Talk:Islamofascism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:37, 31 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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Archive 4: November 29, 2005 - 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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]

I agree with the fact that Fascism is fascism, whether commited by Islamists, or Americans or whatever. The point of concern would be if the fascism is being caused by virtue of someone's "americanism" or "islamism". Lets talk about real "americanism". "americanism" is basically following what is in the US constitution that was written 200 years ago and subsequently modified when parts were found unsuitable. I bet, there is nothing in the US constitution that actually promotes fascism in the form of :

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. (dictionary.com)

Thus americans who promote fascism are actually going against the principles of americanism. Thus to call them something in the form of amerifascists etc. is a misnomer. lets go to islamism. If islam itself promotes the characteristics of fascism, then it will be alright to form a term called islamofascism. If any one actually reads the koran, he or she will see scores of passages extolling muslims to wage savage butchery against non muslims. The term dhimmi refers to someone who is under muslim rule under subjugation. The koran also promotes the superiority of arabs over other kinds of muslims (racism). Since the koran is the basis of islamism, all the fascists in islam are actually following the noble guidelines of the koran. Hence, Islamofascism is valid.

That definition of fascism is inadequate, lacking sufficient specificity. However, even your arguments relating to it fail to tie the movements you describe to it. First, militant islamic movements are typically not nationalist as we understand (and as the actual Italiam fascists understood) the term. Many (most?) movements of the sort actually want to dissolve the barriers between nations to form a single sphere of religious rule growing across the world. Second, you'll need to go through some interesting contortions to paint Islam as a racist faith. You state that the Quran states Arab superiority. Please provide precise references, because I cannot recall seeing anything of the sort the last time I read the Quran. Third, you are greatly oversimplifying the nature of dhimmi status - it does provide other "people of the book" with fewer privileges than Muslims, but it also provides protections and a place for them in society, something which people of other faiths (non-Abrahamic, non-monotheistic) are not granted. Jews, for example, had a relatively safe (and very occasionally privileged) position in Arab societies as dhimmi during times Christian Europe made it dangerous at best for them to be open in their faith. It is true that the Quran has passages asking its followers to agressively expand, but this is not at all dissimilar to passages in Torah and Bible that express similar mentalities. In sum, your criteria are inaccurate, the facts don't even meet those critera, and you have a lot of other inaccuracies and misunderstandings along the way. Let's use the least leading/offensive term possible for the actual content, document the term separately, and you can leave this kind of stuff for your personal webpage. --Improv 15:41, 28 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) <Don't know why my sig vanished -- BYT 13:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)>[reply]

If you want this article deleted, take it to AfD first. The top clearly says that it has survived two previous AfDs, so there has been clear community consensus for the article to remain, if you want to try prove that it shouldn't exist, that is a matter for AfD not unilateral decisions. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to Selina:

re: Your edit summary sockpuppet of BrandonYusufToropov- Checkuser will confirm this)

Accusing me of sockpuppetry when I identified 'myself as connected to an accidentally omitted signature hardly seems like a good way for us to begin our very very first substantive conversation. Let's you and I begin this relationship on the right foot, okay? As new acquaintances and all? After all, I've been trying to strike up a conversation with you now for some weeks. Now that we've finally got it going, there's no need to make accusations, eh?

I didn't see the message before I posted here. But nonetheless if you're going to make edits from that IP, unless you put a message on the IP's user and talk pages it's sockpuppetry because you're not making it clear: From the contributions it looks like you've been using it for some time and it's very misleading to those seeing edits made by that IP who don't know you already as they would not know it's you. So sockpuppetry, unless you have said before it is you on talk pages of every article you've edited with the IP..

Don't accuse me of "ignoring" you when I have talked and you choose to ignore everything I say all the time --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the talk page content immediately above your content, you will notice that there was in fact consensus to make this redirect. You'll also note that nothing whatsoever has been deleted. See you at Neofascism and religion. Peace, from your new pal, who looks forward to a long and harmonious working relationship, BYT 16:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the proper procedure wasn't followed. It wasn't placed on WP:RM or RfC, so you basically have here a consensus of three people. It is quite controversial topic and community should be informed before such bold moves are done. Grue 17:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BYT there is not consensus to move/delete/merge this article, you need to learn to understand the difference between community consensus and "consensus of a few friends of mine".

As is clear in the above failed deletion votes at the top of this page this is obviously a controversial page, it looks more than anything else like you are simply trying to bypass community consensus because of the fear that people outside your group of friends won't agree with you.

I have seen this kind of behaviour before in your reverting every change I made, please at least try to make an effort to drop the habit.

as for not talking, you have made little attempt to do so, instead just flinging insults about me on the administrator's board where you maybe thought I wouldn't notice them: I actually replied to all your accusations and such on my talk page (I deleted them a while ago, but check the history or I'll find an oldID link myself if you can't find it), did you see any of it? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was a bit premature to redirect...we should get some more feedback from other users. Personally, though, I think that now that neofascism and religion contains basically all the content from this article, and specifically treats the term "Islamofascism" under a subheading of the Islam section, it is now appropriate for this entry to be a redirect to neofascism and religion. Babajobu 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From an outsider who wandered in: The redirect seems mostly good to me, although it makes the Islam section of Neofascism and religion pretty big compared to the other sections. (Hopefully that will change with time.) Presenting it in that article makes it easier to see the different ways that different people have connected the large, multifaceted concepts of Islam and fascism. Starting off the article with "Islamofascism" makes it seem monolithic, and I believe that is inaccurate. FreplySpang (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also from an outsider: despite what I said on the previous AfD, I would now support a redirect to neofascism and religion. That article covers Islamofascism adequately, IMO better because it places it in context with other religions. --Malthusian (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page is protected

This page has been protected since evidently theres a tiny little edit war brewing. Also. Do not add #REDIRECT with stuff underneath. its kinda irritating. Edit wars over redirects are extremly harmful. If for no other reason than they are a bitch to follow.

Now. Someone tell me what the hell is going on?--Tznkai 18:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "consensus" was 3 people. The article's already failed two votes for deletion merge as per the top of the page yet this group of friends is now trying to forcibly change it by bypassing the previous votes or making a new one to gain real consensus --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A perpetually contentious talk page actually had everyone agreeing on one thing at the same time: that the article could be constructively redirected to Neofascism and religion, if the work done here was responsibly merged there. So I merged the article and redirected. BYT 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently someone disagreed. Do we have reasons or just hot blood running around?--Tznkai 18:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the past I was one of the more vocal opponents of making this page a redirect. But now that the info from here has genuinely been incorporated into the other article, I'll support making this one a redirect. Babajobu 18:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see about 4/5 users concurring here, but as grue mentioned there was no announcmento n requested moves. Would putting things on requested moves solve anything?--Tznkai 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your call, sir. If you think that's the way to go, that's what I'll do. BYT 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers. If we list them here and allow community input will that be acceptable to everyone here? MSK, I'd like to hear from you as you are the primary objector.--Tznkai 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been silently following some of the discussion here for a while. This article generates a lot of heat and passion - Tznkai, I fully support your attempts to remove personal remarks here in talk, protecting the article page, and getting down to the basics of solving this diagreement. That's sorely needed here.

I think it was good too, ad hominen attacks really aren't needed and aren't constructive to consensus at all. For the record, since no doubt at some point someone will pick on me in the future and try say it was me making personal attacks, it wasn't me... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a solid opinion at this moment about the redirect (although I am leaning in one direction) - and I often disagree with Selina's method of engaging an issue - but I'm glad this redirect is being talked about. The article has survived two AfDs, and a long history of strong, opposing opinion about whether it should exist. There wasn't quite enough discussion before doing the redirect on such a hotly contested article - and Selina wasn't the only one who objected.

