in the title of that article
Support, on principal that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," a principal I commend to those who are "profoundly insulted" by the current article's title--FRS 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WILL NOT commit here to supporting that move by voting "support" when I raise the issue:

Thanks, BYT 12:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Oh hooray, another of BYT's meandering wiki-inquisitions to ferret out people's true motivations! Well, BYT, since I've already stated that I would not support moving Zionist Occupation Government to Zionist Occupation Government (term), I think your question has already been answered. But in case you really have this much trouble making simple connections, I'll add that if the addition of "(term)" to the American terrorism article does not serve a legitimate disambiguation purpose (from the book of the same name and the article on terrorism inside United States), then yes, I would support removing "(term)" from the title of that article. The article should be written so as to indicate that the term is not universally accepted, just as the "Islamofascism" article is. Other than that, I don't think readers of that article need help to understand the difference between the existence of an article on the topic and a validation of that topic. However, based on my experience here, I'm not sure the same can be said of the "Islamofascism" article, and keeping "(term)" here may be necessary. Babajobu 14:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to get testy. I'm just trying to see how far proclamations of noble-sounding principles (Zeno's, for instance) actually extend into the real world outside of this article. There are, occasionally, fascinating divergences. But I've got you down as a "yes," thanks. BYT 14:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to how far these principles extend outside this article, I think the answer is pretty darn far, as evidenced by the fact that none of the other controversial articles cited have "term" in their title. American terrorism is the only other borderline case, and the addition of "term" was presented as a means to disambiguate it from the book of the same name, and the article on terrorism in the US. So intellectual condescension and genuflection before a community's sense of honor by adding "term" to the title seems unique to this article. I do hope it doesn't spread to other Islam-related articles. Babajobu 14:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Genuflection"? That's needlessly hostile language, Baba. Listen, I really had no idea, until it came up here, that the (term) thing was unique to these two articles. I'm not asking anyone to genuflect to anything. Maybe we do need to rethink this.
But if we apply a principle, we should do it consistently. And you know what? We can rewrite a disambig page if need be, so that everything comes out fair and square.
Please acknowledge that the people who have been agitating for this article, all along, are not above gaming the system, or kicking it to the ground when they feel so inclined.
Chaosfeary, for instance, whose parliamentary manipulations we are now all discussing with reverent care, redirected the Christianity article to Nazism in a fit of pique when his attempt to link Islamofascism to Islam failed.
That is uncool. Agreed? Similar shenanigans are uncool. Agreed? If a rule applies to one article, it applies to other articles. Agreed? BYT 15:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend use of word "genuflection" to be hostile. Muslims are not alone in genuflecting; Jews do it as part of worship, too, as do many other religious groups. Choasfeary's recent behavior was wildly inappropriate. I hope he stops. To the point: "If a rule applies to one article, it applies to other articles" is inconsistent with supporting use of "term" in title of this article. We should be very clear about what we are voting for here: keeping "term" in the title of the "Islamofascism" article will mean giving special deference to Muslim sensibilities in Wikipedia. There is no prospect here of Muslims being singled out for negative treatment. We are debating giving them special, solicitous wikitreatment, and the outcome of the vote seems to favor doing so. I can accept that outcome, because I don't want to deal with endless revert warring in this article. I've only suggested that we should all consider what message we are sending by having a special respectful/patronizing custom for articles that are potentially offensive to Muslims. Accusations that editors who oppose use of "term" here are "gaming the system" seems strange, since they only advocate treating Islam-related articles like any other. I suspect they feel that the system is being gamed by those who demand special consideration for Islam-related articles. For my part, I don't think anyone is gaming the system, I think they are trying to figure out the right thing to do. Babajobu 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that "editors who oppose use of 'term' here are gaming the system." I said "those who have been agitating for this article all along are not above gaming the system." I don't think you are gaming the system, for the record. If everyone on your side of this debate were approaching the issue as you are, we wouldn't have a problem. BYT 16:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crappy sources

A couple of editors are trying to insert a mention of an article from faithfreedom.org which they defend on the grounds that the "source doesn't matter". Well, excuse me, but the source very much DOES matter. In fact, the source is everything. Anyone can post anything they want on a web page. You don't need money, editors, intelligence, common sense, education or anything else except a little time on your hands. This POS faithfreedom article that supposedly establishes a link between fascism and Islam is just chock full of screaming howlers like the following "[Islam] is extremely deceptive and despite being a doctrine of war it portrays itself as the religion of peace. It wants to have a universal appeal. It subjugates women and Muhammad was a misogynist of the worst kind but its apologists present him as the champion of women’s rights." This is just a lot of spittle spraying from the lips of a seriously raving mad anti-Muslim crank. This is not a "source" for an encyclopedia by any stretch of the imagination. --Lee Hunter 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree, but forgive me for pointing out that the word itself is, inescapably, a slighly lesser volume of spittle spraying from the lips of seriously raving mad anti-Muslim cranks. That one of them currently lives in the White House does not change the underlying dynamic.
As I may have mentioned before, this article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. But since we're pretending it does, I want to share my firm conviction that this is precisely what intelligent editors can expect to contend with from here on out: people tag-teaming you with faithfreedom.org links.BYT 17:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:OceanSplash

I've twice rved additions to the lead section of this article by this user (2nd addition). We already have an article on Ali Sina, and while some mention of his views on Islamofascism might be appropriate in this article, he is not an important figure, and ~~FaithFreedom is just a website he operates~~, not in any sense a respected journal.

