Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 5

Previously on Islamofascism (term)...

<the story so far>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The term Islamofascism is not a slur. It's a term describing a movement that is very similar to fascism, except that it replces the state with a religion. Nothing more. People talk about fascism and islam not being compatible. That's incorrect. Just take a look at Saudi Arabia. A restrictive totalitarian state that would make any fascist proud. Why shouldn't islam be compared to facism? Islam does not have democratic courts, it does not respect the rights of athiests, it opposes the liberties of sexual minorities, the vast majority of countries that have capital punishment for drug use/sales have muslim majorities. Doesn't that say something? Or what about the fact that Saudi Arabia has the highest per capita rate of executions? Just take a look at the laws of the world article, dont you notice a correlation between the use capital punishment against homosexuality and a country having a muslim majority? Islam does not tolerate critisism in any form, just take a look at this article: http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=41285 The term islamofascism isn't simply a slur, it's a direct result of islam's lack of respect for personal liberty, which is quite similar to what happened in Fascist states, hence the term. MvD 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

To Mmx1 -- proposal for moving this page

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here's a source that condsiders it a slur:

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

• Here's another source that considers it a slur:

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

• Here's another source that considers it a slur:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case in point

Let's be consistent, okay?

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

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

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

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

Paging Jean-Luc

Let me put the question this way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jell-o

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

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

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

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

• You: What do you mean?

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

• You: No it's not.

• Me: You say that with such confidence.

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

• Me: You mean that?

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

• Me: I have my doubts.

• You: Well, you shouldn't. Let's repeat this conversation in various forms over the next three months.

• Me: Okay.

• You: There is absolutely no title you could come up with that shouldn't get turned into an article if it describes a notable phrase. (You repeat this until you collapse and have to be taken to the hospital.)

• Me: I disagree. (I repeat this until I too collapse and have to be taken to the hospital.)

• You: How fortunate that we have both returned from the hospital.

• Me: Yes, that exchange was pointless and physically debilitating. Hey, I figured out a way for us to figure out whether you're right about that notability thing!

• You: Excellent! Perhaps we could stop having the same conversation over and over again and avoid future hospitalization!

• Me: Indeed! You're saying any notable phrase deserves an article, right, even if it offends people grievously and describes a condition contrary to fact?

• You: Yep. Absolutely.

• Me: You realize that's not my position, but your position, right?

• You: Yep.

• Me: Okay. I've found a perfect parallel phrase.

• It describes a politically charged claim that slanders the practitioners of a global faith system, just like this one does.
• It's instantly offensive, just like this one is.
• It was recently used by a head of state, just like Islamofascism.
• By that reasoning, it's clearly notable.
• I personally wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, just like I wouldn't start an article called Islamofascism in a million years.
• But I'm not the one who is saying that ANY notable phrase deserves an article -- you are. So let's do an experiment. Why don't you go write a couple of paragraphs and start the first draft of this article?

• You: What's the phrase?

• Me: "Holocaust myth."

(Pause)

• You: You know, actually, I think the real issue here is your pathology. I'm going to e-mail you in a couple of minutes, and I think we should discuss off-line how you got to where you got on this issue, how you feel about yourself, and what possible motivations may be in play here.

• Me: No, thanks.

-- BYT 12:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your dramatic recounting of our dialogue. I think it's accurate except on three points. (1) when you offered "Holocaust myth" as your bazillionth "what about this one?", I said that yes, that is notable. I tried to emphasize my yes by choosing an even less notable, more offensive slur on the Holocaust (Holohoax), and saying that that term could support an article. You've chosen to interpret my switching to another term as my own personal shock & awe in the face of the "Holocaust myth" wikinuke. So let me give you a Molly Bloom-like answer to your query: yes yes, yes it could, yes yes "Holocaust myth" yes could yes be an article yes. Second point: I've never said any of these terms must have an article, only that they can have an article. Some notable terms/concepts redirect to more general articles rather than standalone ones, just as Islamofascism presumably could were the appropriate "general" article out there. In the last vote people didn't think neofascism and religion was capable of holding all the contents of the Islamofascism. (3) I absolutely didn't describe you as having any kind of pathology. Asking for someone to explain a frame of mind or point of view that is different from one's own is not an insult. Babajobu 14:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Molly. I was beginning to think I wouldn't run into you till next Bloomsday. :)

Just as a gesture of good faith, Baba, would you please write two or three paragraphs to kickstart the Holocaust myth article just so we can see what happens to this term, which so closely parallels the term under discussion here? Either that or would you please acknowledge openly that certain terms and constituencies do get special consideration hereabouts? BYT 14:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And actually, since you've brought up the Irish thing a couple times, it is only fair for me to come clean that though I have lived in Ireland for some time, I am neither an Irish citizen nor of Irish ancestry. If I have a group, I suppose it would be secular rootless cosmopolitan ethnomongrels. Secular rootless cosmopolitan ethnomongrels are hideous trash might be my analogue to Islamofascism. As for systemic bias, I've acknowledged to you before that Wikipedia has systemic bias in that not all notable topics are covered, and that Wikipedia instead is weighted toward those topics that appeal to the interests of Wikipedians. And being an English-language enyclopedia on the internet inevitably produces a particular usergroup and all sorts of consequent imbalances. I imagine that the Mandarin Chinese and Arabic-language Wikipedias, for example, have rather different imbalances. As for writing up a stub on the "Holocaust myth", one difficulty there is that I would have to write up a lengthy enough article that it would warrant separation from Holocaust denial. So you're asking me to write a full article on a term in which I have little interest in order to demonstrate a point (though it is a perfectly legitimate point, and not one that would be covered by WP:Point, IMO). Let me think about it. If I can find a couple sources that describe the origins and evolution of the term, perhaps I'll give the article a crack. And if I do, I honestly have every expectation that it would be kept. Babajobu 15:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And quite fair. IMO, what's under discussion is one of these imbalances that is best redressed by merging and redirecting the article. Obviously you disagree, though. So if we are going to approach these "nuclear" articles under the theory that anything, yes, anything, can/should show up as an article once a certain notability threshold is passed, I'd appreciate a little help on how this parallel case would or should play out. Every single meaningful criterion you've cited, I believe, would connect to both articles. BYT 15:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Micheal Savage Relevant?

Sorry I accidently posted to archive at first...

