Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Early history of this page

Look to the talk pages Talk:Slogan 'Islamofascism' and Talk:List of political epithets for much discussion of this text. --- Charles Stewart 18:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to Restore

Given that President Bush explicitly made refernce to the term "Neofacism" in his latest speech on the War Against Terror, it seems illogical to have a redirect here merely to assuage the sensabilities of the politically correct. 10/11/05

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

WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ! DO YOU GET IT??? When a reader wants to look up a term he is not to be misdirected to another "word" page in an effort to misdirect his inquiry to a policically whitewashed and censored article because of bunch of self serving wiki editors want to politicize the encyclopedia. So this article is being re-instated . If you do not know what an encyclopedia is then you should not be editing it. --CltFn 13:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of redirects in Wikipedia. This one (Neofascism and religion) is particularly useful because it places the word within a context which is very useful for the average reader's understanding. It's also important to remember that WP is an encyclopedia (a collection of topics) not a dictionary (a collection of words). --Lee Hunter 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts! If I am a wikipedia reader and I want to find out what this thing is ISLAMOFASCISM then the encyclopedia better well have an article on it if it to be called an encyclopedia. Will you shake the PC out of this and start thinking like an encyclopedist. --CltFn 01:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, that section has gotten too big to be a subsection of Neofascism and religion. When the President of the United states talks about Islamofascism, it deserves its own article. Klonimus 11:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The re-creation of this page after a huge battle that resulted in the creation of Neofascism and religion is a really bad idea. The re-direct was designed to avoid the battle over the term by putting it is a calmer context along with other religions. Most of this page is redundant to Neofascism and religion. It will become another battleground. Last time the level of rhetoric quickly became vicious. I propose it once again be merged back into Neofascism and religion.--Cberlet 15:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merger. I've added a "see main article: Islamofascism" link in the Neofascism and religion article. "Islamofascism" as a term and a concept has been subject to more controversy, more public discussion, and more conceptual pushing and pulling than can be handled as a subtopic of the neofascism and religion article. It needs its own. The Islam section of the other article should summarize, and link here. Babajobu 15:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article should stay per the wiki consensus and vote for deletion result. Any further re-directing should be construed as a deliberate act of vandalism.--Fredwlerr 16:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the re-creation of this page is a rejection of a vote in which this page was redirected. So restoring the redirect is entirely appropriate. Folks need to go back and revisit the vote and the battle that led up to it. This page is a POV fork and a magnet for religious bigotry.--Cberlet 16:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy , there is no such thing as a voting process to redirect pages. If there were , then all you would have to do is collude with a few likeminded editors and push the vote as a block to take control of the editing process on Wikipedia. Mind you , I am not saying that any editor in this article would stoop to such behavior but the point can be made nevertheless.

And more to the point, an illegitimate vote would not annull a legitimate vote for deletion result.

But more importantly , the word itself and the phenomena associated with it is in wide enough usage that it merits its own article.--Fredwlerr 16:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chip, but the VfD was closed with "Keep" that is the final binding decision. There was never a vote or cocensus to ever redicrct this page but that Yuber/Mel/Lee decided that ought to be done, and then collectively enforced it. Again going back to the main issue, when the President of the United States talks about a concept it is most certainly encyclopedic. Klonimus 19:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a voting process for redirects. The AfD process can close with a "merge and redirect" decision. But that didn't happen. The closing admin closed it as Keep, rather than as merge and redirect. I agree with the rest of Fredwlerr's post. The "Islamofascism" article should exist distinct from neofascism and religion because the notion of "Islamofascism" is a media hot topic in a way Christian neofascism or Jewish neofascism or Hindu neofascism are not. While neofascism and religion can cover movements in each faith that have been described as having fascist features, Islamofascism can go into greater detail regarding the origins of the word, the public controversy over its use, the tendency of neoconservatives to view the "War on Terror" through the lens of WWII and the war against Nazi fascism, et cetera. Babajobu 16:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prior Vote

Delete: 8 Keep: 26 (of whom one wants a rename) Merge and/or redirect: 23

The majority wanted to either merge/redirect or delete. The compromise was to merge several contentious pages into one with a new name where the issue of the intersection of fascism and religion could be discussed in context. This was to avoid contentious religious bigotry.--Cberlet 17:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "delete or merge/redirect" did not win, and they are different and separate votes. "Keep" won a plurality of the votes. Regardless, that decision is not God's law, but we need more than to simply override it by changing the article to redirect. We'd have to have a discussion and develop some sort of consensus. As of now at least as many people think there should be an Islamofascism fascism article as think it should be a redirect. If every religion-related article that attracted "contentious religious bigotry" were deleted, Wikipedia would cover very few religion articles. And again, even if you think the term "Islamofascism" is offensive and used only by religious bigots, this does not mean it shouldn't be covered. Wikipedia covers "nigger", for example. Babajobu 17:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chip, the plurality of the votes was to keep. 26 is greater than 23. Klonimus 23:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was very clearly to make this a redirect. If you want to recheck that, by all means open a discussion, and even (if no obvious consensus emreges) a poll — but don't just recreate the article like this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be very much on the side of merging and redirecting but I'm now thinking that it's inevitable that this article will continue to exist, if only because Bush has recently used the term several times in speeches. --Lee Hunter 18:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, how do you explain that the plurality of the votes was to keep. 26 is greater than 23. If this is not true, you have alot of work to do on fixing number theory. Klonimus 23:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Mel, if there was a very clear consensus to redirect, this was a consensus that the closing admin failed to notice, as he closed it as a "Keep". Also, "Keep" received more votes than "merge and redirect". So how is this a very clear consensus to redirect?? Babajobu 18:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, the plain text of the VfD said Keep. Mel, the admin, says the concensus was redirect instead? And then uses his powers to secretly protect the page? Even Lee, (was a major party to early revert waring on this page) now says this probably ought to exist on a separate page. To me this seems like Mel is abusing his admin powers, to enforce his prefered POV. Klonimus 19:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. Klonimus. You were a major source of the edit war and flaming on this talk page last time, as I recall. So please do not pretend you are unbiased in this matter.--Cberlet 19:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I don't understand the assertion that "there was a very clear consensus to redirect" when the AfD closed as a "Keep". Can someone please explain? Babajobu 19:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys ( all your group ) , why do you guys come up with ideas only with Islam , why not improve the condition of other religion articles ?? The article explains a lot about Islam & facsism , furthermore no such articles exist for any other religions . So stop sowing a new seed for revert wars . CltFn was banned for the very same non-sence he did before , he has started doing it again . Man this article gives a lot of info about the topic , dont use this excuse over & over again Farhansher 20:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I am part of said group, I've spent as much time on articles for Hinduism and Judaism as I have on Islam articles, and far more time than that on articles having nothing to do with religion at all. I hope you have, too, Farhansher, since you are an advocate of this sort of balance. Babajobu 20:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent plenty of time on articles relating to insurance, and improving various articles about pokerplayers and what not. That said, I've been very interested in Islamofascism since I saw the 9/11 attacks first hand. Klonimus 23:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there is a clear consensus to keep this page, that is obvious. --Fredwlerr 01:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe Mel Etitis just made an error. I don't understand how he can think "there was a clear consensus to redirect" when Keep had the most votes, and the closing admin closed the AfD as a Keep. And in the meantime the term has only gotten more notable, as George Bush has started using it. Hopefully Mel Etitis will correct it tomorrow, or otherwise explain his reasoning. Babajobu 01:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the results of the VfD were keep (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism), according to the admin who closed the vote, I'd like to suggest a compromise title of Islamofascism (term). The objection of those opposed to this page is presumably that, in their view, there's no such thing as Islamofascism, but there is undoubtedly such a word. Therefore, that title might be more accurate and less inflamatory. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed there used to be Slogan 'Islamofascism', but it was redirected to List of political epithets. See here for the version before the redirect. Also see Talk:Slogan 'Islamofascism' with discussion going back to August 2003. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm certainly happy enough with Islamofascism (term). I'd even be go for Islamofascism (epithet). Wikipedia covers plenty of concepts without necessarily agreeing that the terms refer to objectively real phenomena. There is no reason this article should be seen as threatening to anyone. Babajobu 12:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Islamofascicm (epithet) is that it suggests there's no such thing as Islamofascism, whereas Islamofascism (term) is silent on that point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well I'm trying hard to drive home the point that Wikipedia's coverage of a concept is not validation or confirmation of that concept. This seems obvious to me, but apparently it eludes a lot of people. Again, is Wikipedia's coverage of the most offensive word in the English language a statement that this is a good and useful way of characterizing people of African descent? Hardly! Regardless, I certainly agree that Islamofascism (term) is more neutral. Also, I have to be honest that I'm a little weirded out by Mel Etitis's actions here. Is it not a little a strange for an admin who was involved in the AfD and voted for redirect to now revert to redirect, protect the page, and claim that "there was a clear consensus for redirect" even though the AfD was closed as a Keep? "Protecting the wrong version" is one thing, and I know that claim gets thrown around all the time; but protecting *your* version after an AfD went against you doesn't really seem like model behavior. Anyway, not a huge deal in the big scheme of things. Babajobu