I'd also note that this edit violates the rule about documenting the term, not the phenomenon. --- Charles Stewart 16:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript I got that wrong: Faithfreedom is a site combatting what it calls islamophobic views, and it hosts Ali Sina in particular in order to refute him. Sorry about that, I confused him and the webiste with someone else --- Charles Stewart 17:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that faithfreeom is combatting islamophobic views? Take a look at their home page. It's one of the worst anti-muslim hate sites that I've ever seen. Here's just a brief example "Islamic terrorism is inspired by Islamic teachings. We can never get rid of Islamic terrorism unless we defeat the ideology behind it and that is Islam itself. Islam induces hate backed by lies. " Yikes. Talk about inducing hate. --Lee Hunter 17:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this cite worse than Joseph Sobran, the self-described "Holocaust sceptic" who is the source for the quote that the term Islamofascism is just wartime propoganda? --FRS 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question and I'm loathe to defend Sobran or his views on the holocaust but considering that he's a nationally syndicated columnist for various notable publications, his words carry more weight than some relatively unknown crank from a fringe website. Some of Sobran's opinions might be repellent but his claim to fame is not anti-semitism. This website, on the other hand, only exists to sling mud at a religion. --Lee Hunter 17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be precise, Sobran hasn't described himself as a "Holocaust skeptic" but as a "Holocaust stipulator". I read a transcript of his speech to the IHR: he seemed to be saying that he was open to the possibility that the Holocaust hadn't happened, but didn't really care to investigate the matter, and so he would "stipulate" the existence of the Holocaust so as to avoid legal trouble in Germany. Basically I agree with Lee, though, that his notability as a source preceded his flirtation with Holocaust revisionism, and seems to have survived those flirtations, too. Babajobu 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my mistake about stipulator vs "sceptic" (sic). Sobran has also written: "The 9/11 attacks would never have occurred except for the U.S. Government's Middle East policies, which are pretty much dictated by the Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United States. The Zionists boast privately of their power, but they don't want the gentiles talking about it."

[9]

I think Sobran's ridiculous, but his agnosticism about the existence of the Holocaust and his contention that a Jewish cabal runs the U.S. government do not seem to have interfered with his status as a relatively mainstream political commentator in the US. Babajobu 19:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sobran is a syndicated columnist in nationally prominent newspapers. That doesn't make him right or wrong, but it does make him more relevant for consideration as a source. Until faithfreedom's rants start showing up as op-ed pieces in the New York Times.... they operate in two different worlds. One with, you know, editors. And the other without. BYT 18:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction #2 - faithfreedom.org is Ali Sina's site, and is the site OceanSplash linked to. faithfreedom.com is a site devoted to attacking Ali Sina in particular, and what it calls Islamophobia in general. They both fail to rise above the generally awful level of over-emotional sites devoted to the interesection of religion and politics. --- Charles Stewart 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Berlusconi and See Also

What happened to Berlusconi's criticism of the term? Why was that removed? And the "See also" section is degenerated into a monstrosity. What in heaven's name does a lengthy succession of links to different forms of terrorism have to do with this article? Babajobu 17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because his comment had nothing to do with this particular article. He was talking about Saddam Hussein (i.e. the leader of a secular state) not about Islam or Islamofascism. --Lee Hunter 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, I'll look at the citation and if I got it wrong then obviously I won't reinsert it. But you also reverted back to the interminable list of 32 marginally relevant see also links. Is there a reason for that? Are you really attached to every one of those links? Babajobu 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't realize I did that. Sorry. I actually tried to remove them myself once before but was reverted. --Lee Hunter 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Berlusconi quote definitely refers to Saddam Hussein rather than "Islamofascism", my mistake. Looks like I was going on a summary provided on one of the archived versions of this talk page; I should have taken the time to examine the source myself. Babajobu 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, at least some of the "see also" links should be retained as relevant parallel examples of political rhetoric and historically inaccurate metaphors that have found a place, fbow, in modern lexicon.--FRS 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FRS, but aren't you really just talking about political epithets that have been incorporated into mainstream political talk? Isn't the link to List of political epithets enough? But if you want to add some, go ahead...I just think we should try to keep the list from growing into a deep archaeological layer of rhetorical one-upsmanships. "Link to propaganda! Link to terrorism involving Muslims! Link to propaganda! Link to terrorism involving Muslims!" And so on. Babajobu 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism in Wikipedia

[material concerning dispute between OceanSplash (talk · contribs) and Grenavitar (talk · contribs) moved to User:OceanSplash/Islamofascism in Wikipedia. This talk page is for discussion of the article Islamofascism (term); it is not the place to post lengthy details of user disputes whose connection to the article is dubious and tangential at best. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Mistress Selina

Can I ask what your thinking was when you reverted the page? BYT 02:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Selina, who are you? ;) -- Svest 02:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Lol hello again :p Hehe --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point in the HUGE amount of "see also" links, it really is unnecessary. It's got more see also's than a lot of really large articles which is pretty crazy O-o --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some of the links are irrelevant. However, that needs discussion. Episode T. -- Svest 02:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

What do you mean by "episode T"? Sorry, I haven't a clue :¦ --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted Mistress Selina Kyle's last edit. The reason is that I felt the previous version was more NPOV. This is a vexed subject, obviously, but I don't think it is going to be improved any by hasty and biased edits. If someone is said not to claim to be something, for instance, it's quite normal to put the something in quotes. "You are an idiot." "He claimed I was an 'idiot'." These are not "scare quotes". They are simply quotes used as they generally are in English. James James 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see here: Islamofascism&diff=32833084&oldid=32832858 - Yuber is trying to insert his own POV into articles and adds a lot of uncited opinions of himself, some masquerading as "some critics say"/"some critics" - weasel words..

The article does not need opinions masquerading as facts. "some critics say"/"some critics think", etc. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think both sides do that! Because I'm on RC patrol, I'm just correcting things that strike me as too much one way or the other, rather than taking sides. Personally, the whole article strikes me as an "opinion masquerading as a fact", mostly because one side believes "islamofascism" is an actual something, and the other doesn't. If we simply reported that debate, all would be well. But your side, it seems to me, doesn't want to do that, but wants to talk about "islamofascism" as though it were a thing. Still, please do take the approach I suggested. Bring the things you don't like, one by one, to talk, and thrash it out. The world won't crumble into dust if something you don't like goes unreverted. James James 03:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was and is no consensus to move this page to Islamofascism

What was the logic behind this move? BYT 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC) <reinserting lost comment>[reply]

Inasmuch as a) no one is willing to answer this (including the person who moved the page) and b) the "Move" side did not attain 60%, I have moved this back. BYT 12:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page move - my opinion

SlimVirgin asked me to look into this issue as an uninvolved party and offer my opinion. Without getting in to the specific merits of whether or not I personally think the page "should" have been renamed, I think this is a case of biting the oldies. Page moves are typically doable by anyone, and the 60% guideline on WP:RM is phrased somewhat loosely. The whole point is that if you end up on WP:RM, the move is controversial. The stakes are, frankly, low here — the substance of the article is unchanged — and getting worked up over a few percent one way or the other seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees. It seems wrong to me that we should give an admin less discretion in deciding how to close a page move discussion than we do when closing an article deletion discussion.