I object to the prescence of Micheal Savage on this Page. It places him here only to mention his mention of the term. Yet he is not a respectable authority on politics nor is he an accurate political commentator. It's not important to anyone that it is his favorite term as I'm sure there are many other lesser known shows or demagouges or private people who use this term frequently- it is somewhat irrelevent. Could you imagine how long and inane an article on pears would be if we mentioned every individual in the wiki that reportedly liked pears- c'mon providing a lot of info is fine, but I think this is overdoing it.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamofascism/Archive03"

Proposed solution to the whole thing...?

There is an article on the word "kike". The article of course starts off by saying that it is an ethnic slur. Why dont we just turn Islamofacism into a pejorative term. Regardless of origin: no one can deny that it is its common usage today. I certainly don't see it used by respectable authorities on politics regularly, except to reject the views of those who do. No muslim anyone would meet on the street thinks of the term in any other way (people decide whether a term is offensive to them- not other parties) The term itself is rhetorical and flawed on its face considering that even today historians battle each other to debate what Facism was exactly (leftist, rightist, animal, vegetable, mineral?) Terms coined by journalists, regardless of whom they apply to are nothing more than catchprhases, unless of course the term is journalistic.

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

It is the best place for this to land, and we can include a full discussion of the use of the term "Islamofascism" there. BYT 14:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If a full discussion of the term "Islamofascism" can be included in Neofascism and religion, then I wouldn't object to a redirect to that article. Babajobu 15:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly believe that it can. BYT 15:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect would reduce the level of rhetoric and put the entire issue into a broader context -- which was why it was done the first time. Can we do a straw vote?--Cberlet 15:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The previous AfDs basically came down to "is it too offensive?", and most of the people who wanted to redirect wanted to disappear this topic and replace it with Cberlet's worthy musings at neofascism and religion. But if a full discussion of this term were included in neofascism and religion, then I personally wouldn't think it necessary to have a standalone article. But Cberlet, "Merge" means "Merge", it doesn't mean "get rid of this trash and redirect". Babajobu 16:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to above by Babajobu: Yikes! First, please just call me Cberlet. Second, I never sought to sanitize the discussion, just pare it down and make it less rhetorical. Did I do something specific to offend? And I certainly don't "own" neofascism and religion, there have been many edits since I created the page. I do object to introducing the Islam section with the term "Islamofascism," since all the other religions also get a delayed introduction of inflammatory terms that co-religionists consider slurs. That's just being respectful. However, since I appear to have become part of the problem, I will voluntary step aside for a month and let folks work together. --Cberlet 16:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dr. Berlet, no, you didn't do anything at all to offend! Sorry if I gave that impression. Nor do I think that you are "part of the problem". In fact, I hoped that you would be helping to do the merge. I didn't think that you sought to "own" neofascism and religion, only that you had done the lion's share of the work on that article. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. And I agree that the Islam section needn't be introduced with "Islamofascism", only that it be a sizable subsection that discusses people's use of the term as result of their perception that some Islamist movements have fascist characteristics. Babajobu 02:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a PhD. and here I am User:Cberlet, thanks. I agree that some Islamist movements have fascist characteristics. I am just trying to be fair.--Cberlet 02:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

CBerlet, as am I. We needn't agree or disagree with the notion that some Islamist movements have fascist characteristics. All we need to do is note that among many of those who do believe this, the term Islamofascism has come into vogue. And we would import some examples of its use, and discussion of its use. That's all, I would think. Babajobu 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

(No article belongs to any one editor, of course.) I think we can all work together to make sure that a responsible, detailed discussion of the term shows up there. I can certainly do my best to make sure we have a real "merge." Do any other editors want to weigh in on this? BYT 16:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with BYT and also with reducing the level of rhetoric. Because of controversy, if this can't just be a redirect, a better solution is to merge and redirect. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Done. 24.34.154.167 12:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC) <Don't know why my sig vanished -- BYT 13:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)>

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

Notes to Selina:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page is protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening to the public

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimately...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamism + Fascism = Islamofascism

The Muslim Croatian flag in World war 2

File:Nazislam.jpg

File:Mufti hitler.jpg

Grand Mufti of Jerusalem with Hitler in WW2

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

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

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

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

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

Remove this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new proposal

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

• Authoritarian Islamism, and
• Political epithets about Islamist movements

and do the following:

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

The advantages of this approach are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The current proposal

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

I think page protection is important, too.

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

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

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

• Islamic authoritarianism, and
• Political epithets about Islamic movements

and do the following:

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

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

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

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

Benefits of doing it this way

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

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

Consensus for Charles's suggestion with Urthogie's modification

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

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

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

• Oppose Burying this article serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. (Later thought as per Geminon: Remove "term.") IronDuke 23:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose--The article as it presently exists is NPOV and does a useful service in presenting the views of those who use the term and those who object to it. I'm not convinced the word is properly considered a political epithet. The only sources cited in the article who so characterize it are not to be taken seriously, IMO, one being a self-described Holocaust "stipulator" and the other having used the F-word himself in referring to the Sharon Government.[[2]][[3]]--FRS 00:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The reason we call it a term is because its not a real word, and therefore is taken as a pourtmanaeu(sp?) that is meant to frame a political view.--Urthogie 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that to call it an "epithet" may be problematic, since it is not always used as one. It's not a plain descriptive term either: it is only used in a rhetorically pointed way. It is not too much work to dig up commentators who have given reasons why they have not used the word. But all of this can be explained in the second article. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Vector4F 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't merge, don't redirect, do move to "islamofascism" (without "term") Geminon 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  Just read the Charles/Urthogie discussion again. "Islamic Authoritarianism" is not bad, but it gets all of 188 google hits, compared to 337,000 for "Islamofascism". By rights the main article should be at Islamofascism and Islamic Authoritarianism should redirect to that. Islamofascism should not be redirected to any kind of "Political epithets about Islamic movements" type of page, there is not a shred of evidence that it is an epithet and not a descriptive term. Having Islamofascism under "Neofascism and religion" is retarded, since it has (very nearly) nothing to do with neofascism. Geminon 02:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I knew that some people would not be comfortable with this, which is why I did not include it as a formal element of the proposal. BYT 15:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. The change would not be a success if we needed a permanent protect. It's meant to be a way of carving up the issue in a way that channels the conflict of views more productively. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I have concerns about long-term stability, but it's worth a try. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

unsigned

• Support - This article is nothing but a POV-pushing attempt to make articles that contain criticism of Islam. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Any term that appears on at least 350,000 webpages (Google search) probably deserves it's own entry. Mc6809e 09:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - This has been a very good article in the past. Here's looking forward to making it one again in the future. Kyaa the Catlord 13:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support--Angrynight 08:57, 4 february 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This word has been used by several representatives on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. That being said, so has the word chickenhawk (by Frank Lautenburg) on the United States Senate floor. BlueGoose 17:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I hope I understand the proposal correctly, but is this page JUST going to be a disambig page? I have no problem with there being a disambig page, but the term (or pejorative) "islamofascism" is very unique and needs its own page. Keep in mind this term was used by the President of the United States!!! BlueGoose 21:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support and Comment Just because it has been used by a President doesn't mean anything, unless you want an article on misunderestimate too. <_< Kirbytime 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Where does the discussion on merging take place?