Does anyone else have an opinion on Islamofascism (term)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well , like I said before , a good encyclopedia would be one where the reader who wanted to know more about a topic , such a Islamofascism could enter the word in the search box of Wikipedia and get to an article that explains the topic fully and clearly. I do not subscribe to the idea of the reader being re-directed to a polically controlled article in an effort to accomodate the ideological views of some of the editors. --CltFn 14:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be a redirect in my opinion. However if it was made in to a short neutral stub of this term, I might support it. As I have seen in previous articles and certain versions of this page, some editors use such pages to express personal views about Islam as a whole. Would the article be shortened if it was made into (term)? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't necessarily be shorter, AE, but we could make sure that it's about the term, its origins, who has used it, what it has been used to mean, who has objected to it, and so on, everything properly referenced, and those of us with it on our watchlists could make sure it isn't used as a platform for anything else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terms such as "Islamofascism", "Zionazi," and "Christofascist," are inherently offensive to members of the religious traditions named, and pose the potential to promote religious bigotry even when that is not intended. That is clearly what was happening as the disputes over the previous incarnation of this page heated up. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. It is common and to cluster concepts in an encyclopedia--that is part of what makes it not a dictionary. entirely appropriate to redirect any page with a potentially offensive title relating to fascist influences on religion to a page that can put these arguments in context. Sensitivity to religious bigotry is not censorship. Making it a stub for a term that redirects would also be a constructive solution.--Cberlet 18:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cberlet. This really should be a redirect to the neofascism and religion page where all of these terms are described. Creating the neofascism and religion was a constructive way to group these alike terms. It is not fair for one term to have its own page while others are grouped. If it were a stub it should be very short and neutral.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel's "clear consensus to redirect"

The previous AfD netted roughly equal numbers of "Keep" and "Merge/Redirect" votes, and was closed as a "Keep". However, Mel Etitis has interpreted this result and the closing admin's assessment as "a clear consensus to redirect". Is this appropriate? How is this correct? Is there a wiki policy or guideline that allows admins to declare closing admins' judgments as "clearly" incorrect, and to institute the opposite decision? I'd hoped Mel might deign to explain on the talkpage, but as this hasn't happened I'm wondering whether anyone else knows. Babajobu 17:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mel has given an explanation of sorts on my talkpage. My interpretation is that he is rubbishing the closing admin's decision because Mel, as a voter for merge/redirect, thought his side was right. Hence "clear consensus", I guess. I find this very irritating. What is the point of going through the AfD process if admins involved in the dispute can just institute their preferred decision regardless? Babajobu 17:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and read the comments on the vote, and it is clear that there was a clear preference to either delete, rename, or redirect -- and that these outnumbered Keep. ALso note that it is OK in Wiki to decide to Redirect when a better option emerges--and I created the Neofascism and religion precisely as a way to turn down the heat on the edit wars that plagued this page and other pages with names that were potentially offensive to religious groups.--Cberlet 18:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an alternative example of this, please see Israeli terrorism. It was put up for deletion about 5 times and kept every time by a large consensus. At the end, people such as SlimVirgin decided to redirect it even though that went against the AFD votes.Yuber^(talk) 18:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that was done, Yuber, was because after months of editing, there was virtually nothing on the page that was properly referenced, despite many requests for citations, then someone created Syrian terrorism as a WP:POINT, so I redirected both to State terrorism and merged the contents. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...okay, well then I guess we can regard the outcome of AfD's as suggestions, rather than decisions. I hadn't realized this. Still, the notion that there was a "clear consensus" for redirect when a plurality of votes voted Keep seems pretty hubristic of redirect voters such as Mel and Cberlet. Usually clear consensus form around the winning vote, rather than the losing one. Oh well, redirect it is. Babajobu 21:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense , don't let these people bury your common sense under with circuituous logic.This page should stay its own article and there is nor reason to redirect it . --CltFn 21:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still support keeping the article for the reasons I've stated above. But it doesn't seem to matter what any of us think...admins are apparently free to come along and disregard results of AfD if they prefer a different result. So clearly this is an issue that needs to be sorted out by admins, rather than proles. Babajobu 21:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason this confusion exists is that VfD decides whether to keep the title or to delete it. All the admins usually do is look to see whether there's a consensus to delete. Any vote that doesn't say delete is regarded as a keep. So the voters decided to keep the title Islamofascism. It's therefore up to the editors on the page to decide what it says: whether it contains a text or just a redirect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, if that is so then what is the point of a "redirect" vote? Regardless, how in the gods' names does Mel get off claiming "there was a clear consensus to redirect" when the plurality of the votes were Keep and not for creating a redirect? The AfD process may be flawed, and Mel no doubt feels that his argument in the AfD was the correct one and should have won, but from here it just feels like Mel Etitis is pissing on the non-admins who tried to participate in a wiki consensus-divining process. He's an admin, so he gets to just amble over, freeze the page against the wishes of the plurality of voters, and wander off without deigning to explain his actions to those uppity non-admins who are confused and frustrated by what he's doing. I don't like it all. Babajobu 04:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Veiled censorship

What seems to happen with Wikipedia, and this is regretable, is that a certain number of articles are politically controlled by whatever dominant ideological group happens to be in force on those pages ( and sometimes that includes admins in some cases) . Sadly this often over-rides the encyclopedic needs of the Wikipedia reader who stumble on articles that have been sanitized by ideological extremists. It has been argued , that this is human nature and this comes with the territory of a free online user editable encyclopedia, it is however wrong and will never be the last word for a source of knowledge. Its too bad that so many articles are functionnaly censored , within an encyclopedia that aims for the free distribution of knowledge. In any case, I firmly stand behind the correctness that this article on ISLAMOFASCISM stay as its own article. And even though I can neither force a horse to drink water at a well or a group of editors to chose facts over their own ideological convictions I am convinced that future generations of editors will have a greater appreciation of the value of unvarnished truth than we sometimes find in todays' generation of wiki-editors--CltFn 21:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article is not being controlled by any group of editors. It's just a particular admin who voted for "redirect" and who decided to overrule the closing admin's decision to Keep. It's a case of heavyhanded use of admin powers by one admin, rather than control exerted by any particular group. Babajobu 22:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

169% Agree with CltFn. Uberrima fides in all things. Klonimus 22:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cltfn, the reason editors are wary of having an Islamofascism page is that the opposing "ideological group," as you put it, will use it as an excuse to attack Islam. I'm fairly certain that, if everyone could be assured that the article would be encyclopedic, and would discuss the origins and use of the term in an intelligent way with good references, then no one would oppose it. But how likely is that to happen? There's a fine line between legitimate criticism of aspects of Islam and full-scale attacks, but not all editors know how to stay on the right side of that line. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Islam too weak to stand up to scrutiny, with cited sources? Is a concept used and explained by the president of the united states in a major speach too hot for wikipedia? Is 277Kilo googles below the threshold of notability? Why did Mel not even put up the protected page templete, and a comment on the talk page? Does Mel not realise that 26 > 23? This is what I want to know.Klonimus 01:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the "Islamofascism" became a grab-bag for all sorts of nonsense that had nothing whatsoever to do with fascism and very little to do with Islam as it practised by 99.9 percent of the Muslim world. --Lee Hunter 01:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that and agree with you 100%. However as I have explained previously at great length. Our personal opinions about the subject do not matter. If people use the concept, it deserves coverage in wikipedia, even if you think the concept it's self is dumb. I think Juan Cole is dumb, but I support him having a wikipedia article. If you can't contain your revulsion towards this topic, perhaps you ought recuse yourself from editing it.

Islamofascsim is just an extensivly used neologism to describe a totalitarian Islamic ideology that uses violence to further it's goals of replacing western civilization with Islamic Civilization. In that respect it is similar to the behaior of historical fascist movments. It's also promulgates an interpretation of Islam which supports its activities. And it so happens that alot of people are affected/concerned by the 0.1% of muslims who do support Islamofascism. Klonimus 03:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth , we should using encyclopedic standards for our articles, presenting factual information regardless of whether the truth is unpalateable to some editors. If there are falsehoods then those should be dealt with. But the subject should not be swept under the rug because there is a heated debate on the topic. This standard applies to all articles, not just to these islam familily of articles.

Furthermore it is the non-acknowledgement of self evident facts which lead articles to grow branches all over the place in efforts to get those simple facts accross. You just have to say on such articles, here are the good things and here are the bad things , end of story. Its only when you refuse to put both that edit wars get started.

As a case in point , take the US for instance , it has done good things , it has done bad things, admit both in the articles and that is the end of the argument.--CltFn 02:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting that we do not mention the term "Islamofascism" on Wikipedia. All of this talk of avoiding issues and "veiled censorship" is just hyperbolic breast-beating. The issue is how to avoid religious bigotry and revert wars. All this self-righteous talk simply misses th point.--Cberlet 04:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, if I insert a reply here , but the issue has nothing to do with "avoiding "religious bigotry" and edit wars. First of all the label religious bigotry you repeatedly imply is only your own subjective opinion of what is going on. The question should be , is the information factual or is it not and will we answer the reader's inquiry or shall we instead obfuscate the topic by redirecting him elsewhere where the information will be watered down to meaningless double-talk. I will point out to you that one of the most often used tactics I have seen used by ideological extremists in Wikipedia to deal with a failed edit battle is to break apart the article in pieces and disperse it else where , where it get eventually deleted.--CltFn 04:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you that talk of "veiled censorship" is over the top. There is no wikicabal excluding mention of term "Islamofascism", even those of use who think this article should exist must also recognize that the term is presently given a decent if basic treatment at neofascism and religion. But the hyperbole on the talk page doesn't change the fact that we do have a problem here: the result of the AfD is being overridden without even an explanation to the Keep voters for why this has happened. I assume good faith, and was ready to listen to explanations for why the article should be frozen as redirect even though the AfD was closed as keep. But those explanations have not come. There is no Muslim cabal pulling strings here, but there is a single admin who is throwing his powers around in a cavalier and unhelpful fashion. Babajobu 04:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really, the problem of the edit wars at this page was being discussed by a number of people. Several admins asked me if I could find a solution given that I had posted an article online years ago asserting that certain forms of militant Islamic fundamentlaism qualified as clerical fascism, but warning that the terminology was being abused by supporters of U.S. policy in the Mideast. [1] A revised version of this article was later published as part of a Routledge Critical Concepts in Political Science book series on fascism.--Cberlet 04:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cberlet, that's great, and your expertise in this area is valued. But assertions that "the terminology [is] being abused by supporters of U.S. policy in the Mideast" is still a particular POV and should be represented as such. More importantly, Mel Etitis should not claim there is a "clear consensus" for redirect when no such consensus exists, clear or otherwise. There may be good arguments for freezing this article as a redirect, avoiding POV wars et cetera, but the assertion of a "clear consensus" is nonsense. Babajobu 05:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this is silly. Clearly Mel Etitis thinks it is beneath him to explain his actions to the wikiproles mucking about on the talk page, so I'm not going to waste any more time here. Babajobu 05:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is just about the second time that Mel's behavior as a admin has nearly driven me from wikipedia. Admins are held to higher standard of neutrality, and he's just quietly abusive and high handed. Mel doesn't even both to grace us peon's on this talk page with an explanation of his actions.