I think Marudubshinki should be encouraged to close out the discussion however he thinks appropriate, and editors should be encouraged to redirect their energy into improving the article and making sure it stays properly focused, rather than fretting over the semiotics of whether or not a parenthesized word appears in the article title.

Hope this helps. Looking forward to the hate mail.

Regards, Nandesuka 23:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as it goes, the above is fair enough, but it misses the point as to why I, at least, am bothered by M's closing: his remarks in 'defence' of his move on his talk page suggested that he did not see why his closure of the discussion should not reflect his personal views on the move, as opposed to trying to find the outcome that best fits the discussion. I regard this as unadminlike. --- Charles Stewart 02:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, but let's remember to slightly gentle on our overworked admins :). Also, let's not forget the distinction between "personal views" and "personal discretion". Have a good new year :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously on Islamofascism (term)...

Detractors of this article (myself and many others) allege that it slanders Islam and has little or nothing to do with Fascism.

A bitterly controversial corner of WP, it survived two attempts to delete, on the argument that it was only the usage of the term Islamofascism that was under discussion.

Shortly after that, however, partisans launched a campaign to remove the (term) from the title; the campaign took the form of a vote to move the page to Islamofascism. Vote required 60% to pass -- 54% was all the "move" proponents could muster. This move vote was initiated by a much-disciplined troll, User:Chaosfeary, who has now, so far as may be determined, transported himself whither the woodbine twineth. When Chaosfeary evaporated, so did much of the impetus behind the "move" vote. No admin wanted to come within a hundred yards of closing the vote for some weeks, with the result that the article's status and title was uncertain for a time.

Note, please, that Fascism (United States) is currently facing a vote for deletion, with the prevailing argument emerging that the article is little more than a POV assault on certain American political constituencies, and does not actually describe fascist movements in the US.

Under this logic, there seems little defense for the existence of Islamofascism or Islamofascism (term). (The history of anti-American usage of "fascist" as an epithet being considerably longer and more extensive than the recent neocon coinage "Islamofascism.") But logic has had very little to do with the proceedings thus far.

This article, and all links to it, should be deleted. Relevant content should migrate to Neofascism and religion. BYT 14:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is exactly the kind of thing a staunch Islamist would say -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that is the kind of thing a staunch Gobshite would say.--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above bullet points listed by BYT. If anyone wants to debate something, please choose something from that list. I am not against an article relating Islam to totalitarianism, or even fascism, but "Islamofacism" is clearly a term used for verbal attack, not classification or study. --Vector4F 20:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The story so far omits a piece of early history: the article started as a section of List of political epithets, but the term attracted a great deal of editing and commentary on the talk page that I asked about making an article out of it, which was regarded as a good idea, and which I then started. I think that the solution to the inherent POV drift of the article is some sort of merge. I see two options along these lines:
1. Merge it back into List of political epithets; or
2. Find some similar group of epithets that we can make a single article out of.

As far as it being an attack page, the extremist fringes of Islamism teem with totalitarian thought: you can debate the niceties of calling these people fascists, but if you embrace a totalitarian ideology, it is hard to see that the label is so much of a smear. The problem with the term is that it is far too charged and skewed to be a good label for use in any kind of thoughtful discussion, let alone a neutral encyclopedia entry. --- Charles Stewart 21:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should probably be merged into a list of political epithets.

The extremist fringes of any and every faith system teem with ugliness. It is not at all difficult for me to see the label "Islamofascism," which is popular primarily with groups who hate my religion, as a smear.

It is a slur, and if you don't think so, ask a Muslim. That is precisely the purpose the term serves, an insult, one carefully targeted to appeal to American xenophobia. It is about as relevant to a discussion of Fascism as the word Jap is to a discussion of the Imperial Japanese Navy. BYT 23:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew as I was typing the last paragraph of my above response that it was problematic, let me say what I should have said. We can divide up the usage of the term Islamofascism: usages that never caught on, such as Malise Ruthven's original usage, usages that attempted to identify a dangerous fascistic and Islamist movement distinmct from the political views that most muslims hold, and usages that attempt to paint Islam as a religion that is disposed towards fascist-like political expression. The third is of course deeply insulting to muslims, and because of the popularity of this usage, no thoughtful person uses it. But there was a period of time when the term was not strongly associated with this third usage, and was used in the second context. it was this usage that I intended.

Back to the matter at hand: I should also have said that as far as possible we should merge content into Neo-fascism and religion, but that is the effective policy now; this article more or less consists of the residue after doing this. The advantage of the merge is that it makes this easier. --- Charles Stewart 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see Islam based fascism as something that exists as anything more than a slur. Fascism doesn't exactly have much of a history of associating with Islam, if anything, it has an association with Christianity, even if only by default. If the article remains, it should certainly contain "(term)" in the title, as that is all that factually exists. Quite frankly though, it strikes me as something that belongs in Wiktionary with maybe a brief comment in the fascism/islam articles to say that some, very crass, detractors use the term, with little more than a single sentence to do so. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neofascism and religion documents many instances of religious fascism that aren't Christian, and Japanese fascism can be added to that list (see Japanese nationalism: fascist, but interestingly distinct from the main strain of European fascism). I don't agree about transwikiing to Wiktionary, because the term has claims to notability. --- Charles Stewart 03:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Mmx1 -- proposal for moving this page