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

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

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

a few basic issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posctscript - I copy what I wrote on 4th Jan: We can divide up the usage of the term Islamofascism: usages that never caught on, such as Malise Ruthven's original usage, usages that attempted to identify a dangerous fascistic and Islamist movement distinmct from the political views that most muslims hold, and usages that attempt to paint Islam as a religion that is disposed towards fascist-like political expression. The third is of course deeply insulting to muslims, and because of the popularity of this usage, no thoughtful person uses it. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: make it a disambiguation page

It could be links to:

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

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

Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure: [5]

[6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support This should be a disambiguation/merge to Neofascism (religion). --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support and Comment Make it a disambiguation page. Oh and, using the Wikipedia:Google_test is a valid way of defining notability Kirbytime 17:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Status update?

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

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

• Turn Islamofascism into a disambig page.

• Offer the reader options, perhaps along the following lines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the page setup would loook like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• So... I'm logging off for a while.

• I will not be making any edit to any article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geminon's proposal

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

• Islamic authoritarianism
• Neofascism and religion
• Fascist (epithet).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree on both points. (I assume the Islamic authoritarianism article simply hasn't been written yet, pending the outcome of this discussion.) BYT 02:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Movign towards consensus?

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

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

I disagree. Count the number of people for who responded favorably to using Islamofascism as a disambiguation page. That's the big idea that seems to has emerged from all this. BYT 02:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with FRS here. I can't make any sense out of the various ideas above, and while some people support a disambig page, they don't support the same page. Hence, I really don't see a consensus at this point. -- JJay 02:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So right now Islamofascism redirects to this page Islamofascism (term). What exactly is the "disambiguation page" proposal that people "responded favorably to"? To create a locked Islamofascism page that contains (only) links to

Islamofascism (term) (which will survive and continue to contain content along the lines of the present article); plus links to

• Islam
• Islamic authoritarianism
• Neofascism and religion
• Political epithets about Islamic movements

I suppose I could live with such an approach but I'd like to point out that Islamofascism, at least as used by Hitchens and the other quoted public figures in the article, is not properly considered a political epithet and has little connection to either religion or neofascism or even Islam as followed by most Muslims. I believe the correct synthesis of how Hitchens, et. al., use the word is: a way of identifying people or movements with fascistic characteristics who claim to be acting in furtherance of Islam, and who use Islamic symbols and rhetoric to further their goals.--FRS 16:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What you're describing would work for me, too. Let's include an analysis of whether (people like Hitchens intend it to be) used as an epithet on the present page. Certainly seems a relevant issue. BYT 22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I would call Hitchens' usage an epithet: he uses the term sparingly and for pointed rhetorical intent. If you check epithet in the dictionary, it is not a synonym for slur. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 22:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Say What??

"In the past century, no Islamic movement has ever installed a fascist government." Except for Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc. Granted the debate is about the appropriate definition of "fascism", BUT if the term applies, the above line needs to be deleted for POV reasons...

Define fascism. Then explain how these governments are fascist. Have fun trying. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 21:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Censorship and Historic Revisionism on Wikipedia

I haven't read the entire debate yet (I've read most of it), but I find it abominable that people are actually considering deleting a term that was used several times on the floor of the United States House of Representatives by Republicans in the debate of Jack Murtha's proposal!!! (or more accurately the debate of Duncan Hunter's proposal :) ). I believe this article should be NPOV, namely that it should be considered an epithet used rightly or wrongly. However, to delete this article would mean that we would have to delete the chickenhawk article and other similar articles just to stay consistent. BlueGoose 18:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the article hasn't been on the table for a long time. What is being proposed is a more appropriate disambiguation page. - FrancisTyers 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran must now be considered Islamofascist state

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=CultureAndMedia&loid=8.0.261252316&par=0

"Tehran, 6 Feb. (AKI) - A 19-year-old Iranian journalist, Elham Foroutan, risks the death penalty for a satirical article in which she compares the Islamic revolution in Iran to the AIDS virus. Foroutan, wrote the article for the magazine, Tamaddon Hormozgan, a weekly which is published in Bandar Abbas, in the south of Iran. Foroutan, was arrested together with six editors of the magazine, whose publication has also been suspended."

"Foroutan has been accused of insulting the founder of the Islamic Republic, an act that is punishable by death. In the meantime, the ministry of culture and Islamic orientation announced the imminent closing of 70 magazines which "do not respect the values of the revolution and express the concepts contrary to the principles of Islam".

Hmmm:

• Insulting great leader = death, check
• ministry of culture shuts down magazines that do not respect the "values of the revolution", check

Above unsigned comment from User:24.173.155.146

First: sign your comments.

Second: All dictatorships are not fascist. All right-wing governments are not fascist. All oppressive regimes are not fascist.

Ask yourself if Iran fits any of these scholarly definitions:

a singularly protean genus of modern politics inspired the conviction that a process of national rebirth (palingenesis) has become essential to bring to an end a protracted period of social and cultural decadence, and expressing itself ideologically in a revolutionary form of integral nationalism (ultra-nationalism). - Blackwell Dictionary of Social Thought.

the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism. - Michael Mann

hypernationalist, often pan-nationalist, anti-parliamentary, anti-liberal, anti-communist, populist and therefore anti-proletarian, partly anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois, [and] anti-clerical, or at least, non-clerical. - Juan Linz.