His breakdown of the voting is not the one the closing admin had.

Mel seems to have a basic misunderstanding that 26 Keep votes less than 23 Redirect votes. But Mel is much smarter than the closing admin, he can divine the concensus that he agree's with, and then enforce it with his own powers. Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, and Bailiff all rolled into one.

I openly challange Mel Ettis to seek renomination for adminship, his failure to do so will be interpreted as a sign that he is not confident he can reobtain adminship given his post adminship history on wikipedia. Klonimus 05:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect issue

For a more accurate vote count at the original VfD, see User talk:Mel Etitis/Afd-Islamofascism (Delete: 8, redirect (or delete): 23, keep: 22, sock-puppets, vague, etc.: 6). For more discussion of the issue, see Talk:Islamofascism/Archive02. Note that the issue at the time was clouded by a hatred-fuelled Islamophobia, represented by Klonimus and Enviroknot (together with a host of sock-puppets, now all, or all that we know of, permanently banned).

Protecting the page is meant to ca;m down the edit-warring and to allow a space for people to discuss the issue, not to allow PoV-pushers to have fun attacking the admin who protected it. If the belief is that the page has been wrongly protected, the correct procedure is to ask for it to be unprotected, giving the reasons, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

While I realise that those for whom Islam is a perfect replacement for the evil empire of the Soviet Union will deperately want to have as many articles as possible in which to vent their spleen, there is no need for this article. We not only have the article to which it redirects, as well as List of political epithets, but also Islamic fascism and others. If the Wikipedia community has changed its mind since the article was made into a redirect, then that will be a pity, but it will have to be followed. Until proper discussion of the issue, though, the original consensus should stand. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions you have just expressed about the consititution of the voting population leads me to realize that you are far too partisan to this article to be involved in it as an admin. I therefore request that you withdraw yourself from any administration of this page and leave it to other more impartial administrators to take further action on it.--CltFn 13:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, I am deeply offended that you characterise me as a "hate filled" Islamophobe. I am pretty sure that's a violation of WP:NPA and totally unbecoming to an admin in any case. I request a retraction and apology. Klonimus 16:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you are, at this very moment. using your corner of wikispace to equate Adolf Hitler's Nazism with the ideology of contemporary Islamic movements, "hate filled" seems accurate enough. BrandonYusufToropov 16:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your view of the world , there are many who would be entirely in agreement with the association of Nazism with Islamism and that includes many islamists themselves. There is nothing hate filled about pointing out what is self evident once you look at the facts. If you go to Memri.org you will see a great deal of speeches by contemporary Islamic demagogues promoting that association.--CltFn 03:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BYT, If you read my userpage closely, I do not equate Naziism to Islam. I don't even even equate Naziism to Islamofascism (even though thats a very logical connection to make.) All, I say that the fight against Islamofascism is as important to modern people as the fight against Naziism and Communism was to those generations. Again if you have any evidence that I am a "hate filled" Islamophobe. I would like to see it. And if you can't produce any, then I would like you and Mel to stop spreading nasty rumors. Klonimus 19:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You and Mel's lack of ability to wikilink to any proof that I am a "hate filled islamophobe" will be taken as profound ownage, and evidence that you both enjoy making baseless personal attacks. Klonimus 02:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I do not equate Nazism to Islamofascism" -- no, you have just been fixating on this picture File:Mufti.jpg with pseudoerotic intensity, trying to get it into mainstream articles, and posting it in User:Klonimus/Islamofascism for the better part of a year now. Anyway, there's your evidence. BrandonYusufToropov 14:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Mel thinks those who have noted the prominent use of this term and therefore consider it notable are hate-filled Islamophobes who seek "a perfect replacement for the evil empire of the Soviet Union". Thanks, but that doesn't really move the discussion forward. The one thing we've asked is for you to elaborate on your inexplicable assertion that the last AfD produced "a clear consensus to redirect" even though the closing admin judged it a Keep, and Redirect had at best equal numbers to keep. Nobody is "having fun attacking you", we've just been frustrated by your conjuring a "consensus" that nicely matches your own opinion but not the general opinion of the community. At this point the one thing I desperately seek, even more than a perfect replacement for the USSR, is your definition of the word "consensus". Babajobu 13:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your other points, Islamic fascism redirects to Neofascism and religion, and List of political epithets is just that: a list. Neofascism and religion is a good place to survey similarities or alleged similarities between different religious/political movements and fascism, but it cannot cover every alleged instance in detail, and the term "Islamofascism" requires its own article. Regardless, at this point the issue is your blatant misrepresentation of the "clear consensus" of the community, rather than your personal opinions about whether "Islamofascism" requires its own article. I resent consensuses that are formed in private by individual admins, and no longer understand the purpose of AfDs when admins who are on the losing side can imperiously announce that, in fact, their opinion is the consensus, the decision of the closing admin be damned. Babajobu 14:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How, when and by whom was it decided to redirect Islamic fascism to Neofascism and religion? In light of that redirect, Mel Etitis's argument that "We not only have the article to which it redirects, as well as List of political epithets, but also Islamic fascism and others," seems specious as Babajobu points out. FRS 18:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"How, when and by whom was it decided to redirect...?" The answer is here In any case, there's no reason to have both "Islamofascism" and "Islamic Fascism". They should obviously be merged together or into Neofascism and religion. --Lee Hunter 19:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the difference, if any, between "Islamofascism" (272K Google hits) and "Islamic Fascism" (77.5K Google hits) eludes me, I have no objection to having a single merged article on the topic. But redirecting both into Neofascism and religion is an error, imo, akin to redirecting white supremacy to bigotry. FRS 22:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But then you were the one that kept opposing the "conflation" of "Islamofascism" with Muftism in the 1940s. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you keep them separate, or you keep them together. Take your pick. Klonimus 19:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand your point. The old Islamic Fascism and Islamofascism articles covered exactly the same ground (actually Islamic Fascism was nothing more than an abbreviated version of Islamofascism). In WP two identical articles are typically merged. The Grand Mufti did not belong in either article. --Lee Hunter 20:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes perfect sense to redirect Islamic fascism to Neofascism and religion, but that "Islamofascism" as a distinct term which has recently and rapidly become notable needs its own article. Babajobu 19:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...actually, tkae that back. I'm not sure where Islamic fascism should redirect. Babajobu 19:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive Courtesy or Flame Wars?

The increased level of hostility on this talk page is a pretty good indication of why this page was redirected. By moving the discussion to Neofascism and religion the larger pool providing peer pressure has resulted in better edits, fewer revert wars, and much less naked antagonism. This page and others like it are a magnet for hyperbolic edit wars on multiple sides of the issue. Overt religious bigotry quickly appears. Wikipedia deserves better. It is best served by keeping the redirect to Neofascism and religion. I used to have a large pet iguana, more than five feet long. When it got angry it puffed up its throat sack and made growling noises. For some reason this page reminds me of that iguana, a primitive beast. We aspire to a more civilized form of discourse here.--Cberlet 20:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No it just means that the article needs to stay on this page. Sorry but I do not buy into your logic"--CltFn 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chip, I entirely disagree, and Just because you happen to have admin support behind your stance does not make it right. Islamofascism is distinct from "Neofascism" which has become a Politically correct soup, where a small group of self appointed guardians defend orthodoxy. When the president uses this neologism to refer to specfic concept, it deserves it's own article. Klonimus 02:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take a moment to further extend the iguana analogy. Cberlet, did you replace your five-foot iguana with a redirect to a Cocker Spaniel? No, you probably kept the iguana. There is room for all of God's creatures in the earthly menagerie, even giant iguanas that puff out their throats and make scary noises. So, too, is there room for all notable topics in Wikipedia, even contentious ones. To banish this topic because of its contentiousness would be equivalent to exterminating iguanas because of their pouches and growls. And that, I hope we can all agree, would be an atrocity. So case closed. "Islamofascism" stays. Babajobu 03:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over this talk page, I still think my extension of the iguana analogy was the most insightful and rhetorically devastating remark to date. Babajobu 14:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

I have posted a notice why I have unprotected this page and reverted the redirect. Any interested parties might want to comment there further.

While I'm about it, may I personally state that I find the term "Islamofascist" repugnant, unintelligent, abusive, derogatory and (for emphasis) idiotic. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Vs. Epiteth

I am not against the epiteth but surely against the concept. We, here, in WP, are not promoting anybody. There are no acclaimed fascists or islamists in WP. However, there are some people here who are trying to argue against the fact that they are anti-islam!!! Please look at your talk pages for better understandings!