I'd normally like to see it talked out here, but in this case, I think Tznkai's idea of taking this to a PM might be a good idea. Selina, that sounds like a fair way to settle this, yes? --Krich (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSK - comments? BYT 20:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. I was just concerned about the very suspicious reverting going on here without any attempt to gain consensus first - the "consensus" was a group of people that as above obviously all know each other already. I'll ignore the sniping above, sorry, but I can't be on Wikipedia all the time (and wouldn't want to anyway).

I think I neutral admin should make the proposal though, to avoid possible vote stacking. I've noticed some of this kind of behaviour by some people and it's really not appropriate .. I will elaborate elsewhere. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening to the public

I will be opening an Request for Comment as well as listing on propsed mergers to get the insight of the Wikipedia Community at large. The topic at hand is the propsed merger and the proposed merger only. Any discussion on user conduct will be considered off topic, and possibly poisoning the well and will be removed on sight. I think this can be a productive civil exchange. Any objections?--Tznkai 22:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. BYT 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support it. --Vector4F 23:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a zero tolererance policy for shouting and sniping of any kind. I will remove on sight. We are going to be productive, and get this solved.

I do not support a merger, since the term "Islamofascism" is in common parlance whether one likes it or not, and sweeping it under the rug at Wikipedia will not make it go away in real life.--Mike18xx 00:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't want to sweep anything under a rug, either; a full discussion of the term now appears at Neofascism and religion.

For comparison, note that Holocaust myth (an offensive term manifestly in common parlance) now redirects to Holocaust denial. The fact that there was in fact a holocaust does play into our decision-making there; the fact that (actual) neofascists and Islamists are bitter enemies in the real world should, I submit, play into our decision-making here. BYT 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, please note that Nigger does not redirect to Black people, that Faggot (slang) does not redirect to Gay men, and that Kike does not redirect to Jew. Nor should they. The discussion of terms as *terms* is important, and distinct from the items they comment on. As for "Holocaust myth", your analogy is deeply flawed, since in the article of Holocaust denial there seems to exist no discussion of the term itself as a term -- nor did there ever exist such a discussion in Holocaust myth itself. Aris Katsaris 07:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this merger. I agree with Mike18xx. Furthermore, I consider the personal opinions of editors as to whether the term is "offensive" or "hate speech" to be largely irrelevant. What is relevant is how other media and published commentators use and react to the term. The WP article itself shows that the term is widely used and discussed and has important semantic content.--FRS 21:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed -- we already have pages for the terms Nigger, Kike and Faggot (slang). Whether it's offensive, or hate speech, or whatever, is utterly irrelevant. Aris Katsaris 07:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate

You might want to take a look here for the section on Islamofascism: Fact or Fiction

Excellent idea. I've stated one side of this debate and look forward to the discussion. BYT 12:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this issue keeps coming up is specifically because some editors don't want this word to exist, and want to limit people's access to it. It's a form of censorship. I'm happy to see a section on Islamofascism in neofascism and religion. But why does that mean it can't have its own article? I think its obvious that it shouldhave its own article, and I think the reason some people are resisting the idea is because they hate the word and the people who use it, which is not a reason to bury the term. IronDuke 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow this through -- is it censorship that Holocaust myth doesn't have its own article, or is that fact rather a reflection of the fact that the wikicommunity has decided that the term is simply better addressed within Holocaust denial? (Full disclosure -- I personally wouldn't want anything to do with creating an article called Holocaust myth, just as I wouldn't want anything to do with creating an article called Islamofascism.) BYT 19:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Holocaust myth redirects to Holocaust denial only because no one has yet written an article for Holocaust myth, rather than because the community has decided that it would be a bad idea to have such an article. I'm afraid that the push for redirect is looking like it may pursue the same old arguments that it got it pwned in the last AfDs. Babajobu 19:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking the fact that you had opted not to write the Holocaust myth article, after saying you would, to mean that at least two people -- you and me -- felt that the idea was best addressed at Holocaust denial. BYT 19:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was also my understanding. - FrancisTyers 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the argument over here? What is each side suggesting to move it to? I'm trying to get an understanding before I barge in.--Urthogie 20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Options are to either a) redirect to Neofascism and religion, where the vast majority of the article has already been merged by me, or b) leave as is. BYT 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the article deserves to exist, as long as it has (term) in its title. I think that you shouldn't me merging the vast majority of the content there, as it creates redundancies in an article that seems two have survived two votes for deletion. Instead, give a short summary of this term on that page, and use {{main}} or {{seealso}}. It could be wrongly taken as trans-article edit warring if you intentionally create redundancy. Just my two cents, as a third party.--Urthogie 20:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately...

... if people think the additional context provided by the surrounding material at Neofascism and religion is trumped by whatever advantage there is in having this stand alone, then they should hold out for a separate article.

Personally, I think there is so little popular understanding of what actually constitutes fascism or neo-fascism that the explanation of the term's use benefits by appearing on that page. BYT 02:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hardly support trying to "bury" a term, I'm not opposed to an article that addresses it, and I don't hate words or people. However, using the term as the article's main title is, I believe, POV. The word is a piece of rhetoric and implies a crude comparison. As you say BYT, I would prefer see the term in a broader context. That said, I would rather avoid any appearance of censorship than defend this point - let the reader make up their own mind and let the editor inform them of the facts. I support efforts to remove "Islamofacism" as the title, be it a merge or a replacement title, but I will not oppose "Islamofascism (term)" as the title. --Vector4F 02:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment here. I previously supported the article existing as Islamofascism (term). However, I now feel it's too much of a POV magnet, which has made it difficult to create a good, stable version. Because of that, I now support a merger with Neofascism and religion. The editors there have done a great job explaining the term in context, and should be applauded for their efforts. (I think the editors here have done a great job too, not least by sticking with it through all the conflict.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the reason the article has been the subject of so many editorial disputes is that certain editors refuse to allow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Why should Wikipedia be unbiased? to be implemented. We should state all the POVs on this topic and make a decent and useful article instead of sweeping it under the rug. An example are the pictures I posted below, some would argue that this is POV , but this is a reality that exists, the pictures do not lie. Should we not ask ourselves if there a topic here or is this a just figment of our imagination? It does no good to argue that this history does not exist or that it should be erased because it is not politically correct to broach the subject. These are facts and those facts should be presented regardless of the the editorial lobby that might object--CltFn 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to be said for presenting things in context. I support redirecting to Neofascism and religion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Brandon's comment above) I don't think it's "best" to address "Holocaust myth" at Holocaust denial. "Best" would be for Wikipedia to have a lengthy, comprehensive article on every conceivable notable topic. However, in practice, when the content that exists on a particular topic is not abundant enough or distinctive enough from that which exists under a more general heading to require a standalone article, then the given article should be a redirect to the more general topic. That is presently the case for "Holocaust myth", and (IMO) is now the case for "Islamofascism". It was once the case for strap-on dildo, which redirected to dildo; however, someone came along and wrote a good article on strap-on dildo that was too lengthy to include in dildo, and so it now has its own article. The same could happen in future for both "Holocaust myth" and "Islamofascism". I'm willing to support redirect at the moment, but I'm not going to sit here and agree that "hey, we've come to our senses and realized this article is in poor taste." At least in my case, that's nonsense, for reasons I've been explaining for two months on this talkpage. The only reason why I support a redirect at this time is that the content from this article has now genuinely been integrated into the neofascism and religion article, rather than simply having it "disappeared". A concern that the topic is best treated under a less provocative title has nothing to do with it at all. Babajobu 04:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having said I support redirecting, what should redirect to Neofascism and religion is Islamofascism, not Islamofascism (term). Maybe that's obvious, but I wanted to be clear. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typically detailed articles are subbed out, and a summary provided in the main article. Anyway, I thought this issue had already been solved, once it was made clear that many articles existed on terms people find offensive (e.g. Nigger, Kike, Raghead, Redneck, White cracker, Queer, faggot, Kraut, Chav. etc.). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism + Fascism = Islamofascism