No? Didn't think so. Oppressive? Yes. Fascist? No. Verdict? Iran is not fascist. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 21:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Iran very much fits the description in the Blackwell Dictionary of Social Thought, it is arguably a form of theocratic neofascism.--Cberlet 23:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

They are ultra-nationalistic, but the revolutionary rebirth aspect ("paramilitaristic palingenesis") is missing. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Revolutionary palingenetic rebirth from the decadence of Western culture has already taken place. Palingenesis can come from the right, as can revolution. Fascism was a right-wing form of revolutionary palengenetic nationalism. I', not taking a position on the question, but I am saying it can be argued.--Cberlet 15:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The 'rebirth from Western culture' happened centuries ago, long before any of these states were around. The Middle East has been Muslim since before most sects of Christianity existed. By that logic, then, America would be fascist because we 'rebirthed' out of the decadent colonial system in the 1770's. Then and now have nothing to do with each other. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran is the definition of Islamofascism. It was begun by a coup led by an Islamic caliph, it is perpetuated through the repression of ideas contrary to its leader's, and it has created a regime devoted to the destruction of infidels and the spread of radical islam. Oh, and by the way, this has already been said, but Iran is the perfect fascist speciman according to the Blackwell Dictionary of Social Thought. It is matches every single description of that definition. I agree with Cberlet- Iran is a theocratic neofascist state.

I don't think it's possible to say that Iran is fascist, or even remotely resembling fascist. They are not an ordinary democracy, but they are also not internally uniform. The existence of and ability to comment by such political figures as Reformist (and former government member) Mohammad Ali Abtahi, and the very existence of political factions that struggle in the elections and criticise each other so openly point to a much more complex situation than you would paint. --Improv 05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Catching up on old discussions: Iran

I agree with Improv's position. Iran is not a democracy, and it is oppressive, but it's influence from the West is more socialistic than fascistic, its democratic processes are not purely nominal, and it has some sort of a functioning division of power. It fails far too many of Payne's fascist minimum criteria (I posted a summary at Talk:Fascism and ideology#Definitions of fascism), for me to consider it to be close to fascism. If we had an article on Islamocommunism, it might fit there. --- Charles Stewart(talk)

Influence of French fascist philosopher on Sayyid Qutb

To those interested in the origins of Islamism, I've posted material relating to the influence on Sayyid Qutb of Alexis Carrel, who led an institute devoted to eugenics under the Vichy regime. Carrel's book Man, The Unknown was a model for Qutb's philosophy, with the terminology adjusted to reflect Qutb's arguments in support of Islamic fascism.

(sorry...I forgot to sign!) Adam Holland 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting and quite relevant to this article (it's in the Alexis Carrel article not the Qutb article if anyone else is looking for it). It's one of the few bits of information that actually provides a link between Islamist ideology and fascism. --Lee Hunter 23:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Although now that I reread the Carrel article I wonder if we're not overstating the fascism angle. It would seem, judging only by that article, that Carrel is noted for his advocacy of the creepy medical "philosophy" called eugenics, not his support of fascism. Certainly he was in the fascist camp, and eugenics reached it's high (or low) point with the fascists and Nazis but I'm not certain that it is correct to portray him as a fascist philosopher since his writings were not about fascism per se. --Lee Hunter 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I intend to add more on Carrel's fascism to that article, but have had some resistance from an ardent admirer of Carrel. The fact is, Carrel was active in the Parti Populaire Francais, the pro-Nazi collaborationist party of Jacques Doriot. I have both scholarly and documentary evidence of this including clippings from the PPF newspaper. The PPF was the farthest right fascist party in France, pressuring Vichy for greater support of the Nazis and implementation of racist laws. They participated with the Gestapo and the Milice in rounding up tens of thousands of Jews for deportation to concentration camps. They were rewarded eventually by being named a unit of the SS. Carrel used his connections to Petain to have him creat and put Carrel in charge of a 300 person demographic/eugenic research think tank created by Vichy at a time when their cash was in short supply. The work of this think tank was used to support the eugenics policies of Vichy. Max Lafont has claimed that Carrel's advocacy for euthenasia of the mentally ill was used as justification for Vichy starving to death 40,000 patients in French psychiatric hospitals, although this connection is controversial. Carrel was cited as an influence by Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician and the advocate for a medical approach to the final solution. Carrel's writings were entered as evidence at the Nazi Doctor's trial at Nuremberg. He is now one of the main culture heros of the French neo-fascist Le Pen and his Front National.

There is much more. I have been battling to put this stuff into the Carrel article but a supporter of Carrel has been calling a "frustrated Nazi hunter" and weakened the fascist angle by making changes in wording and emphasis and by tagging with POV warnings. Quite frankly, I'd like to finish my contribution to the piece, but don't have time to research and write the thing and then battle for week about each addition. The fellow who has objected to my contributions has said that "people with (my) politics have no place on this site," but has refused to indicate what politics he refers to. It has been very discouraging to me to have to battle to add this material. I thought that this type of battle ended 60 years ago. I guess I was naive.

Adam Holland 17:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

But this is still reinforcing the idea that Carrel was mostly a eugenics guy. During the first part of the last century, eugenics was a huge fad with people from all over the political spectrum. In other words, someone like Qutb could conceivably admire eugenics and not be a fascist (according to the eugenics article many prominent people like Alexander Graham Bell and Marcus Garvey subscribed to the philosophy at some point). Carrel was clearly (according to the information you provide) an influence on Qutb, but was it fascism that Qutb took away from Carrel's writings or was it the concept of eugenics? Is eugenics somehow key to fascism?--Lee Hunter 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say I am only reinforcing the point about eugenics when I spell out Carrel's fascism. Here's the salient point: both Carrel and Qutb believed in establishing an elite class to rule over and remake society. That's what Qutb got from Carrel's philosophy, not eugenics. Dictatorship of an elite is also the most notable aspect of fascist philosphy.

To me, Carrel's ideas sound suspiciously like the caste-based society Plato describes in The Republic, but with eugenic and racial theories replacing Plato's "myth of metals." This is analogous to the way Marx reworked Plato's ideas using class warfare as his ranking principle. Hitler and Mussolini used a different governing model, the "fuhrer principle." This is the idea that the leadership of the volk should be embodied in a single person. Unlike, say, a Communist party, the Nazi party was never a policy-making body. Using your definition of fascism, Plato was fascist, but Hitler was not. Kauffner 06:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)//

Carrel participated in fascist politics and worked for a fascist regime. He was pro-Nazi in his private papers. His fascism is indisputable. Precisely the most fascist element of Carrel's philosophy, dictatorship of an elite, is what Qutb took from Carrel, disposing of everything relating to Darwinism that Qutb would have found to be anathema to his fundamentalist Salafi beliefs. ALL HE GOT WAS THE FASCISM, NOT THE EUGENICS! How can I make this point clearer?