Talking about Islamofascism is not something strange! Islam is centuries older than Fascism or communism. The problem here is very clear... If you give me a gorilla evidence that Bin Laden (who is the representative of the extremist islamist ideology) got something to do with Mussolini or Hitler than I'll resign! Otherwise, the term is absolutly an epiteth.

Apart from this and that. What would you call Ku klux klan? What would you call Children of Israel? Do they have any Fascism relationship?! No!!! So please think abou that! -- Svest 16:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Fascism is a distinct political ideology with specific characteristics which can be applied to a number of totalitarian ideologies, Nazism ,being one of the first on most people's list but there are are many other examples , Mussolini's Italy, Franco 'Spain, the Baath party Iraq and Syria, Suharto's Indonesia etc.. Being like minded, fascists groups have often found common ground and formed alliances particularly in the persecution of minorities and imposition of their totalitarian ideology on the rest of the population.

IslamoFascism is a term which characterizes a strain of political Islam which shares characteristics with fascism. Those characteristics are things like a violent efforts at ethno centric domination over other groups, the nullification of Human Rights of minorities , the targetting minorities and dissenters for eradication, suppression of free speech, enforced imposition of the core ideology on the population etc..

IslamoFascism is mostly associated with Islamisms and radical Islam as they share the characteristics of Fascism. The Islamic Republic of Iran has characteristics of Fascism. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan are fascists ,and if you wanted to use the term Christo-fascism , it would certainly apply. And yes there are things like Judeo-fascism too. --CltFn 17:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Control! Still not clear that it is a concept! IslamoFascism is a term which characterizes a strain of political Islam which shares characteristics with fascism is totally and obviously POV! -- Svest 18:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Well maybe you are not willing to "grok" it , perhaps due to your own political agenda, but groups like the Islamic Republic of Iran , the taliban , al-Muhajiroun or Hizb ut-Tahririt and a host of Islamist groups are example of islamofascism. Its a real phenomeneon , deadly real.--CltFn 18:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above --Noboy here is pushing an agenda (be it HA, Taliban, IRI, or anyone...)--. If you have any proof that those are considered to be Fascists than that would be welcomed. -- Cheers -- Svest 18:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Part of the problem is that some people take "fascist" and "authoritarian" to be synonyms. Any authoritarian ideology is then "fascist", and the more strange or scary the ideology the more "fascist" it becomes. And of course its difficult to argue against this because if you say that there's no such thing as "islamofascism" people think you don't believe in the existence of these scary Islamist fringe groups. Obviously those groups do exist, it's just that "islamofascism" is a sloppy and emotional propaganda term for a real phenomenon that takes a bit of intellectual effort to understand. --Lee Hunter 19:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why this page should be deleted as soon as possible

Provide one example, please, of an Islamic activist, anywhere on earth, who promotes corporatism.

Failure to provide an example can mean only one of the following things:

a. Person advocating the necessity of this article is unclear on the concept "fascist"

b. Person advocating the necessity of this article is eager to find some reason to slander the faith system of one billion people.

c. Both a and b, above.

Cheers, BrandonYusufToropov 19:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BYT, you seemed to have missed an enourmous amount of disucusiion that you were involved in. I'll put this in Bold, so that it's easy for you to read Islamofascism, shares the totaltarian aspects of fascism, not all aspects of fascism. It's not a one to one relationship. Klonimus 19:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."

"The question is", said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things."

The supposed historical inaccuracy of the analogy is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. Otherwise Great Satan and Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and countless other articles named after concepts with which many people disagree or find distasteful would have to be deleted. FRS 19:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Satan effectively rebuts the notion that the term is accurate in the real world, by means of a single powerful quote from Colin Powell. Not sure why you picked this example, but I suppose you know what you're doing. Presumably you're saying that, by overlooking the factual red light we're running by equating Islam with fascism, you believe we should follow that article's example by debunking the notion that there is any such thing as Islamofascism? Just want to clarify. BrandonYusufToropov 19:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we're running a factual red light, because I don't think the article, or even the article's title standing alone, "equates Islam (the religion) with fascism" and I've never heard of anyone using that word to imply that equation. Probably the word means different things to different speakers (and listeners) and the article should explore those differences, including whatever historical inaccuracies are inherent in using the word "fascist" in conjunction with certain present day self-styled-as-Islamic political regimes or movements that some English speaking commentators also consider fascistic. BTW, my dictionary defines "fascism" as a "political movement or regime that exalts nation and race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of oppositions." The definition says nothing about corporatism and arguably fits, for example, the old Taliban regime and current Iran government pretty well. FRS 20:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe, I know, but you and I may just disagree on whether or not we're running a factual red light here. Also, with regard to your dictionary research -- this is an encyclopedia. You may want to read Fascism. BrandonYusufToropov 20:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BYT, you remind me of a trafic officer on a freeway handing out tickets for parking in a handicapped spaces. No one else besides you is insisting on such a level of formalism inregards to fascism. As I and others have pointed out, it's not a one to one relationship and people are using fascism as shorthand for totalitarianism. Klonimus 20:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People are certainly using fascism, but how and to what end remains a matter of dispute. BTW, K, I never got your reply as to whether your fixation on Nazi imagery -- which you've continued here today -- justifies Mel's description of you as a "hate filled" Islamophobe. (Imagine someone posting Nazi images to articles relating to Christianity.) A propos of which, I meant to mention: Your quibbling on the qualifying term "hate" is becoming a little eerie, K. Do you mean to suggest you're the kind of Islamophobe who's just out to spread the love? BrandonYusufToropov 21:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relavent, some other people don't. I accept the concensus even though I don't exactly agree with it. If mentioning the truth of Mufti's involvement with the Nazi's is "hateful", then I think the word has lost any meaning at all. I don't know what an "Islamophobe" is and neither does the relavent wikipedia article. I'm not afraid of Islam, so I don't think I'm at all "Islamophobic". My only goal on wikipedia is to make it more encyclopedic by including all material information. Klonimus 02:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is what Klonimus does. He goes around adding anti-Islamic sections and links to articles. Now that he is pushing for this page to be recreated, he wants to add any bit of criticism he can and then complain when it gets reverted. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, sound like the mirror image of what you guys are doing, removing any bit of criticism you can and then complaining about it when it gets reverted. The problem is that only one direction leads to an encyclopedia. Klonimus 02:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Reference version

Okies, I just finnished alot of work folding in the criticism of the old article into a new article. I hope everyone likes it, and we can gradually move towards a concensus.

There is a criticism section which can be filled out by wikipedia's expert panel of critics of Islamofascism. Let's try to keep this civil and focus on being encyclopedic. Klonimus 20:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you're calling this a "reference" version. Once again you've inserted the ridiculous WWII section and you've removed Juan Cole and Mark DeVine from the academics section. You've taken the critical quotes out of the "public discourse" section which implies that there's only one side to the discourse. It totally doesn't work for me. --Lee Hunter 20:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put them in the critical quotes section. Perhaps you want to read this again more carefully, before you pass judgement? Klonimus 20:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote again. By moving them out of the Public Discourse section you are implying that the discourse entirely consists of people who believe the term has value. Some discourse. If you're going to keep the blandly neutral heading "public discourse" you need both sides otherwise it should be labelled more accurately - perhaps "Use by Neocon Propagandists." --Lee Hunter 20:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, your obviously too fired up to reason with at the moment. Go outside and enjoy the flowers.Klonimus 20:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the article's organization, the section "Examples of use in public discourse" shows how the term is used as a label. Those who are critical of the term itself, of course, do not use it in public discourse, except to explain why they think the term should be expunged. Such explanation belongs in the "criticisms" section. IOW, I agree wtih Klonimus. FRS 21:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BYT's instareverts

I'm impressed that rather than engaging with other editors, BYT just reverts their work on the spot. If the Mufti makes BYT so uncomfortable, he could have just commented it out. But instead he chooses to revert, which implies that he dimisses all of the effort and work done so far. I think that's kind of rude, and not in keeping with principals of dawah which require muslims to have good manners to all people at all times.