File:Nazislam.jpg

File:Mufti hitler.jpg

Grand Mufti of Jerusalem with Hitler in WW2

--CltFn 03:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

If people think this article is a place for trolls, theyre probably right, but the immature reaction is to suggest censorship through deletion. Use wikipedia's rules to make the article fit neutrality. Don't just complain, and vfd. It's immature.--Urthogie 09:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was the point of this CltFn?--Tznkai 20:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate that Islamofascism is a reality , despite all the scholarly arguments that it does not. And please do not edit other editors talk page inserts .--CltFn 04:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose it ever occurred to anyone that Hitler was a head of state for twelve years and that lots of people (Including Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier, and Vyacheslav Molotov) met with him. Palm_Dogg 04:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this

The big picture is a joke in my view, do you really belive they are doing a Nazi salutation?

In the start, i supported this article. I am a Muslim and belive the term to be bull****, but i bought the argument that it should get its own article due to notability. But i have changed my mind. I see constantly how this pages proponents have used their best to remove and dampen critical views of this word. They keept the definition of the word according to its proponets, but deleted and ambigued the definition of it by its critics. They also demanded the "judeofascism (term)" did not deserve its own article. Enough. If "judeofascism (term)" is not ok, then neither is this. I vote to merge this. i dont want to see this page anymore. --Striver 05:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I think the issue in that case was that while "Islamofascism" has thousands upon thousands of mentions in mainstream sources, "Judeofascism" has one mention. That's why one is notable and the other is not. However, I agree with you that in the above pic the Hamas guys are unlikely to be doing a Nazi salute. Babajobu 05:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So striver , what are they doing then, in that picture? As far as your point , I agree to some degree, we should be presenting all POVs to be fair. If there is a topic called Judeofascism ( though that would be a stretch in my opinion) , then that should be presented as well. But the wrong of not presenting another parallel page should not be used to erase this page, instead the other page should be reviewed and developed according to Wikpedia editorial policy.--CltFn 05:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I'd urge you to reconsider. Most controversial articles of Wikipedia have editors who insist on making POV edits, and this page is no exception. I'm concerned that there is a hidden agenda by some who advocate redirecting this page, that they desire to see the whole concept "go away." I don't think this is right for an encyclopedia, do you? PS: I also doubt there's a Nazi salute going on there... can anyone they're doing? I'm quite curious. IronDuke 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CltFn, IronDuke, straight-armed salutes have been used by lots of non-fascist groups throughout history. In the U.S. people did a straight-armed salute to the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1930s, when they changed to "hand on the heart" because straight-arm had became associated with Naziism. Westerners have stopped doing the straight-armed salute since it became associated with the Nazis, so it looks crazy to us, but it's conceivable that non-Westerners don't associate it with the Nazis, the same way many of them don't associate the swastika with the Nazis. Babajobu 05:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We most definitely need a good article to cure us the general misinformation that is being exhibited on this topic.--CltFn 05:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this article is full of misinformation or that people have "constantly" been working to "remove criticism of the term from the article". Most of what we have in the article is directly attributed to mainstream sources, and the lengthy section on criticism of the term has remained there essentially untouched for over a month. So I'm not sure what Striver is responding to, exactly. Babajobu 05:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on that point Babajobu , there has been so much information about islamofascism buried out of sight that people can still go asking what kind of salute that was. If we had a decent article on the subject then that question would be answered. We are losing sight of the forest for the trees --CltFn 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure many editors would have no objection to new information. Perhaps you could recommend a source? --Vector4F 07:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new proposal

I propose that we create, expanding on User:FrancisTyers's suggestion, two new pages:

and do the following:

Move much of the content from Neofascism and religion to the first article;
Move the discussion of the term Islamofascism, and most of this article, to the second article;
Redirect Islamofascism to the second article.
Expand the two articles along the lines sketched below.

The advantages of this approach are:

We maintain the term/referent distinction;
We avoid the presumption that the authoritarianism that comentators who use the term Islamofascism are talking about muct be some form of fascism. For instance, the term has been used about Iran's political system, whose constitution appears to owe no debts to fascism, but appears to owe debts to socialist movements, and I propose to talk about Khomeini's revolution in the first article;
We can talk about the general issue of authoritarianism is Islamism in a context that is not necessarily about fascism or totalitarianism.
We get to group Islamofascism amongst other political epithets in a place where it doesn't matter that it will dominate the article. There ~~are~~ were several entries in the List of political epithets that could go in the second article. Postscript - There are no other epithets in the list now: examples i was thinking of are the comonly seen jihadi, and the less common Islamonazi, and Islamocommie. There are also a number of straightforwardly apolitical insults applied to Muslims, eg. towel head, that I'd rather keep out of the list: bear this in mind if you would rather a different name for the article. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist is a weasely word, that overlaps(according to most authoritative dictionaries) with Islamic. I support if you change that word. --Urthogie 19:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. According to the OED, Islamisms original meaning was synonymous with Islam, which is a now defunct meaning, and Islamist has a recognised alternate usage as a scholar of Islam, but there is no danger of confusion here. Islamism as a word used to describe a class of political movements, is both well established and is in accordance with what I use here (I use the word slightly more broadly that the definition from Islamism: The Turkish Justice and Development Party is widely called Islamist, but it is not fundamentalist). --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only according to one dictionary, three disagree with it. We don't go by what you think, but rather, by what dictionaries say.--Urthogie 20:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, 2 dictionaries hold the movement definition, and 4(including the previously mentioned 2) include the Islamic-synonym one.--Urthogie 20:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great leap forward. Charles, you're an honest broker here, I think. This would work for me if you personally took responsibility for a draft of what the (presumably quite short) Islamofascism (term) article would look like, and if the redirect of Islamofascism to Political epithets about Islamic movements were protected (i.e., would require an admin to undo.)

I think Urthogie's point is well taken, and have no problem with the change in title he suggests. People who use these terms are usually uninterested in the Islamic/Islamist distinction, and, as in the present case, are making generalizations about Islam as a whole.

What do other people think? BYT 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this article would be mostly be merged into the second article I propose creating, with a small amount of content going into the first. If we can get a working consensus for the change, then I guess we would not need page protection for a redirect. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before we go too far with the poll, what is Urthogie proposing we call the first article? --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assumed that his objection was to the "Islamist" in Political epithets about Islamist movements, and that changing "Islamist" to "Islamic" there was what he wanted. (But please correct me if I'm wrong, U.) Speaking personally, I'd like to see the first article be called Authoritarian Islamism, per Charles., and I would redirect Authoritarian Islam to that article, to address Urthogie's concerns over the use of that term. BYT 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not persuaded by Urthogie's arguments, but I don't object to his suggestion either. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be "Islamic"(which does not suggest mainstream Islam agrees with it, but rather that it is related to Islam, as per the definition of Islamic). Islamist authoritarianism can't be the title for the article either, as per wikipedia's policies, which state that the most important thing in article naming is popularity of phrases.--Urthogie 21:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but what specifically would the first article be called? Not Authoritarianism Islamic, right? BYT 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Authoritarianism and Islam--Urthogie 22:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an awfully broad brush to paint with. What about Authoritarianism in Islamic movements, with Authoritarian Islamism redirecting to it? As a practical matter, any movement with authoritarian governing philosophies would by (polisci) definition be Islamist. BYT 22:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ell, it doesn't paint with anything. Authoritarianism and Islam deals with when they overlap. Just like theres Christianity and anti-Semitism, its not saying that christianity is inherently anti-semitic, its talking about when the two overlap, innit? By the way, Islam and Authoritarianism is actually how naming guidelines would suggest it, my mistake.--Urthogie 22:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good parallel, and I see your point. How do Charles/others feel about calling the first article Islam and Authoritarianism, with a redirect from Authoritarian Islamism? BYT 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Islamic authoritarianism? --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me. BYT 22:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current proposal

Works for me, just ensure in your proposition that its move protected!--Urthogie 22:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think page protection is important, too.