Adam Holland 20:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether Carrel was a fascist. I AM trying to understand whether Carrel wrote about fascism or whether he wrote about eugenics. If he basically just wrote about eugenics, which seems to be the case, then it seems to be a stretch to say that Qutb's writings adapted the fascist ideas of Carrel when what he was reading were not books about fascism, but eugenics. I also find the parallels between the two writers to be nebulous. How is it significant that they both complained about materialism? What does that have to do with fascism? That's probably the most common theme of every single person who has ever written about spirituality and religion. Qutb believed that people should submit themselves to the will of God, but does that mean he's advocating some kind of fascist dictatorship? I don't get it. --Lee Hunter 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are almost getting it. 1) Carrel advocated fascism in his Man the Unknown. His fascism was oriented around eugenics, taking the form of advocating that society be ruled by a genetic elite. 2) Qutb also advocated a fascist dictatorship in terms he borrowed from Carrel, but based instead of genetics, on his idea of a religious elite. Qutb's terms derive from Carrel, the structure of the society he advocates is derived from Carrel. The terms and structure are clearly fascist. 3) The influence is clear and, in case you doubt that, Qutb credits Carrel. The influence can't be questioned. What is it about this that you think unclear?

Adam Holland 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm far from an authority on Qutb, but from what little I know, I find your assertions highly improbable. 1) advocating rule by a genetic elite is in stark contradiction to the principles of Islam 2) My understanding is that he was advocating that man should be ruled only by God and that a good Muslim should reject the rule of men. You claim that he advocated a "fascist dictatorship". Where in his writings does he say that? 3) The statement that he credits Carrel more than any source excerpt for the Koran is actually meaningless. It suggests that somehow Carrel was as influential, or nearly as influential, as the Koran on Qutb's thinking (which is dubious) and it begs the question of how Qutb actually synthesized and used Carrel's ideas. So far I haven't seen any evidence that he came away with anything resembling what we know as fascism. --Lee Hunter 21:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote: 1) Qutb changed Carrel's genetic racial elite to a religious elite. I'll get you a citation and post it. 2) I don't claim that Carrel was more influential than the Koran on Qutb. I don't even know what that means. I just know that he borrowed Carrel's philosophy and altered the terms from a pseudo-scientic worldview to an Islamic one.

If you don't think Islamism is fascism, you can argue that. I note that you no longer argue that Carrel is not fascist. I note that you no longer argue that Carre; didn't influence Qutb. The question we are left with is a good one: were the ideas that Qutb took from Carrel fascist. I believe that Qutb's advocacy of a ruling elite class, which derives from Carrel with the changes I have already discussed, was intrinsically fascist.

Let me see if I can locate the quotes and I will provide you with citations from Qutb regarding this ruling elite class. You, and any other reader, can judge for themselves.

Adam Holland 03:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, I am researching this issue. Adam I take your arguments seriously. Thanks for all the sources. I'll try to get through each one and report back in a few days. Also, does anyone know where I can get a copy of Qutb's Al-Islam wa Mushkilat al-Hadara (Islam and the Problems of Civilization)? This is the piece in which he quotes Carrel. --Vector4F 06:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam, at no point did I suggest that Carrel was not a fascist, only that his writings seemed to be primarily on the subject of eugenics which would make the link between the fascism of Carrel and the supposed fascism of Qutb tenuous. You are insisting that Qutb proposed rule by a religious elite. Perhaps this is true, but the more I read about Qutb, the more I find that he absolutely rejected the rule of men and insisted that they be ruled by God. This doesn't sound like any kind of fascism that I've ever encountered. Moreover, the examples presented in this article that supposedly show Carrel's influence, don't have anything to do with fascism. What I'm hearing from you is a circular argument: Qutb was a fascist. How do we know? Because he read books by Carrel. How do we know that reading those books lead him towards fascism? Because Qutb is a fascist. --Lee Hunter 12:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Qutb believes that the way to the "rule of God" is via absolute rule by a "vanguard" of religious elites. He says in Milestones that the need for this vanguard would fall away but the mechanism by which he thinks this will happen is unclear.

We know Qytb's idea of a "vanguard" was influenced by Carrel's idea of a racial elite because he says so. Now what is it that you are saying to the contrary?

Adam Holland 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I searched an online version of Milestone and found only one ambiguous reference to Carrel. Where does he discuss this vanguard and give credit to Carrel? --Lee Hunter 16:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"[Qutb] says in Milestones that the need for this vanguard would fall away but the mechanism by which he thinks this will happen is unclear."

The only practical way to run a theocracy is through authoritarian rule. Qutb's theories may therefore be impractical - that is they may in fact lead to a dictatorship, regardless of what he plans - but that is not his intention and he condemns human governments. His ideology is not reducible to an irreligious political theory, because that destroys his intentions, premise, and objectives. This is part of the problem with the term "Islamofacist" - how can we interpret Islam *in* such a narrow, non-religious domain as facism? The only way to do so is to say that it is either not authentically religious (probably wrong) or that religion is really part of a greater social system (similar to Comte). So, if we mean to take Qutb as religious then we cannot dictate to him that his religious vanguard is really a facist party. Qutb must demonstrate this for us, else we are basically telling Qutb what he means.

The only alternative is to develop some philosophical theory that says religion and political order is compatible (e.g. to say that history is full of theocracies is to use history as a basis of reason). This has not been done here. We are left with the presupposition of this article that Islam can be understood *in* the context of facism - that is, we are supposing we can call an interpretation of Islam "facist". How do we exactly do this? We haven't said, but Adam your argument rests on the similarities of Carrel and Qutb, what liberal political theory says about elite rule, and historical precedent. Sorry, but your thesis is really ahead of where this article is.

We can talk about Qutb's relation to Carrel, but to call it facism is to already conclude that Qutb is actually facist. Politicians use this kind of associational argument all the time. Aside from the fact that Qutb's alleged facism hasn't been established (does theocracy = facism, does Qutb's theocracy = facism, and does elitism = facism?), this claim also means that we need to prove Qutb's ideas are not just similar to Carrel, but that Qutb either credits Carrel or that his ideas require Carrel (that is, that Qutb's ideas are uniquely related to Carrel). If we can't establish this, I don't see how we can say we have evidence for the transmission of facism from Carrel to Qutb. We need more than evidence of influence and/or our own comparisons.

Note, this is not the same as saying that Qutb and Carrel agree on certain points. This is a seperate thesis and requires different evidence (i.e. the sources which Die Zeit article refers too). But Adam you are presenting more than this point. You have specified that Qutb is not only influenced by Carrel, but that this influence is the transmission of facism, via the concept of an elite. So really, you have a 3-step argument:

Carrel-Qutb connection -> Carrel-Qutb transmission of elite concept -> elite concept proof of transmission of facism (i.e. inherently facist)

From this, you conclude that Qutb is "inherently facist", just like Carrel. Your 3-step argument basically seeks to explain why (where A=(1-Carrel, 2-facist)) A->B means B->A(2) here, but we are not dealing with just A and B. We are talking, as you said, about one interpretation of "religion as political" vs. one interpretation of "racial as political". The element of political does not make religion comparable with race, yet religion and race, to their respective authors, are essential to the concept of an elite (and thereby, as you claim, facism) in both systems of thought. This is not just a comparison, but an interpretation.