I don't see how it's a slur if it serves to identify a particular slice of Islam that subscribes to fascistic principles. It's no more a slur than American Fascism - it refers to an element of fascism in America, not an implication that America = Fascism. --Mmx1 02:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If our aim is to identify a slice of Islam that (is argued to subscribe to) fascistic principles, let's move the article to Islamic neo-fascist movements. After all, we don't have a page called Amerofascism, and me coining the term wouldn't justify such a page. BYT 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord, Brandon, still at it? Earlier you were talking about the VfD at Fascism (United States), and suggesting that that case was analogous to this one. You left your bolded comments on that topic, but haven't given us an update. So what was the outcome of that VfD, incidentally? Babajobu 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never bothered. BYT 12:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amerofascism is a bit clunky, Amerifascism seems like a better way to hack up the two words, and if it were in notable usage I'd have no objection to it as a replacement for "Fascism (United States)". the idea is that if you're talking about something and you want to emphasize a multi-word concept it makes sense to coint a one-word phrase for it. And I still have yet to see anything self-evident about the term being a slur. It doesn't refer to individual members but a movement. --Mmx1 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I disagree. If it's not a slur, may I ask why is it here?

Here's a source that condsiders it a slur:

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=35966&theType=NB

Here's another source that considers it a slur:

http://www.suspectpaki.com/2005/08/islamofascism.html

Here's another source that considers it a slur:

http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/warispeace.htm

We could go on like this all day. I especially draw your attention to the CAIR article. If the NAACP, say, holds that the word "nigger" is a slur -- and is instantly contradicted by, say, David Duke insisting that the word "nigger" is not a slur ... are we to file the whole question under "controversy"? Or are we to conclude that Duke is one of the people engaging in hate speech? Would we sanction an article entitled Nigger political activity in the US?

How about we move this article to Islamic neo-fascist movements, and edit the article accordingly, including a subsection on the use of the term "Islamofascism"? BYT 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the list of epithets does not mean we shouldn't have an article for it. Are you really suggesting Young Turks should be moved, or Activist judges or Apartheid etc. (The list could go on). In this case you mention, regarding David Duke, I think you will find that the majority of people believe that "nigger" is a slur. Do you think that the majority of people think that "islamofascism" is a slur in the same way? I think you would probably find that the percentage of people who think "nigger" is not a slur would be rather similar to the percentage of people who think that "islamofascism" is a slur, this is only a hunch though, you are welcome to prove me wrong with evidence. The arguments you put forward are specious, however, I have no problem in principle to moving this article to Islamic neo-fascist movements with a redirect from Islamofascism and Islamofascism (term) to that article. - FrancisTyers 16:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notes on my suggestion; I hear what you're saying. We are in agreement, then, that it makes sense to move the page to Islamic neo-fascist movements? BYT 16:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the controversy I think this should certainly go for a vote and certainly give people long enough to respond. My personal view on the term is that it is next to useless as a descriptive term when discussing the issues surrounding the influence of Islam on governments, the practices of governments purporting to be Islamic, the values of the individuals and groups who want to increase the role of Islam in politics, or the idealised Islamic theocratic state. The problem with using such a term is the same as all pejorative terms in politics, it generalises away the important issues and tends to leave the moderates apologising for the extremists using the term. After all, who wants their views to be associated with someone who would use the term islamofascist ? - FrancisTyers 16:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do other editors feel about the suggestion of moving this page to Islamic neo-fascist movements, and rewriting to make the use of the term "Islamofascism" a component of that article? BYT 17:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this a lot of thought. I would prefer Islamic political movements or Islamic authoritarianism. I agree with FrancisTyers, the inclusion of "fascism", in any variety, is a crude term when one considers the context of the movements in question. I feel that titling the article with facism is the wrong approach, as it advances the rhetoric of a few (we know where it comes from), lacks theoretical shorings (we need more analysis), it's poorly defined, and is very easily insulting (because it's not clear who we are talking about). I have no problem with comparative political philosophy, but if someone wants to link an Islamic movement with fascism, they need to have a systematic, cited writeup. Use the term "Islamofacism" only to reference a label, noting that some consider it offensive. Don't set up an article to prove someone else's rhetoric.

But this all comes down to one thing: is this an article about a word or about a theory? Is this article about a term people are using and how it's used, or is this about an idea and what it defines? Right now it is the former, and I feel that this does not deserve its own article. I think the former (the word/usage) should be in an article about the latter (the idea/definition). If we don't have the later and no can come up with it, then let's stash what's salvagable here into one of the existing articles on fascism.

So what about Islamic authoritarianism? We could put some of this article's contents into a subsection there, but more importantly, we could actually compare specific interpretations of Islamism to facism, rather than beat around the bush. It could be a sister to Islamic democracy. --Vector4F 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer Authoritarian Islamism, though "authoritarian" is a bit weak to cover the movements under consideration. --- Charles Stewart 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with "Authoritarian Islamism". "Totalitarian" is another option. --Vector4F 01:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled as to why the subject of moving this article has come up again. Perhaps part of this feeling derives from the fact that the article itself is poorly written. Before I get into that, let me lay out why I don’t think the article should be buried in some other article. Imagine a random person who hears someone on TV use the word “Islamofascism.” This person turns immediately to Wikipedia to determine what such a word could mean. Instead of a clear, concise article that defines what people who use the term mean by it, our random Wikipedian gets redirected to an article on, say, fascism and religion. This would be confusing at best, not least because the individuals and movements who are so termed do not call themselves fascists. This brings me to the article itself. The first thing someone coming to the page would see is, for some mysterious reason, Islamofascism is a “term,” as opposed to… what is the opposite of a term? Isn’t the word “quark” a term? But that’s been discussed at length above. Moving on: “This article is about the term "Islamofascism"; for a discussion of the relationship between fascism and Islam, see Neofascism and religion.” How many people who come to this page would actually be looking for a connection between fascism and religion such that they would need the italicized advice? My guess: roughly zero. But if it has to be in the article, let it come at the end. Second paragraph of definition: “While several modern political and militant organizations describe themselves as "Islamist", none refer to themselves as "fascist."” What is this sentence doing here? What does it mean? As nearly as I can tell, it’s trying to make the point that calling these groups fascist is an epithet, they are not really fascist. Sort of like calling someone “Islamodoodyhead.” Well, this is an okay point to make, but it needs to come after the definition, preferably in criticism, preferably sourced. The next sentence reads: “Some observers have drawn parallels between the ideologies and tactics of certain modern Islamic movements and the ideologies and tactics of conventional fascists or neo-fascists.” So what we have here is a criticism of the preceding sentence, making it a criticism of the criticism of the term. This sentence is followed by: “Others view the term as an historically inaccurate metaphor.” So now we have a criticism of the criticism of the criticism. Long before the actual criticism section. We end, before the jump, with this: “The term is not used to describe historical fascist organizations that had Muslim members.” Okay, fine, I guess. But such a minor point. Can this not go later? How many people are getting confused by this? There’s some sloppiness in the rest of the article, but the first part, the most important part, is particularly egregious. The page needs to stand on its own, and it also needs to reflect what the people who use the term Islamofascism mean when they say it. Then we can have section wherein people attack and defend the term. IronDuke 01:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about if someone wants to know what the word Chink means, when applied to Chinese people? Should they find a separate article for that?
What about Crossback, to refer to Roman Catholics? Was that ever in common usage? Suppose someone wants to know what that means?
What if I want to know what Commie means? Does that belong in an encyclopedia?