So what we've got, as I see it, is:

('Proposal starts below.)'<added this to clarify that my personal opinion favoring page protection is not incorporated below, though I do think we should discuss this at some point.> -- BYT>

A proposal to create, expanding on User:Chalst and User:FrancisTyers's suggestion, and incorporating User:Urthogie's modification, two new pages:

and do the following:

Move much of the content from Neofascism and religion to the first article;
Move the discussion of the term Islamofascism, and most of this article, to the second article;
Redirect Islamofascism to the second article.
Expand the two articles along the lines described by Charles, above.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Islamofascism (term) would still exist, just in an abbreviated form. I'm assuming it would look something like Kike looks now. BYT 12:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should indicate that I originally intended that both "Islamofascism" and "Islamofascism (term)" both redirect to the second article, with the content of this article mostly being merged there. I don't really see what benefit the change brings if this is not done. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 14:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript Let's go with the proposal as BYT and Urthogie have it. We can talk about merging what remains of this article once we have the two articles for people to judge. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of doing it this way

My error, sorry, Charles. I misunderstood you.
The way I see it, the benefit of a condensation of Islamofascism (term) -- which is what we have put forward -- would be that it would lower the temperature level somewhat, addressing some of the concerns of people who feel that it is a mistake to "bury" an article about this term.
In this article, we would dutifully acknowledge that the word exists, AS A PEJORATIVE, and reference the main article, Political epithets about Islamic movements. (I was hoping you would help to draft a first pass on this.)
On the other hand -- the nonexistent political doctrine of "Islamofascism," which no human being has ever adopted, but which figures, for better or worse, in many contemporary discussions of politicized Islam, should, I agree, redirect to Political epithets about Islamic movements. This article would, I think, need a "See also" referencing Islamic authoritarianism

I think Improv's point -- that it is appropriate to have an article addressing the use of the term "Nigger", but not appropriate to use the article as a starting point for a discussion along the lines of "prominent Niggers include..." -- is a worthy guideline here. BYT 16:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for Charles's suggestion with Urthogie's modification

Support--Urthogie 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- with Charles's input on Islamofascism (term) and protected redirect BYT 20:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --MSK is on record as opposing to this because she she holds the vote is invalidated because of vote stacking. Her comments have been removed(you may if you insist, see the[1], as they were determined by myself to be disruptive to the discussion.--Tznkai 21:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles' proposal, oppose Urthogie's modification. The original is better as it makes it clear we are talking about a specific class of contemporary political movements, not about Islam as a religion or the entire history of Islamic political entities, which stretches back to the time of the Prophet. Unless we do intend to talk about authoritarian political structures in Islam from its foundation, which is not my understanding of what is at issue. Sorry for throwing a spanner in the works, but I feel this is an important point.User:Palmiro 23:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even by the widest stretch of the definitions, political Islam is always Islamist.--Urthogie 14:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: I would only apply the term Islamist to political movements that followed the colonial withdrawal from the Middle East and North Africa. Political Islam is much broader than that. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Burying this article serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. (Later thought as per Geminon: Remove "term.") IronDuke 23:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--The article as it presently exists is NPOV and does a useful service in presenting the views of those who use the term and those who object to it. I'm not convinced the word is properly considered a political epithet. The only sources cited in the article who so characterize it are not to be taken seriously, IMO, one being a self-described Holocaust "stipulator" and the other having used the F-word himself in referring to the Sharon Government.[[2]][[3]]--FRS 00:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason we call it a term is because its not a real word, and therefore is taken as a pourtmanaeu(sp?) that is meant to frame a political view.--Urthogie 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that to call it an "epithet" may be problematic, since it is not always used as one. It's not a plain descriptive term either: it is only used in a rhetorically pointed way. It is not too much work to dig up commentators who have given reasons why they have not used the word. But all of this can be explained in the second article. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vector4F 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't merge, don't redirect, do move to "islamofascism" (without "term") Geminon 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the Charles/Urthogie discussion again. "Islamic Authoritarianism" is not bad, but it gets all of 188 google hits, compared to 337,000 for "Islamofascism". By rights the main article should be at Islamofascism and Islamic Authoritarianism should redirect to that. Islamofascism should not be redirected to any kind of "Political epithets about Islamic movements" type of page, there is not a shred of evidence that it is an epithet and not a descriptive term. Having Islamofascism under "Neofascism and religion" is retarded, since it has (very nearly) nothing to do with neofascism. Geminon 02:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~User Geminon is probably a sockpuppet, as their first and only edits(at the time of this writing) was today on this page. I'm submitting a request for checkuser.~~--Urthogie 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined the CheckUser evidence. At this time I see no evidence of prohibited sockpuppetry. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very well, good that I checked though. Geminon, could you explain why this was your first page on your first day?~~--Urthogie 12:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read what he wrote below? P.S. and before anyone says anything: yes, I do have another username; no, I am not going to use it anywhere near this article (thus I am complying with WP:SOCK policy). This account has admitted to being a sock and operating within the policy outlined in WP:SOCK. - FrancisTyers 12:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I've focused much more on this section, and only briefly read the below one. I'll read more carefully in the future, sorry bout that.--Urthogie 12:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, thank you. I don't mind explaining - the last time I touched an issue this controversial, someone started following me and reverting all my edits from anon ip addresses. Not fun. I've been watching this article from a distance for a while now, but I realized the only thing that kept me from taking a more active role was the potential fallout. So... enter Geminon. Geminon 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cberlet 02:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Loses nothing, less emotive term, 'burying' fears are groundless as anyone looking for Islamofascism will be redirected to the appropriate place. --Malthusian (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to re-emphasize here -- Islamofascism (term) would still exist, just in an abbreviated form. I'm assuming it would look something like Kike looks now. BYT 11:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Add that to the proposal specifically, so people know.--Urthogie 12:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I realise that Google recognises the term, but it similarly recognises other "spit words" like "Nigger". That doesn't mean that we should use that as the article title for a discussion of people of recent african descent. I have taken the liberty of removing the "no-consensus" marker because 2 days for a straw poll seems way too short (try at least a week!) --Improv 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger is a lot word to be honest. Because nigger has a history, as a word, while islamofacism is just an idea. Anyways, thanks for support...--Urthogie 14:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the term "lot word" means. I should note though that while islamofacism may be "just an idea", it is also a compound word, both parts of which also have a history. Further, there's a difference between using the word Fascism descriptively (describing a particular philosophy and political movement) and using it vaguely/primarily for it's connotation. I think people who understand the Fascist political movement would find the use of fascism in this sense to be questionable. We should document if/where people use the term, but for our choice of terms on the encyclopedia, we can do better. --Improv 15:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't like the idea of creating something that has to be permanently protected to survive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that some people would not be comfortable with this, which is why I did not include it as a formal element of the proposal. BYT 15:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The change would not be a success if we needed a permanent protect. It's meant to be a way of carving up the issue in a way that channels the conflict of views more productively. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have concerns about long-term stability, but it's worth a try. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Just passing through, read all of the discussion above, and I did not see one single legitimate reason to have this article at anything other than "Islamofascism". The article as it is right now needs some referencing and fine tuning, to be sure, but it clearly explains that the term is notable, controversial, potentially meaningless, and considered a slur by some. It's exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia can and should cover. And it would be a dangerous precedent to refuse to entitle an article by a notable term because someone finds it offensive. I don't envy the task of trying to keep such an article free from vandalism and POV, nor the challenge of keeping it focused on the term without endorsing (or denying) any reality (or unreality) of what the term describes, but clearly this article should continue to exist as it is. --Kevin
- Comment - It seems to me that your argument is primarily meant to support the discussion of use of the term (which is probably coverable very briefly) rather than the content (for which most of the arguments suggest should be discussed under an article by another name) --Improv 21:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm saying that the content of the article as it is right now is okay. Some people who use the term believe it to be an accurate description and not a slur. For Wikipedia to take the position that it is slur and only a slur is POV. Sure, one can create additional articles about Islam and authoritariansim, but there's simply no legitimate reason to remove content from this article. --Kevin
Comment What exactly are we voting for here? I think that many/most people are confused about that, based on some of the comments below. The results, whatever they may be, are not valid on those grounds. Geminon 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Karl Meier 18:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Article must remain as is- no merge, no redirect. The term is important since the President of the US used it. Trying to bury it or hide reality is absolutely the wrong approach. -- JJay 12:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Because it's a Western term, it's really only relevant within the discussion of neofascism. -- Palm_Dogg 05:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is nothing but a POV-pushing attempt to make articles that contain criticism of Islam less visible or removed entirely.