I'm also interested by why the verifiable meeting of the mufti with Hitler makes him so uncomfortable. The Mufti did meet with hitler, and did have influence on Islamist movmements in 1930s-1950s. This relationship makes me uncomfortable, but probably not for the same reasons as BYT. Klonimus 21:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not just BYT who has a problem with it. Do we really have to revisit the Mufti thing again? Didn't we go over this ad nauseum earlier this year? If you're truly interested in knowing why people don't think this belongs here, why don't you just reread the talk page archive? The Mufti is only one of many relatively minor figures throughout the Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia who were courted by the Germans or Japanese during WWII. Some were Catholic, some were eastern Orthodox, some were Hindu, some were Buddhist, and, wouldn't you know it, some were Muslim. But religion had absolutely nothing to do with it. These were people who saw an opportunity to further their various agendas - in the Mufti's case, the political status of Palestine (and yes, his hatred for Jews). Citing it as an example of "islamofascism" is simply twisting history to fit rhetoric. --Lee Hunter 21:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On this, of course, we agree completely, Lee. Only wish to point out that the campaign to include this term as a separate article in WP is itself an example of "twisting history to fit rhetoric," and I cite as evidence for this suggestion K's obsessive insistence on the article for many months, as well as his surrealistically unbalanced edits here.BrandonYusufToropov 21:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BYT I really doubt it, really I do. In the context of Islamic personalities involved with WWII, the mufti is a huge figure. I personally gave up on this article ever being restored to wikipedia. But now that it has been. I'm going to do my part to make it FAC. Klonimus 22:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonnna vote with Lee Hunter and SlimVirgin on this one. I don't think the WWII connection (which I assume is documented elsewhere on WP) has a significant connection with how the modern word/neologism is used. FRS 21:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am also voting against that section, and if possible for a redirect as I said before. Btw Klonimus, when you make major edits to an article and tag it with an inuse tag, that means that you are open to the chance of people reverting. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to brush up on reading comprehension. That involved several major changes from the version I started with. You, BYT, and Lee all need to learn about [[[close reading]]. Your passion blinds you anything related to this article. Klonimus 01:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not while I'm editing it. (that would be a major violation of wikimanners. And I assume that you would never do such a thing.) Anyways BYT, still looks dumb for reverting instead of just commenting out what he doesn't like. If the concensus is that the extant section on the Mufti's involvment with Nazi's is not relavent, then I think I think I can defer to that as long as we have an Islam and WWII article at some point in the future. Klonimus 22:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you were already done or were you lying when you said this? [2]--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the mufti has little to do with Islamofascism as the term is currently understood. I also think this article is on its way to being good, but is rife with small but irritating grammatical and spelling errors, and some redundancies. I'd fix them, but I don't want to be in the middle of a revert war. Is this article at all settled? IronDuke 21:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Klonimus 22:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:FayssalF's reverts

I'm unable to discern the purpose of these reverts. I agree with SV and KM as to best variant of page to date.--FRS 22:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys for that! I hope you understand that because of the edit warring! -- Svest 23:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to dealing with it. Klonimus 01:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klonimus! Could you stick to the subject one day? -- ^{Wiki me up}

Crazy editing

This back and forth isn't ever going to produce a decent article. Klonimus, you're engaged in exactly the kind of editing that makes people want this to be deleted. You wrote above "I personally gave up on this article ever being restored to wikipedia. But now that it has been. I'm going to do my part to make it FAC." And then you add the Grand Mufti-Hitler stuff again?? That has nothing to do with the word "Islamofascism."

I'm going to move this to Islamofascism (term) to hammer home that this page is about the WORD Islamofascism, and not whether the word actually refers to anything, because it's not our job to decide that. (And if it does refer to anything real, it has nothing to do with Hitler!) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copy editing this to try to make it more encyclopedic. Could everyone who adds material please supply a reputable source, not including dodgy websites like Jihad Watch and Faith Freedom International? The criticism section needs sources. Anything not sourced within a few days should be deleted.

Also, we have a problem with the intro. We say: "The exact origins of the term are unclear, although it's widely believed to have been coined by Khalid Duran, Stephen Schwartz or Christopher Hitchens." We then give no examples of use by the first two, and an example of Hitchens using "Islamic fascism" about the Rushdie affair (with no citations). So in fact we have no idea who first used "Islamofascism"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an excet date, but a few weeks after 9/11 would be good enough. And really, you need to stop deleting stuff, that prevents people from working on it except by reverting to old versions. Klonimus 01:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting things that aren't referenced. I'm going to go back into the old versions and retrieve anything directly relevant that is properly sourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought Mark Steyn was the first to use it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klonimus, the sections I either deleted or made invisible are below. They're both unsourced. Everything in the earlier versions that directly pertains to the origins or use of the word, and that cites a credible source is, so far as I can see, in the current version. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Application of the term

The exact definition of the term Islamofascsism is nebulous and flexible. A general theme is that Islamofascsism refers to political movements that seek to impose by violence or retain through undemocratic means governments aimed at perpetuating elements of Islamic fundamentalism.

Some users of the term seem to include the notion that Islamofascism:

Promotes the establisment of a global unitary Islamic nation-state under the totalitarian control of Islamic religious authorities enforcing Sharia law.
Proposes the existance of an eternal violent conflict between muslims and infidels, that will end with the eventual victory of muslims over the infidels.
Accepts and promotes terrorism and violence to further their goals.
Advocates a philosophy of trotskyist entryism to convert/subvert non-Islamic societies from within

Some applications of the term "Islamofascism" specifically refer to the Muslim Brotherhood and similar movements in Sunni Islam inspired by the writings of Sayyid Qutb, while others use it to refer to all highly politicized strains of Islam, including Shi'a radicalism as practised in Iran. A more common and less loaded term for these politicized strains of Islam, which seek to replace secular governments in Muslim countries with Sharia law, is Islamist. Note, however, that Islamism is a broad political category which covers also political movements such as Turkey's Justice and Development Party which do not seek to overthrow secular constitutions. (See also Islamic Democracy)

Some have argued that this use of the term is a misapplication, as the word "fascism" has been traditionally invoked to describe the merger of state and corporate power. Political commentators have argued that the fusion of Arab (particularly Saudi) and Iranian oil wealth and the totalitarian ideology of a theocratic movement with global ambitions, could be interpreted as a form of fascism.

Criticism

Opponents of the term argue that "Islamofascism" is simply a derogatory epithet directed towards Islam as a whole, and not a real political concept or ideology. They claim that the term attempts to conflate the neutral concept of Islamism with the negatively perceived concept of Fascism. They cite this usange as being an example of poisoning the well by creating judgmental terminology for polical discourse.

Some critics have argued that this use of the term is a misapplication, as the word "fascism" has been traditionally invoked to describe the merger of state and corporate power. Political commentators have argued that the fusion of Arab (particularly Saudi) and Iranian oil wealth and the totalitarian ideology of a theocratic movement with global ambitions, could be interpreted as a form of fascism.

Many muslims feel that comparing their religion to secular ideologies such as Nazism or other forms of fascism is very offensive.

Would BrandonYusuf care to explain this?

--CltFn 23:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain why you want him to explain? :) --Lee Hunter 23:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh no particular reason, really, after all its perfectly normal to message other like minded editors to get their help to force a version through when one cannot make a compelling case to other participants in the debate. --CltFn 23:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er. Well. Yes indeed. It is perfectly normal to contact other editors about an article. That is, after all, what the user talk pages are there for. On the other hand, it's a little lame, not to mention creepy, to comb through someone else's edits trying to find something to discredit them. And then when you find something perfectly normal present it with a big AHA!! CARE TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU'RE UP TO? heading. --Lee Hunter 03:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting response , wouldn't you say? Is that a classic or what? Which brings me to the topic of the day , has anyone gotten their hands yet on this new book. --CltFn 04:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lee, it's not in great form to paste a slew of usertalk page notes claiming that "reactionary trolls" have used a "parliamentary trick" (i.e., asked for feedback on the AN/I board) to get a page unprotected. If BYT and others feel that there is too much partisanship here, a little less name-calling and assumptions of bad faith might help to reduce the temperature. Babajobu 04:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of Claude-Rains-in-Casablanca routine ("I'm shocked, shocked, to see this sort of thing!") seems to happen whenever I share concerns about an article people don't want Muslims to edit. Folks, what we're using, right now, are known as "talk pages" -- they're called that because we are supposed to use them to talk to other editors about concerns we have on WP articles. And if people are concerned about being called reactionary trolls, they should stop trying to get pictures of Nazis shaking hands with Muslims into mainstream articles. 11:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

One editor added that content. Several other editors who think this article is legit felt that the Haj Amin pictures were not relevant. The one editor who wanted them here said he agreed to submit to consensus. None of this warrants calling the entire group who is working on the article "reactionary trolls". And you should address the Claude-Rains-in-Casablance observations to the one editor who objected to your placing talk page comments, rather than to "folks" who "don't want Muslims to edit". BYT, a good way to reduce partisanship in article like this is to avoid criticizing or insulting whole group of editors based on actions of one of them. Regards, Babajobu 13:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Brandon is concerned about this article, and he's looking for our honest opinion regarding the matter. Just so you won't think he's up to some grand conspiracy, I'm posting his entire message, because most people don't take the time to click on links, unfortunately. --JuanMuslim ^1m 04:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Brandon is up to any "conspiracy" at all. Wikipedia is built by lots of basically well-intentioned people volunteering their time to do something they think is good. "Conspiracies" are a bit far-fetched for such an environment. I just pointed out that it's not helpful to describe your fellow editors as "reactionary trolls" and to dismiss their reasonable efforts to get feedback on a decision with which they disagree as "some sort of parliamentary trick". Brandon has expressed a desire to see less partisanship around this article. I invite him to lead by example, that's all. No conspiracies. Babajobu 04:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't serious about the grand conspiracy bit. I was just trying to emphasize a point. Knowing Brandon, he did the same with the parliamentary trick talk. But as for the reactionary trolls talk, he might have a point there. sike. Man, I miss that word.--JuanMuslim ^1m 04:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===Help===

If you get the chance to take a look at the article on Islamofascism-- resurrected by some reactionary trolls through a parliamentary trick of some kind, I'd appreciate it.