Is commie' political in nature? Yes.
Was it/is it "mainstream"? Yes.
Was it/is it in wide usage? Yes, far wider than "Islamofascist."
Has every general reference encyclopedia somehow managed to struggle along without an article about it for fifty years and counting?
Has the WP struggled along without such an article for its entire history? What greater claim on relevance and reality does "Islamofascism" have over "Commie"?

If you don't feel that "Islamofascism" is insulting, and meant to be so, please answer me this. Is "Islamofascism" a banner that any adult human being on earth would knowingly embrace as his or her political standard? Can you offer any example of such a person?
Has any Islamic movement, at any point in history over the past fourteen hundred years, ever established a fascist government?
That one was important. Please read it again.
Has any Islamic movement, at any point in history over the past fourteen hundred years, ever established a fascist government?
What then are the words "Islamofascism" and "Islamofascist" if not rank pejoratives?
Now, then. The big question. Is this article really even about fascism? Or is it rather a weapon of choice in a war of ideas, a means of legitimizing a polarizing, xenophobic term that certain people would like very much to see become the way most people think about Islam? BYT 01:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on it, but we could have a redirect. --Vector4F 01:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as for Chink and Commie, I would very much like to see separate articles on those "terms." "Crossback" strikes me as being a bit obscure, but I think placing "Commie," for example, on a list of epithets and leaving it at that is strange. When was the word coined, and by whom? And to whom was it applied? Is it still used? It would make a great article. Looking at the list of epithets, I noticed "Kangaroo Court," which in fact, rightly, has its own page. No court refers to itself in this way, and yet the phrase is used fairly frequently, making it wiki-worthy. "Is this article really even about fascism?" I would venture to say not. It's about a term that has widespread use, and therefore needs a clear and concise definition. Are there people out there who hate Muslims and use this term? More than likely. But it's wholly irrelevant to its inclusion here. IronDuke 01:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Chink", "Jap", "Wog", "Dago", and other ethnic slurs don't seem to be apt comparisons as they lack any political connotation and are indeed slurs. You can dispute the accuracy of the tie to fascism but to call it a slur because you read a broad meaning into it doesn't make it one. I'm not really up on my derogatory language, so I'm finding it hard to find an apt comparison. What terms are there of "ethnic/religious category + political group"? --Mmx1 03:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is like that Star Trek:TNG episode where Captain Picard can't escape from a timeloop that brings him back to the same moment again and again, except Picard was stuck in a cool timeloop, whereas ours is a boring one

As they say, it's deja vu all over again. Every issue raised in the above thread has already been repeatedly addressed in tiresome, mind-numbing detail. They're now being revisited as though the prior conversations never happened. It nearly brings tears to my eyes to see editors writing, "you know, I've thought a lot about this, and decided that describing a political movement as "fascist" isn't very helpful. We should probably change the title." Two previous AfDs and endless talkpage discussions addressed all this ad nauseum...

Could you explain to me, please, the process whereby the failure of an AFD for a term like "Islamofascist" supposedly closes out all debate and discussion -- whereas the failure of an AFD for other articles results in a later decision to move the article? Are you saying we can't discuss what the best title for this article should be? That seems a little harsh.

whether it is helpful to characterize a political movement as "fascist" is entirely beside the point. The fact is that many notable sources do describe these movements as "Islamofascist".

How about notable sources that describe George W. Bush as a "son of a bitch"? Do those usages mean we should put his picture at Son of a bitch?

Wikipedia cannot affirm the usefulness or accuracy of this term, or any political term, but if its use is notable then the concept should be characterized in an NPOV fashion. The AfDs and endless talk page debate determined that the term "Islamofascism", whatever we may think of it, is notable. Babajobu 08:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from what I've been able to determine, the AFD outcomes only determined that the phrase itself is not deleted from the Wikispace. Everything else -- redirects away from the page name, moves, the wisdom of new AFDs, strategy for dealing with vandalism -- is still very much up for discussion. BYT 12:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll add something else: Wikipedia has already made a special exception for this article in order to protect the pieties of Muslim readers. Even though no other article of this title exists, we have appended the qualifier "(term)" in order to emphasize that by having the article we do not necessarily affirm the legitimacy or accuracy of the concept. We haven't performed this bit of obeisance (and condescension) for any other community: Zionist Occupation Government, The Great Satan, Christian fascism, Gay agenda, Vast right-wing conspiracy, none of these terms are qualified by "(term)", because we expect members of the communities implicated by those terms to understand the distinction between Wikipedia's having an article on a concept and validating the accuracy of that concept.