unsigned

Support - This article is nothing but a POV-pushing attempt to make articles that contain criticism of Islam. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Any term that appears on at least 350,000 webpages (Google search) probably deserves it's own entry. Mc6809e 09:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the discussion on merging take place?

On this talk page, in the section above this one. It is listed on propsed mergers, and it tells people to take it here for good reason. I believe it was listed on RfC as well (if not, I dropped the ball), and it is still to be discussed on this page. I hope this clears things up.--Tznkai 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the flags and notices were all screwed up, but they are hard to figure out. Since the vote and discussion was already happening here, I posted notes on Neofascism and religion. Don't use merge flags, because they are all designed to send the discussion to the proposed merge page, not here. :-) --Cberlet 02:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deargod I hate those templates, but thats procedure.--Tznkai

a few basic issues

I'm gonna say my piece, then you all can flame me.

First: this article is not about a term, it is about a real phenomenon: a strong trend within some parts of Islam towards extreme authoritarianism. Yeah, I know that the narrow definition of fascism is about corporate fascism, but the broader definition is about any form of extreme authoritarian government, and so applies. Whether you think this is perfectly accurate in terms of historical associations or not, this is the most common term for that phenomenon. Are you claiming that such a phenomenon does not exist?
Second: this is not a slur, it is a descriptive term: nobody (that I know of anyway) uses that to suggest that Islam as a whole is fascist. Unfortunately, parts of Islam certainly are fascist (er, "extremely authoritarian" - happy now?). If you look at the governments of any number of Islamic countries and at the way in which religion there influences government and politics, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about...

You're talking about religiously based authoritarianism, which is a different thing entirely.
'What people keep overlooking or omitting: Fascism is a SECULAR phenomenon.
Were the Christians who settled Massachusetts Bay (retroactive) fascists?
Does the fact that they used religious authority to establish political power mean we should categorize them with Hitler?
How about the Vatican City?
Is that a contemporary fascist nation-state?
Under your definition, why shouldn't it be? Doesn't religion influence government and politics within the state there? (And don't they embrace -- gasp -- a totalist doctrine, making them totalitarians in the bargain?)
Does it mean the pope is analagous to Hitler or Mussolini? Or is there some reason we're saving that comparisan for people with last names that sound funny to the American ear?

Afghanistan before the invasion is a prime example. I don't know how you guys would describe the Taliban, but I think Islamofascist is a pretty reasonable term. The demented fundamentalists are running the show and using religion as a club to beat anyone who disagrees into submission. Everyone who is not a demented fundamentalist (and I sincerely hope that describes the vast majority of muslims out there) is just too scared to say anything, and/or pretends the problem doesn't exist. This situation won't be improve until muslims actually recognize there is a real problem, and stop blaming the results on everyone and everything else (oh, starting with the ~~USA~~ Great Satan). Can you show that this is only or primarily used as a slur?

Third: This article has been under concerted attack since the very beginning by a number of muslim editors (BYT, Irishpunktom, FayssalF, ...) who simply cannot abide the fact that such an article exists... it drives them nuts. So what if you're offended? Stop being such crybabies. The fact that a certain group might be offended is never a reason to delete accurate information (Piss Christ anyone?) I think you guys should take a good hard look at yourselves. This attitude of denial is exactly why so much of the Middle East is messed up the way it is! Humble suggestion: you should recuse yourselves from this discussion. You have massively demonstrated that you cannot be neutral. Let other people (like Cberlet) handle it. I wouldn't say that muslims shouldn't have anything to do with this article, but, well, if its mere existance bothers you on a visceral level, maybe you should stay away from editing it?

P.S. and before anyone says anything: yes, I do have another username; no, I am not going to use it anywhere near this article (thus I am complying with WP:SOCK policy). I wish to speak freely, and quite frankly I am concerned about reprisals. That is a reflection on you, not on me. Geminon 01:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that it's not in the dictionary. The standard is verifiability, not truth.--Urthogie 11:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie, I'm not sure why that would be an issue - Wikipedia is not a dictionary? It was used in a speech by the president of the USA, I think that should take care of proving both notability and the fact that it is not a slur? What exactly is not verifiable? Geminon 15:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The PotUS is not a reliable source on political linguistics, to say the least, particularly on anything relating to Islam and fascism. Under the proposed merge, there is no possible way that someone could hear a speech or read an article about 'Islamofascism', search for information in Wikipedia and fail to find it. --Malthusian (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much fail to see that. Under the proposed merge anyone who looks up Islamofascism will end up at "Political epithets about Islamist movements", which is almost certainly not what they are looking for. Are you talking about a different proposal? Geminon 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Geminon's point two: Islamofascism is ambiguous, see my discussion above. It has at least three meanings, one of which is a slur on Islam. Per points one: concerning the authoritarian movements within Islamism, it's a matter of controversy just how fascistic any of them are. I don't think anyone here is seriously doubting that there are disturbing political movements that carry the banner of Islam, rather the question is whether the term Islamofascism has any descriptive role to play within an encyclopedia. I don't agree with BYT that no serious attempts to analyse similarities between Islamism and fascism have taken place, but I do agree that calling the movements "Islamofascist" is to prejudge the issue we are attempting to cast light on, and is very much POV. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posctscript - I copy what I wrote on 4th Jan: 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. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles - I thank you for being very reasonable about this. I fear that you will just end up being used by people to further their agenda, but hey. Now for a more substantial response:

"the question is whether the term Islamofascism has any descriptive role" - it doesn't matter. it is a widely used term, and it is almost certainly the most common term for this. quibble with the connotations and derivation all you want.

three usages - hmm, I see where you're going, but I think you're wrong about all the particulars. The three are not separate, and your characterisation of them is all wrong. When people talk about this, at least anywhere I've seen, they mean precisely Malise Ruthven's usage, which in my view also includes the second meaning of "a dangerous fascistic and Islamist movement" since such movements in one place tend to (at least) cooperate with such governments elsewhere, and in any event they are both a symptom of the same malaise: if such a movement were to succeed, it becomes a government of the type described by Ruthven. Finally, the third usage is merely stating the obvious: yes, Islam is a religion predisposed towards authoritarian politics (see also [4]). If there is any doubt about that: one, look at the forms of government in most of the Islamic world; two, consider the scriptural reasons - Islam (depending on interpretation anyway) pretty much mandates government by the clergy, i.e. a specifically Islamic government, in which other religions (and secularism) are at best tolerated, and in which other views on Islam itself are definitely not tolerated. Stating the obvious may be deeply insulting, but it's also a fact (just as it is a fact that Christianity in the 11th-12th century was a religion predisposed towards starting wars of conquest). I have seen so far not a shred of evidence that this term is used as a pejorative towards Islam as a whole but it is properly used to describe (yes, even by thoughtful people) a trend within Islam which is entirely obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand, and which is also precisely Ruthven's usage, and of which Islamist revolutionary movements are an integral early stage. In other words, your "three usages" are the same thing. Geminon 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it has three meanings why not make Islamofascism a dab page? e.g. something like:

Concerning the authoritarian movements within Islamism, see Islamic authoritarianism.
For the political epithet, see Political epithets about Islamic movements.