Option A is for the article to be deleted or merged, but I'm not sure how to do that at this stage. Option B is for the page to reflect a very brief summary of the usage of the word, as opposed to, say, photographs of Nazis and Muslims palling around during WWII, which is what some people favor. BrandonYusufToropov 22:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty and integrity do not seem to be the dominant quality here so lets cut to the chase. What is going on here is more than sharing concerns with other editors. While presenting a front as a interested participant in the debate BrandonYusuf is playing dirty behind the scenes, calling on a specific list of editors to come to the page to help him force his POV version through by outnumbering editors with opposing views. --CltFn 13:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, CltFn, I have to say that I don't see anything wrong with Brandon soliciting the input of other editors whose opinion he values. That's pretty standard wikibehavior. I regret that in doing so he felt the need to insult the present crop of editors, and thereby perpetuate the partisanship he says he dislikes, but apart from that I don't think there was anything out of bounds about it. Also, CltFn, could you provide a source for the Michael Savage claim? Perhaps just an in-line link to where he makes the claim? In order to keep this article reasonably stable I think we really need to provide sources for everything we add. Thanks. Babajobu 13:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CltFn, get of his back, he did what WP demands us to do when there is a conflict: Call for help. --Striver 13:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, sources, sources

I think the article at this moment is as good as it's been. It's very well-sourced, and the term is presented as just that, a term/concept that is used by some political commentators and now also by George Bush, without speaking to whether the term has an objectively real referent. I think this is exactly how the article must be written, a la Vast right-wing conspiracy, The Great Satan, et cetera. A couple comments: Slim has moved the Juan Cole quote from the "criticisms" section to the lead, which I think is fine. However, it means there are now several more examples of "uses" of the term than of "criticisms" of the term in those specific sections. We should probably add a critical quote or two to the criticisms section. Also, I think we should be strict about all additions to the article being sourced, and being identified as the view of that source rather than plain truth. Nobody agrees on anything here. All we can do is catalogue the views that are out there, and weave it into a narrative to whatever extent that can be done. Babajobu 03:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the importance of sources, Baba, and also that they should be mainstream sources, and not extremist websites. I also agree that the criticism section needs to be improved. I moved the Juan Cole quote up for the sake of balance, and in order to have an intro that gives a decent overview of the subject. You're right about no one agreeing: Nick Cohen, who I've quoted in the pro-use-of-the-term section has said elsewhere that he doesn't particularly like the term, so I'm going to try to find that and add it to the criticism section — as an example of someone disagreeing with himself. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted sections

I've removed the two lists "academics and commentators" and "organizations and think tanks" for a couple of reasons. First of all, the lists add absolutely no meaning to the article. For instance, we don't know whether these people and these groups are in the list because they themselves are islamofascists (a list of islamofascists is what you would logically expect in an article about the topic of islamofascism). Secondly, none of them (as far as I can tell) devote themselves to the study of the subject of "Islamofascism" per se, they're just people and groups that have bandied about the term at least once. We don't even know what they said about islamofascism and in what context. So as far as I can tell, the lists are only there to fluff up the article and make it look more substantial. It's like having an article on Punk Rock and having a list of "commentators on punk rock" rather than a list of punk rock musicians. --Lee Hunter 04:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, I don't necessarily disagree with your deletions, but you also have to realize that this is different from the punk rock article in that we cannot possibly have a "listing of Islamofascists". In trying to keep this article NPOV we're focusing on how the term is used and by whom, and therefore it makes more sense here to list people who have used and defined the term. Babajobu 04:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't it fascinating, and revealing, that we can have an article on "islamofascism" but we can't come up with a list of "islamofascists"? Slapping together a list of people who have mentioned the term without actually telling the reader what they said is just ludicrous. This tells you nothing about islamofascism. The only reason I can see for having the list is to try and beef up the article and make it look more substantial without actually covering the subject. The subject is Islamofascism not people who may have used the word. I haven't come across any article in WP where there's a list like that. --Lee Hunter 04:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, plenty of editors could very easily produce a list of Islamofascists, but not one that other editors would agree upon. If you would like Klonimus, me, CltFn, or others to add such a list to the article, we could, but I would rather not. It would just cause edit wars and disagreements. We could perhaps produce a list of "people referred to as Islamofascists", but I don't think that's necessary, either. Anyway, I'm fine with the list of people who use term "Islamofascist" being removed from article, I don't think it added a lot, either. Babajobu 05:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed the "Further reading" section because none of the links mentioned islamofascism (or even fascism). Further reading should be about the subject of the article. --Lee Hunter 04:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, I disagree with your removal of Arabs and anti-semitism. No one would argue, or is arguing, that "Arab is another word for Muslim". This is a strawman argument. It's also true that neither "Wahhabism" or "Salafi" is a synonym for Islam. But "See also" is supposed to provide links to related topics. And Arabs and antisemitism is related in that many of the Arab groups often described as antisemitic are also often described as "Islamofascist". In that way it is a related topic, and the link is a service to the reader. Please put it back in. Babajobu 04:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But the topic of the article is ISLAM-o-fascism, not ARAB-o-fascism. "Arab" is NOT another word for "Muslim". Quite a substantial number of Arabs are Christian and the majority of Muslims (I haven't actually checked this) are not Arab. Providing that link as a 'see also' does nothing but promote that deep-rooted misconception about Arabs and Islam. You make an interesting comment that Arab groups are "often described as "Islamofascist"" which exactly proves my point. WP should provide factual information not reinforce ignorant stereotypes, no matter how widespread they are. I took out Wahhabism because there is nothing in Wahhabism (at least not in the WP Wahhabism article that the link goes to) that even remotely conjures up fascism. --Lee Hunter 04:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be more toward your intentions if you would name the article Muslim Arabs and Anti-Semitism. By the way, most Arab Americans in the U.S. are Christian, and I'm sure they would not appreciate your efforts.--JuanMuslim ^1m 05:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LeeHunter, I refer you again to strawman argument. Repeating once again that "Arab is NOT another word for Muslim" is a waste of bytes on the wikiserver because no one has argued that. As I said before, many Arab groups described as "anti-semitic" are also often described as "Islamofascist": Tawhid wal-Jihad, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and so on. It is not racist or ignorant to refer to the same person or group as both Muslim and Arab, even though the two are not synonyms. When someone describes Mohammed Bouyeri as both an "Arab anti-semite" and an "Islamofascist", you may disagree with the characterization, but they have not confused or conflated the terms "Arab" and "Muslim", because Bouyeri is indeed both. And there is indeed significant overlap between those Arab groups described as anti-semitic, and those Islamic groups describes as Islamofascist. In that sense Arabs and anti-semitism and "Islamofascism" are mutually relevant, and the link should be reinstated. Please observe, again, that I have not stated "Arab IS the same as Muslim" or any variant of this. Please address real arguments and not strawman ones. And Juan Muslim, it is of course well known to me and presumably to all other readers of this page that not all Arabs are Muslim. Babajobu 05:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You just keep reinforcing my argument again and again. The article is about ISLAMofascism so you think we should link to an article about ARAB anti-semitism (in ADDITION to an article on Muslim anti-semitism which is marginally more relevant) merely because some people use Muslim and Arab interchangeably or some people are Muslim and Arab and they happen to hate Jews. --Lee Hunter 13:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FRS, do you have a source for your change to the intro, viz. that the word refers to "some totalitarian manifestations of the broader movement of Islamism which resemble fascism," as opposed to Islamism per se. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FRS, the new wording was extremely clunky and started with "The term "Islamofascism" is a term..." We need to do better than that. Also, I don't think to describe "Islamofascism" as an epithet is to denigrate the term itself. Most users of the term are disgusted by the movements they describe. I think it is used as an epithet, though an epithet the users believe is accurate. And the added clause really tortured the opening sentence, and I don't think it was necessary, so I removed it. I changed the wording to imply that "Islamism" is a a set of movements, rather than one, by saying that users of the term believe that the "Islamist movements" it describes have characteristics of neofascism and totalitarianism. That way the sentence is true both for users of the term who think that all Islamist movements are Islamofascist, and those who think only some Islamist movements are neofascist. Babajobu 06:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs and antisemitism have nothing to do with islamofacist. When a guy is labeld Islamofacist also hapens to be a arab and anti semite, it does not conclude that Islamofacist has to do with arabs ant antisemits.

If he was a american and liked icecream, would we have a link to Americans and Ice cream? --Striver 08:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs as sources

Klonimus, there's no need to point out that Juan Cole is writing on his blog. We either regard it as a credible source and use it without comment, or we don't and therefore shouldn't use it at all. Here's what Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources says about blogs: "Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website." As an academic historian, I would say he counts as a "known ... researcher in a relevant field ..." and in addition, his blog is a well known one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just not sure Jaun's blog is all that notable even if they do support the POV of some editors. Think back to when Cristopher Hitchen's was debating George Galloway. Galloway started to cite Juan Cole, and Hitchen's dismissed Jaun as not being remotely credible, and impressive for galloway he conceded the point and moved on. Same thing should be done here. Klonimus 17:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

When you say "groups that are described as 'Islamofascist are engaging in jihad, today'," I'm afraid I don't know what groups you're talking about. Can you please identify these groups unambiguously, without the use of the passive voice? BrandonYusufToropov 16:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Groups that are referred to, correctly or incorrectly, as "Islamofascist" would include Al Qaeda, Tahwid wal-Jihad, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Laskar Jihad, and plenty others. I think most of these groups would also agree that they are practicing jihad. Hope that helps. Also, a little grammar: that sentence was not in passive voice. Passive voice would have been "Jihad is being engaged in by..." Rather, the subject of the sentence was "groups that are described as Islamofascist", and it was followed by a linking verb and a predicate, without any use of passive voice. Regardless, I'd already removed Jihad from "See also" section as per Slim's and Striver's comments. Babajobu 16:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babjobu, you said "are described" as engaging in Jihad today. You believe that this use of "are described" is not an example of the passive voice?
I would like you to tell me who, specifically, describes them in this way. BrandonYusufToropov 16:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, the sentence was not in passive voice but that construction was; though that construction was not initially the one you queried me about. You were asking for groups that engaged in jihad, not the commentators who named them. Brandon, this article recently had fairly long list of commentators who use the term "Islamofascism" to describe some or all of the movements I just mentioned, as well as others. LeeHunter removed the list because he felt it was inappropriate. If you go into the article history you can still see the list. If you find this information useful, please do restore it to the article. Babajobu 16:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All quite fascinating. If I may, though. You have written (and here is exactly what I quoted earlier):

"groups that are described as 'Islamofascist are engaging in jihad, today"

I ask you again:

Which groups are you referring to specifically when you say this, and who, specifically, describes them as "Islamofascist"? BrandonYusufToropov 17:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon, as much as I enjoy correcting your formatting and answering the same questions repeatedly, I'm going to stop, because the issue is moot. Before we even started this line/circle of inquiry I had already removed jihad from the See also section. However, if you honestly are still struggling with : "Which groups are you referring to specifically when you say this, and who, specifically, describes them as "Islamofascist"?", I encourage you to reread as many times as is necessary the answers I gave above :-) Babajobu 17:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. I'm trying to figure out whether, when you made this statement, you were relying on your own personal research or political beliefs about whether these groups, whoever they are, are engaged in jihad, or whether you had a reputable outside source of some kind. Clearly, if it's the former, that illustrates a personal bias that other editors should be aware of.