Factually incorrect. For some reason, we did have to add "term" to American terrorism. FYI, WP has many other article names with clarifying suffixes. BYT 12:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we're already giving special privileges to our Muslim readers to avoid giving them offense with this article. Babajobu 09:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Special privileges" my eyebrow. If you woke up every morning to an article called, say, Genetic inferiority of the Irish...

... and you realized that a bunch of hate-filled editors were constantly on the prowl, eager to do anything and everything they could to make sure the article read like a brief in support of the idea that people from Ireland were violent subhuman alcoholics ...

...I'm thinking you and other Irish people (among others) would mind that article title, and would be right to speak up about the absurdity of the article's existence. Even if the Prime Minister had been injudicious enough to use the phrase.

If someone kept patiently explaining to you that the article was really nothing personal, and was only a dispassionate documentation of current usage, I'm thinking you wouldn't sit back and say, "Oh, I see -- it's just an article about the way people are insulting Ireland." You might even point out that a large-scal campaign to smear Irish people could conceivably use such an article's existence to manipulate extremely stupid people, who, in my country, constitute a majority.BYT 12:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon, the truth is that if the term "Drunk Irish monkey", or some equivalent, came into common parlance in the UK, I wouldn't have any problem with its having an article. In fact, I would appreciate being able to refer to the article as a resource. Of course, I would probably monitor the article to ensure that some embittered Unionist didn't POV the article by starting it with "Irish people are drunk monkeys. Some people consider it in poor taste to acknowledge publicly that the Irish are drunk monkeys, while some think the truth can never be in poor taste. Regardless, experts agree that Irish people are drunk monkeys." Because that just wouldn't be on. But as long as the term met a minimum threshold of notability, I would support its inclusion. Will respond to other questions below. Babajobu 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, if it isn't moved one way, it should be moved the other. This appending (term) to the end is an absurd palliative and should never have been countenanced in the first place. - FrancisTyers 09:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself never should have been started in the first place. BYT 12:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point

Let's be consistent, okay?

Fascism (United States) just got redirected to Neo-fascism.

If my proposed title change doesn't work for people, and apparently it doesn't, is there any meaningful reason we should not similarly and permanently redirect to Neofascism and religion? BYT 13:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did Fascism (United States) get redirect to Neofascism? Who made that decision? Babajobu 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. Just saw it this morning. BYT 14:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paging Jean-Luc

Let me put the question this way.

WP doesn't have an article entitled Holocaust myth. Thank God.

But should it? 38,000 Google hits, and a head of state (the president of Iran) recently used the term, illustrating, as though any illustration were needed, its notability.

Question for Baba -- should we start such an article, by such a title, or shouldn't we? If so, why? If not, why not? BYT 12:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Iranian president is linked twice in the Holocaust denial article, I've redirected Holocaust myth to there. See section: About Holocaust deniers. - FrancisTyers 13:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the question I asked, though. We've got a separate article for Islamofascism. Should we have a separate article for "Holocaust myth"? BYT 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon, responded to your Irish questions above. As for the immediately above questions: right now "Holohoax", which gets 34,000 Google hits, redirects to Holocaust denial. I think that's fine as far as it goes. However, should someone at some point decide, "you know what, I'm going to write an entry just on the history of the term 'Holohoax' and its use in Holocaust denial circles", I would certainly not expect users to demand that the entry remain a redirect. Does "Holohoax" require its own entry? Does "Islamofascism"? No. So long as no one has contributed enough information to warrant standalone article, such terms can redirect wherever is most appropriate. But when people have contributed enough material for a standalone article, it should get one. I just don't get why any article title should be verboten. Again, we have Zionist Occupation Government and Gay agenda and Christian fascism...why should "Islamofascism" or "Holohoax" be any different from those entries? You know, I don't spend most of my Wikipedia time dancing around working on terms like this, but I just don't like to see Wikipedia being censored, either. But to be honest, your zeal for seeing this topic deleted has almost won me over just on the grounds that it would be better for Wikipedia to let you focus your efforts and talents somewhere other than constant lobbying to get this article removed. Babajobu 23:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered, but I'd like to suggest we stick to the merits of the topic. (If you move beyond "almost," though, do let me know.) :)

Alas, you've ducked the question. What I asked you was whether we should have an article about the term "Holocaust myth" -- not "Holohoax," which implies a substantive disagreement with the premise of holocaust denial, but "Holocaust myth," which implies agreement with it. I asked you about this term because the notorious recent sound from the President of Iran eerily parallels Bush's use of "Islamofascism," which you'll recall was something of a turning point in the debate on this term's notability.

What is the standard here, in your view? Should we have a separate article entitled "Holocaust myth," or should we not? Would it be "appropriate" for an editor to start building that article, under that title? Or would it not be "appropriate"? Please advise. BYT 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, Brandon, come on, in the discussions we've had you've seemed certain there is a point at which editors of my disposition will say, "oh no, that particular term you just mentioned is a step too far!" That term/concept simply does not exist, Brandon! I chose "Holohoax" because I thought it cruder and more vulgar than "Holocaust myth". Both terms suggest that the Holocaust did not happen, whereas "Holohoax" also suggests that the whole thing is some kind of cheap trick played by international Jewry. I think the President of Iran's assertion that the Holocaust didn't happen is self-evidently notable. If he coined a specific term, or used specific terminology that gained traction in the Muslim world or elsewhere, then YES, that term would be a perfectly appropriate topic for an article! We have Holocaust industry, and there's no reason we shouldn't also have Holocaust myth if someone is prepared to write an informative and NPOV article on the term. We've done it for countless other "offensive" terms, and we could do it for that one! Instead of endlessly seeking an example of something that's "too hot" or "too trashy" for an article, you'd be better off going to the WP:Village pump and arguing that Wikipedia should adopt some sort of "offensiveness or obscenity" clause in its criteria for what is appropriate subject matter. There are plenty of people who would support you in that. I'm just not one of them. Babajobu 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever censors anything around here. Of course not. Tell you what. You're a good writer. Why don't you put in the five minutes or so it would take to create a paragraph or three for that article, post it at Holocaust myth, and let's see what happens to it. BYT 05:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon, and right now some Jewish Wikipedians are weeping and gnashing teeth because Zionist terrorism exists but not Palestinian terrorism (the latter being a redirect to Palestinian political violence). Everyone's a victim, everyone's singled out unfairly, everyone's got their examples. Grab a number and get in line. I'm not interested in writing that article, but I assume it would suffer the same fate as Zionist Occupation Government or The Holocaust Industry or Zionist terrorism. In other words, I assume it would be kept. And you'd find new examples to cite, new grievances to nurse. Babajobu 06:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon, I'm going to e-mail you in a few minutes. If you're awake, check your e-mail. Babajobu 06:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jell-o

It's getting a little bit like nailing Jello to a wall here, Baba.