There is an alternative theory, but it is not what has been presented here. We could say that some elements of Islamism are comparable to facism and cite Qutb and Carrel as an example. The general claim is workable, because we can compare only political theories (Islamism has a political theory and so does facism), but the specific (the examples of Qutb and Carrel) falls into all the problems I have written above. This does seem to be arguing from the specific to the general, but more practically I have never seen a scholarly comparison of the general argument, only mention of a relation. So even if we stick with the general claim, it needs more development (beyond Bush, Hitchens, Cohen, etc.).

I am not dismissing your thesis. As I said, I need to read through all of Qutb's quotations/citations of Carrel. However, we know Qutb's study of early Islam (contrasted with his concept of jahilliya) was the prime religious basis for his theories of activism. Now, if we are saying Qutb's concept of a vanguard is religious, then we cannot immediately equate it with facism. We must, as I explained above, either remove the actual religious content (and prove that it is non-essential) or we must say religion is really a subset of some other sociological phenomenon of political order (and that facism is type of this order, making religion a derivative of the parent type). If we do not do this, the entire article is conjecture, grounded only in our interpretation of Qutb.

Scholarship is not an easy task. Adam your arguments intend to take this article beyond the domain of "here is a term that some people are using and what they say it means" to "here is a term and this is what it means in these specific relationships". Very, very close to original research, but potentially very rewarding! --Vector4F 20:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've come across a bit of a snag. The only place I know Qutb cited Carrel is in his book "Islam and the Problems of Civilization". I cannot find an English copy, but I am working on getting a Turkish one and having the relevant sections translated (I haven't found an Egyptian copy, but they do exist). However, this may take a few months. In the mean time, if anyone knows any other texts where Qutb cites Carrel, let me know. I want to make a list of references. Thanks. --Vector4F 05:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but this thesis discusses Qutb and Carrel quite extensively. It certainly dismisses the suggestion that Qutb adopted fascist ideas from Carrel. Here's a quote "However, Qutb observes, while he and Carrel may agree that humanity is in a state of ignorance about the nature of man and life, a fundamental difference separates the two thinkers and leads them to prescribe a philosophy and a plan of action that are in direct conflict with each other." [19] --Lee Hunter 14:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Yes, that piece expresses a typical opinion (from what I have surveyed). The author also points out later that Qutb's goals were to rid the world of totalitarian regimes. He even argues against any state which "suppresses and kills [individuality]"... (p. 194). Qutb believed that humanity itself was threatened by certain governments (again, this may not be the actual result of his theories; it his stated ideal). This is not only strikingly modern, but also surprisingly reformist. Here Qutb is really the pulse of radical Islam, I think. His fundamentalism is truly radical. This was the reason I initially studied him, because he was authentically counter-modern, not simply anti-modern. --Vector4F 22:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Is the page ready for unprotection? It has been a month. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly favor unprotecting it. --FRS 20:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving info

As per my comments here: [[20]] Also took out sentences relating to the history of fascism as not being especially relevant. IronDuke 15:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Recommended move

Islamophobia (term) -> Islamophobia (which is currently just a redirect to this page anyway)

Since there is no disambiguation page or other articles to confuse this with, having this article at "Islamofascism (term)" rather than just Islamofascism is contrary to the disambiguation and article-naming guidelines, and just plain silly. The beginning of this article should make it perfectly clear that the article's about a certain term, so also adding that to the name of the article is redundant, unhelpful, and contrary to common sense. Similar strange redirects (Ravi Shankar redirecting to Ravi Shankar (musician) and Ceres redirecting to Ceres (mythology), for example) have also been fixed, and this one seems no different. In fact, if anything this is a much clearer-cut case for having the article without a parenthetical clause in the title, since unlike the aforementioned articles, there's no chance of confusing this article with any other Wikipedia article (there is no Islamofascism (disambiguation), and rightly so).

Also, if the reason "(term)" was added to the article name is to make it clear that the article's title isn't asserting that Islamofascism exists, merely discussing the usage of the term itself, then we risk being accused of a heck of a lot of bigotry and bias for the fact that we don't do the same for any other article about a term or concept that doesn't necessarily exist in reality, like not renaming "Zionist Occupation Government" to "Zionist Occupation Government (term)" (to go the unnecessary distance, as this article has done, to show that the article's about the usage of the term, not about an actual movement or organization). That's what lead paragraphs are for, not article titles. If it's not clear from reading the very first sentences of this article that it's about the term Islamophobia (and it is), then what's needed is a rewrite, not a page move to Islamofascism (term). If this is just a symbol error, I apologize for going into the matter in so much depth, but I wanted to be sure that the problem was fixed so the article would be restored to its proper location. Any disagreement? -Silence 06:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree, as I did last time this was proposed, but I don't disagree with the need for a move, only with a need for this particular move. I think that the only acceptable home for this article is as a subsection of a broader article (ie. the mergeist option), with this page being either a redirect or a disambiguation page. We have no consensus as to where such an NPOV home for the content would be, although the talk page has hashed out several credible alternatives. If the name is substandard, well, at least readers will have some warning for the content...