As it stands, you have identified who you believe this group to consist of, but you've given us no indication that anyone else shares your strong feelings on this matter. Just connect the dots, please. (As it were.) Which groups are you referring to when you say this, and who, specifically, describes them as "Islamofascist"? BrandonYusufToropov 17:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<--------

Calm down? I'm perfectly calm, Brandon; a little bored, perhaps, but calm. The little smiley face at the end of my last comment was intended to indicate this. :-) I hope it has the same effect here. Okay, I'll try to walk through this a little further. I referred to "groups descibed as Islamofascist". Not called this by me, but described as that by commentators such as those in the bygone list: e.g., Christopher Hitchens, Nick Cohen, or any of the other political commentators who show up when you google Islamofascism. I don't think it is an indication of "personal bias" or "strong feelings" on my part to cite the musings of political commentators without commenting myself on whether these musings are accurate. Do you really need me to get a citation for you of a commentator referring to Al Qaeda as Islamofascist? Plenty of them do it, I have to think you've read such claims as frequently as I have. It is also my understanding that groups such as Al Qaeda consider themselves to be engaged in jihad. In fact, if they do not consider themselves engaged in jihad, then I will readily grant that they are not. It is up to them to define for us their own motivations, and their own understanding of their actions. So, in summary: (1) numerous commentators characterize groups such as Al Qaeda as "Islamofascist"; this does not mean they are Islamofascist, it means they have been characterized as such. (2) It is my understanding that such groups regard themselves as engaged in jihad, as per their public statements. Do you really disagree with either of these two points? Babajobu 17:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC) ps – :-)[reply]

Look, this really isn't that complicated. You said the following groups were a) identified as "Islamofascist" (whatever "Islamofascist" may actually mean, which seems to be a matter of some controversy) and b) engaged in jihad. I only want to figure out whether you were making this stuff up as you went along. So just fill in the blanks below, please, and we'll resolve this in short order. BrandonYusufToropov 18:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda

A) PERSON OR PUBLICATION WHO SAID THIS GROUP WAS "ISLAMOFASCIST" AND/OR ENGAGED IN JIHAD:

B) NEVER MIND, I WAS MAKING THIS UP AS I WENT ALONG

Tahwid wal-Jihad

A) PERSON OR PUBLICATION WHO SAID THIS GROUP WAS "ISLAMOFASCIST" AND/OR ENGAGED IN JIHAD:

B) NEVER MIND, I WAS MAKING THIS UP AS I WENT ALONG

Hamas

A) PERSON OR PUBLICATION WHO SAID THIS GROUP WAS "ISLAMOFASCIST" AND/OR ENGAGED IN JIHAD:

B) NEVER MIND, I WAS MAKING THIS UP AS I WENT ALONG

The Muslim Brotherhood

A) PERSON OR PUBLICATION WHO SAID THIS GROUP WAS "ISLAMOFASCIST" AND/OR ENGAGED IN JIHAD:

B) NEVER MIND, I WAS MAKING THIS UP AS I WENT ALONG

Laskar Jihad

A) PERSON OR PUBLICATION WHO SAID THIS GROUP WAS "ISLAMOFASCIST" AND/OR ENGAGED IN JIHAD:

B) NEVER MIND, I WAS MAKING THIS UP AS I WENT ALONG

Brandon, please don't spam the talkpage with large, all-capped, multi-spaced pseudo-forms. Now I see that you are upset. I am sorry if I somehow upset you. This was not my intention, and I really don't think I said anything offensive. This entire discussion is academic because I removed the Jihad link before you even began all this talk. For better or worse, we are simply discussing things for the sake of discussion. I agree with you that the definition of "Islamofascist" is disputed. You'll note that every single time I've used the term "Islamofascism" on this talkpage I've put it in quotes. I do this to avoid implying that it is an objectively real phenomenon rather than a political term like Great Satan or Vast right-wing conspiracy. I sympathize with your anger at the use of the term, but there's no need to take it out on me because I've not asserted that "Islamofascism" actually exists. As for my "making this stuff up as I went along" in the course of the talkpage discussion, well, no, I was referring to those comments I've read by commentators who use the term "Islamofascism". The existence of those comments is objectively real, and a few of them are in the article as examples of use of the term. If you want to fill out your own form, I invite you to do so. But I'm not going to spend 45-minutes finding citations for ten questions as a talk=page exercise that has no immediate bearing on the article. However, I can't really believe that you doubt that, say, Al Qaeda or Hamas have been referred to as fascist by right-wing political commentators. If you really want citations for that for your own personal edification, they're easy to find, and you can get them yourself.

Anyway, as I say, take it easy, the existence of this article is not confirmation in anyone's eyes that the term "Islamofascism" is objectively real. That's not what articles on political terms do. Babajobu 18:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it WERE a political term, we'd be getting somewhere. As it stands, it's an insult along the lines of "Yo mama she fat" 'and thus does not belong here. (Prominent people refer to Osama Bin Laden as a "son of a bitch," too -- is that going into an article title?
So if you plan to use the term, use it precisely. When you claim that a) there are groups that 'are identified' as islamofascist, and b) that such groups are engaged in jihad, you are basically saying that lowest-common-denominator smears of my religion are, you know, pretty much okay, as long as lots of people use it. I object, and I ask you again to be precise in your usage of the term and specify who identified as "Islamofascist" those groups that rolled off your keyboard so fluently. Alternatively, you can just admit you didn't bother to do the research. BrandonYusufToropov 19:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now we've actually gotten a little further. "Lowest-common-denominator smears of your religion" are not okay, but neither is the word "nigger". And as you can see from the blue link, we have an article on that term, even though we all agree that it is absolutely not "pretty much okay". I do not believe that it is a slur on Islam or on jihad to point out that the same groups most often described as "Islamofascist" by right-wing political commentators also tend to be groups that present themselves via public statements as engaging in jihad. This is a simple observation, and carries no judgement on anyone, not the political commentators, not the groups, and certainly not on Islam as a whole. You want me to say that "I didn't bother to do the research"? Brandon, I've read the right-wing commentators, and I've read public statements and documents from various groups claiming to be engaged in jihad. Had I planned to insert this into the article, I would have found links and citations, but the comments that got your knickers in such a twist were made on the talkpage. Do you do research before each talkpage comment to provide specific links confirming each assertion? If you do, fair play to you, as we say in Ireland. But if you really don't believe that (1) Al Qaeda has been described as "Islamofascist" by right-wing commentators, and (2) that Al Qaeda has described itself in public statements as engaged in jihad, then you're really in denial. And my running around finding you specific links for assertions like that won't help you much. But, you know what? If you honestly tell me that you don't think those two things are true, that Al Qaeda hasn't been described as Islamofascist and hasn't described itself as engaged in jihad, then I will find citations for you. It'll be my gift to you. So you honestly don't believe those two things? I have to log off now, but when I do get back on I'll look for your answer. Oh, shoot! I'll also comment on the "Yo mama she fat" analogy. I like that one. Regards, 19:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Babajobu

RE: "Yo mama she fat" -- I wish it were mine, I stole it from someone else's discussion of this very issue on, I believe, this very talk page.

People can cite the existence of the article Nigger to me all day long and all night long. You know what the difference is? a) You don't have people looking for legitimization of the term Nigger in contemporary public discourse. b) Nigger (the article) makes it quite clear that this is hate speech and thus unacceptable in civilized English-speaking circles, something that hasn't quite sunk in with people like you and Klonimus.

If you use Nigger on the talk page -- any talk page -- in a derogatory or careless way, you should bloody well (as they say in England) expect to be called on it. Same deal here with Islamofascist.

Whether I think those things you mentioned are true are, technically, irrelevant to the conversation, but just to chill you out: Yeah, I do know Osama Bin Laden is insane. And no, I'm not an Al Qaeda fan. But thanks for the sly implication to the contrary, which I'm used to by now. Actually, I'm even madder at Osama Bin Laden than I am at cynical, self-righteous ideologues like you and Klonimus, and that's saying something. BrandonYusufToropov 19:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<----- Quick return for one question: where did I make a "sly implication" that you dig Al Qaeda?? I have no clue what gave you that notion. I suspect that you've become a little tooused to such things, to the point that you now see them where they don't exist. I don't mind being called a "cynical, self-righteous ideologue", I've been called worse. Nevertheless, I don't think I did anything to earn that particular insult. Babajobu 20:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quote:

But, you know what? If you honestly tell me that you don't think those two things are true, that Al Qaeda hasn't been described as Islamofascist and hasn't described itself as engaged in jihad, then I will find citations for you. It'll be my gift to you. So you honestly don't believe those two things?