Me: What's next? Islamic fatwas mandating the rape and murder of handicapped people? Listen. An article title that is a) a travesty of logic and b) demeans the faith system of 1 billion people is unnacceptable, hence Islamofascism or any variation on it is unacceptable.

You: Nope. Not if the phrase is notable. If Islamic fatwas mandating the rape and murder of handicapped people became a popular catch-phrase, then that would have to get turned into an article. But take heart -- if a similar catch-phrase condemning Irish people were to become notable, that would get turned into an article.

Me: Yeah, right. There's notable, and then there's notable.

You: What do you mean?

Me: I think we've got systemic bias here that keeps certain deeply offensive article titles from becoming full articles, and supports the creation of others, and I think this is an example of that.

You: No it's not.

Me: You say that with such confidence.

You: That's because I am confident. There is absolutely no title you could come up with that shouldn't get turned into an article if it describes a notable phrase.

Me: You mean that?

You: Absolutely. There is absolutely no title you could come up with that shouldn't get turned into an article if it describes a notable phrase.

Me: I have my doubts.
You: Well, you shouldn't. Let's repeat this conversation in various forms over the next three months.
Me: Okay.
You: There is absolutely no title you could come up with that shouldn't get turned into an article if it describes a notable phrase. (You repeat this until you collapse and have to be taken to the hospital.)
Me: I disagree. (I repeat this until I too collapse and have to be taken to the hospital.)
You: How fortunate that we have both returned from the hospital.
Me: Yes, that exchange was pointless and physically debilitating. Hey, I figured out a way for us to figure out whether you're right about that notability thing!
You: Excellent! Perhaps we could stop having the same conversation over and over again and avoid future hospitalization!
Me: Indeed! You're saying any notable phrase deserves an article, right, even if it offends people grievously and describes a condition contrary to fact?
You: Yep. Absolutely.
Me: You realize that's not my position, but your position, right?
You: Yep.
Me: Okay. I've found a perfect parallel phrase.

It describes a politically charged claim that slanders the practitioners of a global faith system, just like this one does.

It's instantly offensive, just like this one is.

It was recently used by a head of state, just like Islamofascism.

By that reasoning, it's clearly notable.

I personally wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, just like I wouldn't start an article called Islamofascism in a million years.

But I'm not the one who is saying that ANY notable phrase deserves an article -- you are. So let's do an experiment. Why don't you go write a couple of paragraphs and start the first draft of this article?
You: What's the phrase?
Me: "Holocaust myth."
(Pause)
You: You know, actually, I think the real issue here is your pathology. I'm going to e-mail you in a couple of minutes, and I think we should discuss off-line how you got to where you got on this issue, how you feel about yourself, and what possible motivations may be in play here.
Me: No, thanks.
-- BYT 12:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate your dramatic recounting of our dialogue. I think it's accurate except on three points. (1) when you offered "Holocaust myth" as your bazillionth "what about this one?", I said that yes, that is notable. I tried to emphasize my yes by choosing an even less notable, more offensive slur on the Holocaust (Holohoax), and saying that that term could support an article. You've chosen to interpret my switching to another term as my own personal shock & awe in the face of the "Holocaust myth" wikinuke. So let me give you a Molly Bloom-like answer to your query: yes yes, yes it could, yes yes "Holocaust myth" yes could yes be an article yes. Second point: I've never said any of these terms must have an article, only that they can have an article. Some notable terms/concepts redirect to more general articles rather than standalone ones, just as Islamofascism presumably could were the appropriate "general" article out there. In the last vote people didn't think neofascism and religion was capable of holding all the contents of the Islamofascism. (3) I absolutely didn't describe you as having any kind of pathology. Asking for someone to explain a frame of mind or point of view that is different from one's own is not an insult. Babajobu 14:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Molly. I was beginning to think I wouldn't run into you till next Bloomsday. :)
Just as a gesture of good faith, Baba, would you please write two or three paragraphs to kickstart the Holocaust myth article just so we can see what happens to this term, which so closely parallels the term under discussion here? Either that or would you please acknowledge openly that certain terms and constituencies do get special consideration hereabouts? BYT 14:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, since you've brought up the Irish thing a couple times, it is only fair for me to come clean that though I have lived in Ireland for some time, I am neither an Irish citizen nor of Irish ancestry. If I have a group, I suppose it would be secular rootless cosmopolitan ethnomongrels. Secular rootless cosmopolitan ethnomongrels are hideous trash might be my analogue to Islamofascism. As for systemic bias, I've acknowledged to you before that Wikipedia has systemic bias in that not all notable topics are covered, and that Wikipedia instead is weighted toward those topics that appeal to the interests of Wikipedians. And being an English-language enyclopedia on the internet inevitably produces a particular usergroup and all sorts of consequent imbalances. I imagine that the Mandarin Chinese and Arabic-language Wikipedias, for example, have rather different imbalances. As for writing up a stub on the "Holocaust myth", one difficulty there is that I would have to write up a lengthy enough article that it would warrant separation from Holocaust denial. So you're asking me to write a full article on a term in which I have little interest in order to demonstrate a point (though it is a perfectly legitimate point, and not one that would be covered by WP:Point, IMO). Let me think about it. If I can find a couple sources that describe the origins and evolution of the term, perhaps I'll give the article a crack. And if I do, I honestly have every expectation that it would be kept. Babajobu 15:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And quite fair. IMO, what's under discussion is one of these imbalances that is best redressed by merging and redirecting the article. Obviously you disagree, though. So if we are going to approach these "nuclear" articles under the theory that anything, yes, anything, can/should show up as an article once a certain notability threshold is passed, I'd appreciate a little help on how this parallel case would or should play out. Every single meaningful criterion you've cited, I believe, would connect to both articles. BYT 15:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Micheal Savage Relevant?
Sorry I accidently posted to archive at first...
I object to the prescence of Micheal Savage on this Page. It places him here only to mention his mention of the term. Yet he is not a respectable authority on politics nor is he an accurate political commentator. It's not important to anyone that it is his favorite term as I'm sure there are many other lesser known shows or demagouges or private people who use this term frequently- it is somewhat irrelevent. Could you imagine how long and inane an article on pears would be if we mentioned every individual in the wiki that reportedly liked pears- c'mon providing a lot of info is fine, but I think this is overdoing it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamofascism/Archive03"
Proposed solution to the whole thing...?
There is an article on the word "kike". The article of course starts off by saying that it is an ethnic slur. Why dont we just turn Islamofacism into a pejorative term. Regardless of origin: no one can deny that it is its common usage today. I certainly don't see it used by respectable authorities on politics regularly, except to reject the views of those who do. No muslim anyone would meet on the street thinks of the term in any other way (people decide whether a term is offensive to them- not other parties) The term itself is rhetorical and flawed on its face considering that even today historians battle each other to debate what Facism was exactly (leftist, rightist, animal, vegetable, mineral?) Terms coined by journalists, regardless of whom they apply to are nothing more than catchprhases, unless of course the term is journalistic.