If there are other meanings, we could just add them as bulleted points. This way we wouldn't necessarily have to have a separate article called Islamofascism (term), and if we did it could just be added as another bullet. - FrancisTyers 16:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to make this more complicated than it already is, but I have to say that this approach makes a lot of sense. You could also, of course, redirect Islamofascism to Islamofascism (disambiguation). 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that is a recipe for disaster. - FrancisTyers 17:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis - that is not a bad proposal, much better than redirecting Islamofascism to "list of epithets" in any case. Geminon 17:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :) - FrancisTyers 17:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: make it a disambiguation page

It could be links to:

Islamofascism(term)
Islamic authoritarianism
Political epithets about Islamic/Islamist movements

We can discuss the specific links though. Who supports this excellent idea(I think there are many solutions to our problem at hand here).--Urthogie 16:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

'Okay, let's PUT THIS IDEA ON HOLD until we resolve the first vote -- sorry for taking part in the distraction. Clearly, we got carried away.' BYT 18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we can just keep going - this idea is gathering some momentum, and if we wait for and implement the first poll we'll have to reorganize this stuff twice. There's nothing wrong with concurrent polls. Geminon

Support--Urthogie 16:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support BYT 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I oppose this poll. We should not have multiple concurrent polls: we should decide upon one matter at a time to avoid the mutiplication of possibilities. Also m:Polls are evil --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 17:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the last evil poll helped to generate a discussion that put forth a really great idea, possibly the best in the long and tortured history of this page. It seems likely to me that just about everyone could live with this. Are you saying we should withdraw the original proposal? Seems a shame to just ignore this. If you had two outcomes, it would be very unlikely that they'd receive exactly the same amount of support. I, for one, would be interested to see who would oppose this, and why. BYT 17:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support this one makes the most sense to me. - FrancisTyers 17:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's settle the issue at hand first. Maybe I'm just being naive, but I still find it bewildering that some editors want to take issue with the word itself, and whether it is a slur, or whether it accurately describes the movements it refers to, i.e., are they in fact fascist. None of this matters in terms of whether the article should exist. The term is notable, but tricky to define, which is why it needs its own article. All these points can be debated in terms of what to include in the article, but not as an excuse to make an end-run around the fact that this article has survived two VfD's. The argument here seems to be: "the word Islamofascism is offensive and silly. And Wikipedia wants to no part of offensive and silly things." It's just baffling. IronDuke 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the argument of some, and to disagree with the page because it is insulting is stupid I agree. My point is that as a term describing fascist tendencies in Islamic movements, the term islamofascism is useless, see above for my rationale. The term can have its own article Islamofascism (term), there should be a detailed investigation of the very real fascist or authoritarian tendencies of Islam and Islamic political movements in Islamic authoritarianism or whatever we choose to call it, and then finally the slur will be discussed in Political epithets of Islamic movements or something similar. Trying to get all three of those meanings into one page Islamofascism would be very difficult. If at some point people change their minds they can always put up a merge proposal. This keeps all the information (nothing is being deleted, if anything stuff is being added), it doesn't confuse the modern use of Islamofascism with the historical connections between fascism and Islam etc. etc. etc. - FrancisTyers 17:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis - amen to most of that, although I don't really see the evidence for the existence of "slur" usage - some cites for that, perhaps? Geminon 18:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: [5]

[6]

Unless those sound like Ph.D level analyses of fascist principles to you, I'm betting you'll agree that they are (only two of thousands of possible examples) of its use as a pejorative. BYT 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that when the majority of people who use islamofascism use it, it is in the form of a slur, and not an educated appraisal of the situation. If they had made an educated appraisal of the situation they would not have some up with such a useless neologism, its almost as if they didn't want to be taken seriously. - FrancisTyers 21:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I do use it, and I think I'm pretty educated about the situation. The reason why this is actually a good term is because of the connotations of "fascism" with jackboots and gas chambers - which is an accurate way to convey the terrible reality of places like Sudan. "Islamist authoritarianism" is so clean and academic, but it doesn't convey the essential brutality we are talking about, it is so detached as to be obsufcatory (and also many people are not clear on the distinction between islamist and islamic). Anyway, "islamist authoritarianism" may be a good substitute term for an encyclopedia (if islamofascism redirects to that), but not my first choice for use elsewhere. Geminon 02:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IronDuke - "Let's settle the issue at hand first" - not so easy, since this is a proposal for a different way to rearrange the same pages. If we waited to complete the earlier vote, acted on the results, and then ran this vote, we would change things and then change them again - more than twice the work. Geminon 18:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I oppose this idea and I really am shocked that someone would start a second vote tally in the middle of an onging vote. Does the concept of democratic process have no meaning to some people? Outlandish. Shameful.--Cberlet 18:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Wikipedia is not a democracy? I don't see anything wrong with two concurrent votes in order to gauge the level of support for different proposals. Geminon 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support with caveats: (1) Islamofascism is "Islamic authoritarianism", and it is the more common term for that phenomenon, hence the main article really should be at Islamofascism; a disambig page may then be linked to from the top of that. A disambig may have some uses, but I see it mainly as a concession to political correctness. (2) The page with "eipthets about islamist movements" will have on it basically just islamofascism... unless I'm missing something? This is pretty pointless. Before I agree to any link from a disambig page to an "epithets" page I will need to see some evidence that this is used as an epithet or pejorative against Islam as a whole: because otherwise, Islamofascism would just be an epithet used to disparage, well, Islamofascism - which is eminently worth disparaging in any case, as well as being extremely tautological. (3) The "Islamofascism (term)" which presumably discusses just the origins and history of the word is not much of an article, but ok, might as well have that info somewhere. Geminon 18:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is, in the vast majority of usages, roughly equivalent to "worst thing I, the writer, can think of to say about Islam." Note these two cites [7], [8], about which you have yet to comment, and to which could be added literally thousands of similar examples