Exactly this argument was raised in the last requested move, which found no consensus to move (despite Nandesuka's creative closing efforts). My opinion is that no effort that wants to pretend to be an encyclopedia can move this article to that destination and be taken seriously. I feel the same way about the ZOG page, but I won't be the one to poke this stick in that can of worms. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 17:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry (really sorry :() to be a bit too harsh, but all of the above is irrelevant. I'm not proposing a permanent home for everything currently on the page without any future changes, I'm not saying the article has to be around forever, and I'm not saying the current situation is totally perfect and ideal. All I'm saying is that it's clear and undeniable, simply and purely on a technical and stylistic (not on a content-related) level, that Islamofascism (term) is unacceptable as a name when Islamofascism is merely a redirect here anyway (and there's no other article this could be confused with!), ergo moving it to Islamofascism is necessitated. If, after that, at any point in the future, be it tomorrow or ten years from now, it is decided that the article needs to be merged into another article or deleted altogether or whatever, that's perfectly fine by me. But until then, the parenthetical clause is pointless and arbitrary, and risks causing the same needless parenthetical additions in other articles that don't need them for disambig reasons. So, why not just move it to its proper name (Islamofascism), and then go back to arguing in circles about where the page should go? If Option B2 is obviously bad regardless of the situation, Option B1 is bad in your view but others think it's good, and Option C is good in your view but others think it is bad, you shouldn't leave the article at Option B2 just because there's not yet a consensus to go with Option C, especially since there's no way whatsoever that B2 is an improvement over B1. You should let it go to B1, which at least is debatably a reasonable title (rather than indisputably pointless), and then resume pushing for Option C once it's at B1. That's the reasonable course of action, not this "it must go my way or it can't go anyone's way" absolutism. C'mon. :/ Progress shouldn't come to a standstill in every area (i.e. the article title) just because there's a dispute over one area (i.e. the article's content and where it should go); that's just biting off the nose to spite the face. -Silence 17:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are within your rights to propose another WP:RM poll, but I would rather not endure a repeat of the last exercise. Don't bother trying to convince me that your option B1 is better than option B2: I am quite sure that it is worse. Far from your move being "necessitated" by the style guideline on naming articles, I find it to be in tension with the core policies of neutrality and being an encyclopedia. Where they apply, core policies always have and always will trump other considerations. If you do put together another poll, please study the last one properly, and try to fairly represent the opinions of the opposition when making your case (Nandesuka's failure to do this caused much friction). --- Charles Stewart(talk) 15:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, that's twice now you've invoked my name in what appears to be a completely irrelevant fashion. I was never asked to close a vote here, and I never did. I was asked for my opinion on the actions of another admin, and I gave them. Maybe you should switch to decaf. Nandesuka 17:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there already is another page with a discussion of neofascism and Islam at Neofascism and religion and that the page was created as a compromise after a huge battle. To argue for renaming this page by claiming there is no other page on the subject is not entirely accurate. To ignore the huge battles over this and related pages for the sake of arbitrary conformity is a problem. Also, the section on "The fascist influence on the origins of Islamism" should probably be moved to Neofascism and religion.--Cberlet 04:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel that moving "The fascist influence on the origins of Islamism" to a page titled Neofascism and religion tends to whitewash the connection between Islamism and Fascism, which is the subject I wrote about. Why should that be moved AWAY from an article dealing with Islamic fascism to a general discuassion of religion and fascism? The logic of this escapes me. Please clarify. Adam Holland 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because after months of battles, there was what appeared to be a general consensus among many editors that this page would only discuss the controversy over the term "Islamofascism," while the page Neofascism and religion would look at several religions and the contentious issue of their links to ideological fascism and neofascism in a cautious way that was sensitive to issues of religious bigotry while not avoiding serious claims about overlap with fascism and neofascism. This, once again, in an endless time warp, is being debated again, and may change; but if you go back and read this page and a few archive pages you will see that none of this is new, and in the meantime, the main ideological discussion is at Neofascism and religion. It is hardly a whitewash. I beg you to note that at the top of this page entry is the following:

• "This article is about the term "Islamofascism"; for a discussion of the relationship between fascism and Islam, see Neofascism and religion."

I hope you take the time to see why this compromise might be worth abiding by.--Cberlet 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't a discussion of Islamism and Fascism occur in a page with those terms in the name? I'm really not concerned with "religion" per se. Islamism is a political ideology based, in part, on fascism, and having many of the characteristics of fascist ideology. The religious component is not the most interesting to me or relevent to what I wrote.

From my point of view, the religious aspect of Islamism is the least interesting. Figures like bin Laden, et al. have really used a reputation for piety to justify a political movement, but the depth of their religious knowledge is questionable. Check out the article Osama by Max Rodenbeck in the March 9 NY Review of Books. To put information about Islamism under a Religion heading is an error. It may be a political ideology centered around a religious identity, but it is still a political movement first and foremost.

There should be a seperate page on Islamism and Fascism and it should link to this page. --Adam Holland 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that is what you think. Others think that also. But months and months of heated debate arrived at a compromise. The idea of compromise may be alien to many editors here. But in this instance, it is a compromise that at least temporarily ended months of senseless revert wars. So yes, some of us are asking that people show some self-discipline for the good of the larger project.--Cberlet 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for self-discipline, compromise, etc. Why is it that this compromise involves removing the connection of Islamism and Fascism from the title? That's not a compromise, is it?-Adam Holland 21:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. In a real compromise, each side gives something up. Anyone looking for Islam and fascism on Wikipedia can easily find the appropriate pages.--Cberlet 13:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, the Nazi article should appear under one that discusses fascism in general. After that, the fascism article could go into one that discusses totalianism, and, that article could be placed into one discussing systems of government. Then nobody would be offended and everything would be just great. This fear of plain speech is Orwellian.--Adam Holland 15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to adopt a superior and sneering tone and content. I have been discussing matters with you in a cordial way. Seeking compromise and trying to avoid religious bigotry is not something to be dismissed with snide comments about Orwell. --Cberlet 20:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No offense was intended, and I apologize if your feelings were hurt. I did not intend to question your good faith. I'm merely making a point about the absurdity of removing the reference to Islamism from the title. In no way is that argument ad hominem. I refer to Orwell merely to point out that this title change falls under the category of language that conceals by design. It is not only uninformative, it's anti-informative. This sort of thing is done with good intentions all the time, but it tends to lessen the debate by blurring terms.

Do you see my point?

Is your concern that Islam is being singled out because of bigotry? It is precisely because of that concern that I oppose discussing the matter in terms of religion. My belief is that this is a political debate and that is part of my reason for opposing the move to the Religion and Fascism article. I haven't yet looked at that article, but I think that it would be absurd to consider the Iron Cross or Ustase to have been Catholic organizations as opposed to Nazi or fascist ones. They were political movements operating under color of religion. Islamism falls under this category as well, although this may be hard to see from a non-Muslim perspective. I think that most Muslims look at the radical Islamism as virtually heretical and in not representative of Islam, per se. My position differs from this in that I think that there ARE problems intrinsic to religions that lead to this sort of political extremism (and THAT discussion should go into the Religion and Fascism article) but that doesn't change the political nature of Islamism and it doesn't lessen the need for that to be explored and explained in an article designed to bring out it's fascist nature. Moreover, that discussion belongs with a discussion of the use of the term, a term which is now, as you know all too well, part of the public debate. --Adam Holland 17:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You stake out a specific position on the question of religion and fascism. Major scholars agree with you--and major scholars disagree with you. The issue here is not what you think about the issue, but what published scholars have written about whether or not the Hungarian Arrow Cross, Romanian Iron Guard, or Coatian Ustaše were mostly political, mostly religious, or a blend. There is disagreement. As recently as last year there were several scholarly articles on this question in the journal of Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions. There are seperate articles on the interwar movements here on Wiki. Is political Islamism fascistic? Are certain forms of militant Islamic nationalism forms of theocratic fascism? Here again, scholars disagree. That's why the page you have not read is actually called Neofascism and religion. It's not censorship or Orwellian (which means totalitarian supression of ideas--which is why it is so offensive to me). This is about finding titles that do not favor one position or another in a scholarly debate, while at the same time, avoiding religious bigotry.--Cberlet 21:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First: I am sorry to have offended you. I intended the "Orwellian" reference as reflecting double-speak, not totalitarianism. Why, in this context, would I call you totalitarian? I repeat that I don't question your motivation, which I assume is good. Can you accept my statement at face value and accept my apology as well? Please do.