Let's merge and redirect this page with Neofascism and religion
It is the best place for this to land, and we can include a full discussion of the use of the term "Islamofascism" there. BYT 14:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a full discussion of the term "Islamofascism" can be included in Neofascism and religion, then I wouldn't object to a redirect to that article. Babajobu 15:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly believe that it can. BYT 15:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect would reduce the level of rhetoric and put the entire issue into a broader context -- which was why it was done the first time. Can we do a straw vote?--Cberlet 15:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfDs basically came down to "is it too offensive?", and most of the people who wanted to redirect wanted to disappear this topic and replace it with Cberlet's worthy musings at neofascism and religion. But if a full discussion of this term were included in neofascism and religion, then I personally wouldn't think it necessary to have a standalone article. But Cberlet, "Merge" means "Merge", it doesn't mean "get rid of this trash and redirect". Babajobu 16:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above by Babajobu: Yikes! First, please just call me Cberlet. Second, I never sought to sanitize the discussion, just pare it down and make it less rhetorical. Did I do something specific to offend? And I certainly don't "own" neofascism and religion, there have been many edits since I created the page. I do object to introducing the Islam section with the term "Islamofascism," since all the other religions also get a delayed introduction of inflammatory terms that co-religionists consider slurs. That's just being respectful. However, since I appear to have become part of the problem, I will voluntary step aside for a month and let folks work together. --Cberlet 16:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Dr. Berlet, no, you didn't do anything at all to offend! Sorry if I gave that impression. Nor do I think that you are "part of the problem". In fact, I hoped that you would be helping to do the merge. I didn't think that you sought to "own" neofascism and religion, only that you had done the lion's share of the work on that article. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. And I agree that the Islam section needn't be introduced with "Islamofascism", only that it be a sizable subsection that discusses people's use of the term as result of their perception that some Islamist movements have fascist characteristics. Babajobu 02:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a PhD. and here I am User:Cberlet, thanks. I agree that some Islamist movements have fascist characteristics. I am just trying to be fair.--Cberlet 02:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CBerlet, as am I. We needn't agree or disagree with the notion that some Islamist movements have fascist characteristics. All we need to do is note that among many of those who do believe this, the term Islamofascism has come into vogue. And we would import some examples of its use, and discussion of its use. That's all, I would think. Babajobu 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(No article belongs to any one editor, of course.) I think we can all work together to make sure that a responsible, detailed discussion of the term shows up there. I can certainly do my best to make sure we have a real "merge." Do any other editors want to weigh in on this? BYT 16:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BYT and also with reducing the level of rhetoric. Because of controversy, if this can't just be a redirect, a better solution is to merge and redirect. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. This page should be a redirect to something, anything that handles the issues not the rhetoric. Merge and redirect. --Vector4F 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 24.34.154.167 12:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 736: / Line 736: @@
 :::::Agree with BYT and also with reducing the level of rhetoric. Because of controversy, if this can't just be a redirect, a better solution is to merge and redirect. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]]  <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 16:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 :::::Yes, please.  This page should be a redirect to something, anything that handles the issues not the rhetoric.  '''Merge and redirect'''. --[[User:Vector4F|Vector4F]] 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
+Done. [[User:24.34.154.167|24.34.154.167]] 12:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Islamofascism: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:29, 16 January 2006

Requested move

Discussion

Backlog

Sources!

Juan Cole and the 'F' word

The Guardian's ascription

Wandering paragraph

Summary of critical view is intro appropriate

Consistency check -- show of hands, please

Discussion

Crappy sources

User:OceanSplash

Berlusconi and See Also

See also, again

Strivers answer

Trying to find a compromise

Islamofascism in Wikipedia

Mistress Selina

There was and is no consensus to move this page to Islamofascism

The page move - my opinion

Previously on Islamofascism (term)...

To Mmx1 -- proposal for moving this page

This is like that Star Trek:TNG episode where Captain Picard can't escape from a timeloop that brings him back to the same moment again and again, except Picard was stuck in a cool timeloop, whereas ours is a boring one

Case in point

Paging Jean-Luc

Jell-o

Micheal Savage Relevant?

Proposed solution to the whole thing...?

Let's merge and redirect this page with Neofascism and religion