Which I translated, rightly or wrongly, as: "Are you really under the impression, as you seem to be, that Al Qaeda is a harmless organization?" Who knows if you actually meant it that way. I suspect you'll straighten me out in short order as to what you really meant, though. BrandonYusufToropov 20:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that I think you should take a step back, think about something nice, and realize that not everyone's out to get you or thinks you are a monster. Reviewing Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy wouldn't hurt, either, though I forgive you anyway for your allegation of my cynical, self-righteous, ideologuehood. Such is my magnanimity. Good night. Babajobu 20:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, here are my suggestions in turn:

1) Communicate respectfully with people of other religious faiths, and do not slander them by associating them with Hitler and Mussolini, even if it's popular in some circles to do so; and

2) Consider finding ways to respond constructively to the actual points raised during discussions like this one. F'rinstance, the difference between this article and Nigger, which you cited earlier, and now apparently don't wish to examine. If I may be forgiven for repeating myself:

a) You don't have people looking for legitimization of the term Nigger in contemporary public discourse. b) Nigger (the article) makes it quite clear that this is hate speech and thus unacceptable in civilized English-speaking circles.

One more thing. There is already a small but deeply boring army that consists entirely of people who believe that any disagreement with them constitutes a "personal attack," just as they believe any disagreement with them constitutes an attempt to "disrupt WP to make a point." This is tiresome, but par for the course considering the company you're keeping. User:BrandonYusufToropov 21:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judeofascism

Striver, I don't object to your efforts to link "Islamofascism" to other terms, but you just inserted an adverbial clause that didn't modify anything. "In the same way that Judeofascism is sometimes used" just hung at the end of the opening sentence. Babajobu 15:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe that wasnt the best edit... Maybe you can include it in a better way?

About Crusades, Bush said he was engaged in a crusad. Sure, he was critisized, but he said it nontheless. Further, many do see it as a modern crusade. So if Jihad is going in, so is Crusade. Ill make a Crusade (modern) article to make the point more clear.

Also, i dont know who or why, but the symetry of the "see also" was againg destroyd. Neutrality demands that both side of the coin to be presented, If we are going to have "Islam & Terroris", then we are also going to have "America & terrorism". --Striver 17:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:NPOV again, assuming you've ever read it before, that is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, re: Crusade/Jihad, they are now both gone. So that's perfect symmetry. Babajobu 17:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I also think you are overemphasizing symmetry here. For example in the articles covering the London Bombings I can't imagine they also include See also links to massacres committed by Britain, America, India, Jews, Hindus, Christians et cetera just for "symmetry". In the article on Deir Yassin do they have a link to the massacre at Ma'alot just for symmetry? I hope not. Symmetry is only appropriate the extent that both examples are relevant to the topic at hand. Babajobu 17:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sobran

Klonimus, if we are going to mention links with an organization like IHR, then we should describe those links more concretely. "Associated" sounds implicatory and vague. I know that Sobran gave a speech to IHR and that the transcript was reproduced in JHR, and in that speech he referred to himself as a "Holocaust stipulator", i.e. that he didn't have the time or the will to investigate it, but he assumed its existence. If he has denied the Holocaust elsewhere, or is a staff-writer for JHR, then we can put it in, but I think we really need sources and specifics. There is only one quote in the "criticisms" section and I would hate for it to be devalued with uncited information. Can you find a source that indicates what exactly are his specific associations with IHR or JHR other than delivering a speech to them? Even saying "who has written articles for..." would be better, if true. Babajobu 17:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, if Sobran is the best quote available on the "criticsisms" side of the argument, it's not much of an argument. Sobran has a very clear anti-Israel, anti-War on terror agenda. He stops just short of Holcaust denial and has been criticized by much better known conservatives as anti-Semitic.

He's opined for example, that "The 9/11 attacks would never have occurred except for the U.S. Government's Middle East policies, which are pretty much dictated by the Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United States. The Zionists boast privately of their power, but they don't want the gentiles talking about it."[8]

Can't you find a soundbite from the mainstream political left that criticises neo-con's use of "Islamofacism"? FRS 20:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FRS 20:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory sentence

Nine hours and 40 edits ago I proposed the following introductory sentence that survived for about 20 minutes:

"The term "Islamofascism" is a controversial, recently coined term, sometimes denigrated as a political epithet, that refers to some totalitarian manifestations of the broader movement of Islamism which resemble fascism."

In response SV asked: "FRS, do you have a source for your change to the intro, viz. that the word refers to "some totalitarian manifestations of the broader movement of Islamism which resemble fascism," as opposed to Islamism per se?"

Answer: Islamism (and Islamist which, fbow, redirects to Islamism), is said by WP to include such political movements as Wahabbism, a dominant force in Saudi Arabia, with which the Bush administration maintains good relations. Accordingly, President Bush, at least, does not seem to include all of "Islamism" when using the term Islamofascism. Outside the wikipediverse, I assume that Islamism, like Zionism, includes diverse meanings to different people and some of the meanings are not objectionable to those who use the term Islamfascism.

Babajobu remarked: ..."I don't think to describe "Islamofascism" as an epithet is to denigrate the term itself. Most users of the term are disgusted by the movements they describe. I think it is used as an epithet, though an epithet the users believe is accurate."

Response: I don't object to calling "Islamofascism" an "epithet" in the dictionary sense of "a characterizing word or phrase ...occuring in place of the name of a person or thing." My problem is that presently political epithet links to a list of: "pejorative political epithets; that is, words or phrases used to mock or insult certain political views and their supporters." Nothing in the use of the term "Islamofascism" by the speakers quoted in the article, shows they intend to mock or insult Islamic people, or even many of those who could be described as proponents of Islamism. Rather, it appears to be a shorthand way of describing "those who, while calling themselves Muslim, engage in a type of political conduct and violence that resembles Fascism."

Accordingly, I still prefer an introduction along the following lines:

"Islamofascism is a controversial neologism coined in the 1990's, regarded by some as a political epithet, that refers to certain manifestations of the broader movement of Islamism which resemble fascism."FRS 19:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fascism definition, and the lack thereof

In the interest of accuracy, I removed a small sentence at the very end of the article that stated that the 'fascism' half of Islamofascism may be a misnomer, since it has traditionally referred to a merger of corporations and the state. That's incorrect. Wikipedia's own entry for fascism explains at length how it's just not that simple, and that since World War II, the de facto definition for millions - probably even billions - of people is that it's simply synonymous with extreme totalitarianism and authoritarianism. wikipediatrix 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Application of the term section

Somewhere in yesterday's flurry of edits the following was taken out:

Perhaps it was because the text in question is reprehensible, partisan hate speech worthy of David Duke and his ilk. BrandonYusufToropov 18:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

uh, could you be a little more precise? FRS 18:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Application of the term

The exact definition of the term Islamofascsism is nebulous and flexible. A general theme is that Islamofascsism refers to political movements that seek to impose by violence or retain through undemocratic means governments aimed at perpetuating elements of Islamic fundamentalism.

Some users of the term seem to include the notion that Islamofascism

Promotes the establisment of a global unitary Islamic nation-state under the totalitarian control of Islamic religious authorities enforcing Sharia law.
Proposes the existance of an eternal violent conflict between muslims and infidels, that will end with the eventual victory of muslims over the infidels.
Accepts and promotes terrorism and violence to further their goals.
Advocates a philosophy of trotskyist entryism to convert/subvert non-Islamic societies from within

I don't know what objections are made against this passage. IMO, there should be some synthesis/analyis of the uses of the term, and the above is a pretty good start. Otherwise, the article is just a battle of soundbites. FRS 18:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out because it perpetuates the canard that these points somehow support the "fascism " bit of Islamofascism. Trotskyist entryism? --Lee Hunter 18:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's a canard, Lee, may I ask what the f@#$%^& it's doing as an article here? BrandonYusufToropov 18:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BYT, after all this talk, how can it still escape your understanding that even "canards" can be covered in an encyclopedia, because writing an article on a concept does not amount to or require confirmation of that topic? Vast right-wing conspiracy, Great Satan, et cetera! This is so basic and has been explained to you so many times! Why do you still not get it? Babajobu 18:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother hyperventilating for my sake. Dots, Babajobu, and connections thereto. That's what I would like to see from you at this point in our relationship. See above. Or perhaps explain your silence. BrandonYusufToropov 19:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BYT, our relationship has already flowered beyond my wild expectations. At this point, anything more is cream. I responded above about a half an hour ago, if you are referring to your form. Well, there is one more thing I would like from our relationship: for you to acknowledge that the existence of a Wikipedia article on a political concept does not amount to endorsement of that concept. After all we've been through, surely you can do this for me. Babajobu 19:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so you believe its unecessary to provide an analysis of what those who use the term mean by it. (Note, btw, that although I contributed to the editing of the above passage, I didn't originate it and do not necessarily endorse every part of it--I just think its a good starting point) FRS 18:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the "totalitarian" thing which is covered elsewhere in the article there's nothing here. It's a bunch of concepts and terms that don't really have a meaning in this context. What does wanting sharia law have to do with fascism? What on earth does "trotskyist entryism" have to do with this subject? What does terrorism or violence have to do with fascism? Ghengis Khan was a violent, totalitarian ruler who tried to take over the world but he wasn't a fascist. Stalin was a violent, totalitarian ruler who tried to take over the world but he wasn't a fascist. Putting these points in the article is just more pseudo-content, stuff that's added to try and make it look substantial but doesn't actually say anything meaningful. --Lee Hunter 18:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]