You say, political correctness, I say political 'accuracy. Remember: There simply is no such doctrine.
No movement self-identifies in this way, a fact that is studiously avoided by those who insist on the validity of this term as describing politicized Islam.
For me to "be" a Communist, I have to know that I'm a Communist, right? (Unless Joseph McCarthy is running the show, of course. :)
But somehow that's not the case with Islamofascism. I become one when you decide to label me (or any Muslim) as one. How come? BYT 13:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of these is about "honor" killings, the other is about terrorists. How is that about Islam as a whole? Brandon, it seems that for some parts of Islam. all you need to do in order to disparage them is simply to describe them. Geminon 22:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"worst thing I can think of to say about Islam" - describing people who are islamofascist terrorist pigs as, well, "islamofascist terrorist pigs" does not strike me as a bad thing to say about Islam - at least, not the Islam of Omar Khayyam, Rumi, Ibn Sina, Al-Farabi, Ibn Khaldoun, Ibn al Haythen, Nasir al-Din Tusi, Muqtedar Khan, Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, Mohamed Hamri, Khaled Abou Al-Fadl Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Amina Wadud, Irshad Manji, Abdolkarim Soroush, Shirin Ebadi and many others I am sure you can think of more readily than I. If you believe otherwise, you are in effect claiming that all of Islam is behind th bad guys, a claim which I don't think you want to make, and with which I would absolutely not agree in any event. Geminon 00:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, why don't we look at let's say the first couple of links that a google search for the term brings up: [9] [10] [11] [12] ... notably, none of them use it as a slur, not even close. Geminon 22:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The labelling issue is tough. People who are Islamofascist tend to insist very loudly that (a) they are simply ordinary muslims and (b) there is no other kind of muslim. They may not be calling themselves IF, but they don't actually call themselves anything other than muslim (or occasinally salafi). The reasons why they do this are I think pretty obvious, they are trying to take over all of Islam and it helps with suppressing dissent if they act as though they already have. I think the key questions are: (1) do you believe all muslims should live under an Islamic government? (as a corrolary: do you believe in reestablishing the Caliphate?) and (2) do you believe Sharia should be practiced in a literal way? If you do, well, I'm sorry, but you are Islamofascist. Geminon 22:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There simply is no such doctrine" - um, there is. It is described right here [13]. They don't call it that, of course, but it is a pretty clear doctrine. Geminon 02:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. You're missing something. Jihadi, Sand nigger, Ahmed, etc. I'm sure there are some charming sobriquets floating around Baghdad these days among non-Arabic speakers. BYT 12:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are these about Islamists specifically? Jihadi or Jihadist is descriptive, being essentially an anglicized version of mujahideen (and, well, excuse me if I don't think we should use the way they self identify, which is probably something along the lines of "lions of god"). The second two are primarily ethnic, not religious, slurs. Geminon 22:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: [14], [15]. I'm assuming you simply didn't see these, and want to be sure you have a chance to look at them.

'Okay, let's PUT THIS IDEA ON HOLD until we resolve the first vote -- sorry for taking part in the distraction. We got carried away.' BYT 18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its called multi tasking. Heh.--Urthogie 00:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

u=The main dispute between Geminon and I , who appear to be in agreement on larger structural solutions=

It's about whether or not the phrase "Islamofascist" is used as a slur. Is this really a matter of controversy with anyone else? Seems to me that most of us would agree that it has wide usage as a slur.

Geminon dismisses this cite [16] because it does not explicitly derogate the entire Islamic faith system. That seems like a strange place to put the bar. Bigots don't bother with such analysis. The important point is that this usage, and countless others like it, a) attack and objectify the subject (notice the cute use of the objectifying "its" rather than "his") and b) shows up in a situation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the political critique that Geminon says justifies the term's existence. (I disagree with that critique, but that's another story.)

It is a slur. It deserves to be categorized as one. BYT 12:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one don't consider it a slur against Islam in general, any more than male chauvinism is a slur against all males. --FRS 18:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons that Judeofascism has been deleted and permanently protected, there should not be a page just titled Islamofascism on Wikipedia. I thought the first (ongoing) vote offered a reasonable alternative. There also still would be a discussion of generalized fascism and Islam at Neofascism and religion, in the context at looking at other religions and the history of religion and fascism. Often, the term "Islamofascism" is a slur. Sometimes it is not, but even then it is so potentially offensive that it needs to be bracketed in some way. The solution for Judeofascism should be the solution for Islamofascism on Wikipedia. Islamofascism (term) allows for that sort of cautious bracketing and disambiguation.--Cberlet 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to "judeofascism": This article was a tiny article created by a racist Muslim to try make a point with regards to this article, quite a while ago. Whether that was deleted is completely irrelevant: It's never been used widely (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judeofascism), unlike Islamofascism which has had plenty of public use. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 11:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the example by FRS. "That seems like a strange place to put the bar" - well, you claimed it was used that way. "attack and objectify the subject" - clearly people who choose and use the term are not exactly friendly to what it describes. That in itself doesn't make it a slur. Geminon 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagreed with the deletion of Judeofascism(term), too, for reasons discussed here (which I copied from the discussion page of that article before it was deleted) because I believe an encyclopedic and NPOV article could exist with such a title. In a world where, for better or worse, political discourse includes accusations of fascist tendancies against Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, not to mention some muslim radicals, and in an encyclopedia that is supposedly not censored, I think there should be space for one or more of these topics.--FRS 19:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't folks see that terms like Judeofascism, Islamofascism, and Christofascism are not only inherently offensive to most members of those religions, but also are magnets for highly partisan POV battles hereon Wikipedia? That's why the page Neofascism and religion was created in the first place--to lower the level of POV warfare, and provide a larger editing base that would make for better edits and lower the level of antagonism. An encyclopedia is not a dictionary. Not every newly-coined word needs its own page. Anyone who wants to find a reference to the word can look to the left of the screen and find the search box. All of this talk about censorship is just hyperbole and hysteria. There is space for this discussion on numerous pages on Wikipedia.

I write articles about neofascist currents in various world religions, including Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism. Some of these articles have been published in scholarly books. I am hardly trying to sweep the tendency under the rug. The terms Judeofascism, Islamofascism, and Christofascism are often used in ways that promote stereotyping and bigotry--whether or not that is the intent (and it often is the intent). That fact also should not be swept under the rug.

I believe that neofascist currents exist in specific militant Islamic movements, but it is not accurate to claim that "Islamofascism" is the same thing as "Islamic authoritarianism." Fascism is a subset of Authoritarianism. Not all authoritarian movements are fascistic.--Cberlet 12:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cberlet - there is no parallel between the three terms. Google has islamofascism 340,000 vs christofascism 13,500 vs judeofascism 190. The first is obviously notable, the second may be (and I would probably vote against an AfD there), and the third one is not. "inherently offensive" - even assuming that is true, why should we be concerned with that? "magnets for highly partisan POV battles" - ok, definitely true, but that's an issue of internal wiki politics, not content. "promote stereotyping and bigotry" - well, that's your view anyway. I think it promotes a frank discussion not hampered by political correctness. "Fascism is a subset of Authoritarianism" - academically true, I suppose, but the word has gained a broader meaning - see for example the dictionary [17] [18], a distinction between capital-F Fascism and regular fascism which is defined as "oppressive, dictatorial control" or "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control". Just for the record, I don't think the "Neofascism and religion" page is well-named, because in common parlance neofascist is more or less interchangeable with neonazi. It is a pretty well done attempt to explore the parralels between various such trends, and it does include a lot of useful material which is not found elsewhere in wikipedia, but I think it is sort of based on a bit of a faulty premise since there aren't particularly strong parallels between some of these (e.g.: talking about the Taliban and Asatru on the same page is almost comical). Finally: if Islamofascism were either to redirect to Islamic authoritarianism, or be a disambig page which contained a link to that and a link to an "Islamofascism (term)" page that would be a reasonable solution, since a good argument can be made that "Islamic authoritarianism" is a more encyclopedic term. An "epithets" page will require sufficient evidence that it is often used that way (which I have not seen to date) and probably sufficient other content. It may also be reasonable to reference the pretty well-written Fascist (epithet) article. So I think we can agree on some kind of half-way solution here. Geminon 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. An amazing essay, Geminon. Alas, it contradicts much scholarship on numerous subjects. Arriving at decisions based on Google searches is--well-outlandish. A simplistic dictionary definition of fascism is useless at this stage of the discussion. See the excellent Wiki page on Fascism. The term Fascism is not the same as the term Authoritarianism. Neo-fascism is not interchangeable with neo-Nazism, thus Wikipedia has different pages and subpages explaining the differences. There are published scholarly works that discuss a wide variety of forms of neo-fascism; so, in fact, discussing Islamic neofascist movements on the same page as Asatru is not comical--and is the goal of the scholarly Journal of Totalitarian Movements and Poltiical Religions. See, for example: Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 2005. Vol. 5, No. 3, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement. --Cberlet 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Arriving at decisions based on Google searches is--well-outlandish." - no, it is a pretty common way to judge notability around here. "simplistic dictionary definition of fascism" - we are talking about the way words are actually used, not just about the specific narrow scholarly meaning. The dictionary reflects that. "Fascism is not the same as the term Authoritarianism" - capital-F fascism, yes, obviously. "Neo-fascism is not interchangeable with neo-Nazism" - I am well aware of the distinction; my point was that most people are not. In common usage, fascist == totalitarian/authoritarian and neofascist == neonazi, approximately. Geminon 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is still outlandish.--Cberlet 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support This should be a disambiguation/merge to Neofascism (religion). --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status update?

Are you folks coming any closer to a decision, and do you want me to pull in (another) uninvolved adminstrator to mediate?--Tznkai 23:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There will never, I think, be a resolution to this discussion that everyone agrees on. However, there has been the following wise advice from people we should all be listening to

Turn Islamofascism into a disambig page.

Offer the reader options, perhaps along the following lines.

For an examination of the term's current usage, see Islamofascism (term).

For a discussion of this term's use as an epithet, see Political epithets about Islamic movements

For a discussion of authoritarian trends in modern Islam, see Islamic authoritarianism.

For a look at the intersection between Neofascism and contemporary religious movements, see Neofascism and religion.

Please note, if you have disagreed with me in the past about what should happen on this page, that I am NO LONGER ADVOCATING THAT IT BE REDIRECTED, and that Charles Stewart's and Francis's and Urthogie's advice here has helped me to see other sides of this contentious issue.

Some people may still have a problem with the above, but I can only speak for myself. I do think that this approach hits the marks necessary for me personally Godwilling to stop whining about it, which I acknowledge is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Hope this works, BYT 12:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the page setup would loook like this:

Islam
Islamic authoritarianism
Neofascism and religion
Islamofascism (term) a discussion of the term
Political epithets about Islamic movements
Islamofascism locked as a disambiguation page that references all of the above

Correct?--Cberlet 12:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. BYT 12:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you're trying to imply that it's a term only and there's no actual thing as fascism within Islam/Islamofascism.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism is a historical political movement with certain historical and essential characteristics. It is also used as a spit word by people when criticising political views or systems that they feel are based too much on coercion. Militant fundamentalist islam may be a partially distinct flavour in Islam, but to call it Islamic Fascism or Islamofascism puts us in the position of people delivering the spit, which isn't within our charter on Wikipedia. Let's describe its use as a term, and then provide links to a more accurate and less charged term. It is true that this involves a value judgement in deciding that spit words are not appropriate on Wikipedia, but unlike article content where we can describe multiple viewpoints, when it comes to naming articles, we can only have one name, and so we typically instead go with a tradition of using terms/titles that involve as little emotional charge as possible and lead the user to as few value conclusions as possible. Calling the article "Militant Islamic Authoritarianism" or something closer to that certainly makes more sense from that light than the current term. MSK, if you were a wikipedian and a member of a sect of Islam (or Islamic state), what would you think the article should be called? Perhaps "True and Holy followers of Mohammad(pbuh)" or "True Believers" or something like that... but that would, apart from possible use as a proper name for a group, be inappropriate, because it would incorporate value judgements and heavily disputed questions of fact into the name of the article, which we try to avoid here. --Improv 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Improv: You cannot simply ignore the fact that several serious scholars of fascism and of religion have pointed to fascistic elements in certain militiant islamic movements. That is substance, not spit.--Cberlet 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Please. --Improv 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention please: Wistrich 2002; Armstrong 2001; Laqueur 1996. Find the details at Neofascism and religion where the cites to these well-regarded scholars (and text detailing their views) has been residing for lo these many months...--Cberlet 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem to be more popular press (read: propoganda for common folk) than efforts at serious scholarship. In any case, as that article notes, it's (at best) highly contentious, and hardly a proper article title. As I stated above, we prefer article titles to be based on minimal emotional charge and minimal leading towards a conclusion. Just as no doubt you can find a number of scholars (or, much easier, popular writers) on the middle east referring to Israel as either an "occupying force" or equally fun terms on the other side, depending on where you look, we can find all sorts of terms, attack or not, for discussion of some islamic political movements. We don't ignore them, we just don't see them as being appropriate inspiration for article titles. --Improv 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laqueur, Walter. 1996. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hmmmm. Oxford University Press. Hardly popular "propaganda for common folk."--Cberlet 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, MSK, I feel like it's really not so much an issue of what I am trying to imply as what the consensus of the editors monitoring this page is.

So... I'm logging off for a while.

I will not be making any edit to any article.

That should be enough time for people to evaluate the merits of this proposal, and to do so in the absence of any possible personality conflicts. And that way we'll all know what the right way to go is on this.

So. I think we've done good work here, thanks to some of the smartest people on WP. Thanks for listening, everybody. Pax vobiscum, BYT 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with the list of five pages, plus one disamb. It's workable. --Vector4F 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we seriously suggesting that Islamofascism is disambiguated to Islam? Why not just start work on Muslims are fascists and be done with it? Grace Note 01:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-references are not political endorsements.--Cberlet 14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Note, that was BYT's suggestion, if you read up he is hardly the Islam-hater you seem to think. I am not aware of anyone else suggesting that. Geminon 00:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geminon's proposal

I'm ok with some form of disambig, but not the specific suggestion above. I would propose simply:

I think this is something that can actually serve as a decent compromise all around. Comments? Geminon 00:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that Islamofascism redirects to the three topics you've suggested above, that would work for me in theory.

What are you saying should happen to the article Islamofascism (term)? BYT 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those topics - Authoritarianism - is just a POV fork of this article, its like saying why not move this article to another, just as biased, title, and pretend that we have done something about it by putting a disambiguation page at the old title. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; this would be an improvement, because authoritarianism is not used as a pejorative, while fascist is. Again, we would not include as the second sentence in the Nigger article the phrase "Prominent niggers include ..." or "Many people consider <individual X> to be a nigger, although he himself prefers the term African-American."

Geminion, what are you saying should happen to the article Islamofascism (term)? BYT 23:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, why does Islamic authoritarianism currently point to Neofascism and religion? I thought we agreed that was a bad idea? I think that Geminons suggestion is fine, but should include Islamofascism (term) as an extra bullet. - FrancisTyers 23:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movign towards consensus?

I was told you guys are almost ready to have something done. is that true?--Tznkai 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to do nothing (except remove page protection, so the article can be worked on). I really can't make sense out of the various proposals/counter-proposals above, and don't think there's a consensus with respect to any particular course of action.--FRS 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:01, 30 January 2006 edit FrancisTyers (talk \| contribs) 13,802 edits →Geminon's proposal ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:37, 31 January 2006 edit undo FRS (talk \| contribs) 695 edits →Movign towards consensus? Next edit →
Line 868:		Line 868:

	I was told you guys are almost ready to have something done. is that true?--[[User:Tznkai\|Tznkai]] 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)		I was told you guys are almost ready to have something done. is that true?--[[User:Tznkai\|Tznkai]] 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
			:My vote is to do nothing (except remove page protection, so the article can be worked on). I really can't make sense out of the various proposals/counter-proposals above, and don't think there's a consensus with respect to any particular course of action.--[[User:FRS\|FRS]] 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)