Second: The question that needs to be answered is whether the subject of the relationship between Islamism and Fascism merits its own article. I believe it does. That does not favor a particular side in the debate. It only serves to clarify the terms of the debate. Moving to the Neofascism and Religion article obscures the terms of the debate. That's my concern. Give all aspects of this debate a full examination in an appropriate setting. You could link this to the Neofascism and religion article which should have a paragraph or two dealing with the broad view of that aspect of the debate.--Adam Holland 22:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us full circle to the unfortunate fact that every time someone starts an article on Islamofascism, or Judeofascism, or Christofascism, it turns into a battlegound and a waste of everyone's time. Just click on thos entries and wonder why they are redirects? By putting all three (and more!) on one page: Neofascism and religion, we have an economy of the scholalrly overview and then a realtively calm discussion in which multiple viewpoints get expressed. We can aspire to libertarian utopianism, or we can compromise and actually have time to write text in entries to make Wikipedia bigger and better. Meanwhile, check out Islamic extremist terrorism. :-) --Cberlet 23:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but I have never heard the terms Judeofascism or Christofascism. Are they in usage, or neologisms meant to counter the use of Islamofascism?

I will look at the sites you refered to. Thanks.

Adam Holland 23:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Forgot to sign in, not a sockpuppet, last edit was made by me. Allegedly is weasel-wording. Actually the version I have is a little weasel-wordy, but it's a compromise at any rate. IronDuke 20:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro

One thing I've found fascinating as I watch this page is the way in which the intro in effect decomposes over time. There are many good iterations of the intro, but each time one is written, it is slowly bled to death by the insertion of various POV phrases and weasel-words. It seems to me that some editors would like an intro that reads something like: "Islamofascism is a dumb term that has nothing to do with Islam or fascism used by stupid bigots. No one should ever use it for any reason." However true any of that may be, it's not what WP is about. There are many places in cyberspace to vent about people who use this term, WP is not the place for it. I wish people would stop trying to destroy this article, either by moving it, merging it, deleting it, making it part of a factitious disambiguation page or making it a platform to attack the term itself. IronDuke 04:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it POV to say that the term is offensive to Muslims? This is a simple and important fact. How is it POV to say that it is a pejorative term? It IS a pejorative term. How is it POV to say that it has criticised for being inaccurate? The article itself has quotes from various distinguished authorities who say that this is the case. This is all just simple, factual information and is entirely relevant to the article. --Lee Hunter 10:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried a compromise that attempts balance. Please, please, let's not have another round of battles. You both make good points, and then failed to carry them out in what you wrote in the lead. I took the best ideas from both of you and rewrote the lead to reflect what you are both pointing out as flaws.--Cberlet 14:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean inaccurate? I am sorry but Islam doesn't strike me as being too supportive of individual liberty or freedom of speech. Just look at what the Malaysian Prime Minister said about criticizing Islam. The muhammad cartoons also underline that islam cannot tolerate criticism. As far as I remember Denmark is a secular country and no exceptions should be made for islam.

Just take a look at the similarities between islam and various strands of fascism:

• Total integration of society under a certain ideological system (islam replaces ideology with religion).
• No tolerance for criticism, under both fascism and islam you can’t criticize the system. I ma pretty sure that you’ll have problems walking around a muslim country in a T shirt that makes fun of islam or muhammad.
• Lack of respect for sexual minorities. Under fascism homosexuality was prosecuted and islam prosecuted homosexuality.
• Enforcing moral rules, fascism aimed to enforce a moral code of conduct, so does islam.
• Destruction of dissidents, fascism would prosecute dissidents; islam takes this a step further and tries kill anyone who tries to leave islam.

Get over it, Islamofascism isn’t just a slur, it stem from real problems and islam’s similarity with fascism. MvD 06:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the intro from 42055044 [21] by Cberlet is fine. Nice and short too. Also, it's unfair to say that anyone who advocates moving, merging, etc. the article is trying to "destroy" the article. I doubt that's what was meant, but it reads that way. --Vector4F 20:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Cberlet, I hope you won't take it amiss if I say your pass is a bit clunky, but yours may well be the best version in terms of compromise. Thanks for wading in there. And Vector, I did indeed mean that some editors (not all) have used a variety of methods to make an end-run around the fact that this article was not deleted. That doesn't mean that anyone who favors a move or redirect is trying to make it disappear, but I fear a lot of the impetus towards that comes from people who just plain hate the word and don't care how important or notable it is. IronDuke 05:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is clunky...you're quite right. Could use some tweaking. The problem is that:

• Some people hate the word, find it offensive, and don't care how accurate or notable it is.
• Some people love the word, use it as an epithet, and don't care how offensive or inaccurate it is.

Sigh...

I do think that the meaty content about the history of Islam and fascism should go on the other page: Neofascism and religion. I did see the vote as leaning toward making this page just about the term.--Cberlet 15:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

<-----------I moved the expanding section on fascism to Neofascism and religion. After much debate, the following notice is at the top of this page:

• This article is about the term "Islamofascism"; for a discussion of the relationship between fascism and Islam, see Neofascism and religion. If folks want to re-open that debate (a really bad idea in my opinion) they should first have a discussion and vote.--Cberlet 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The term is offensive, and it is a FACT. There is no need to say "many people find this term offensive". If many people find it offensive, then it IS offensive. It is a fact when saying that ni**er is an offensive term for blacks.--Faz90 02:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the N word is used to be deliberately offensive - to most people using the word "Islamofascism" it is not used to offend Muslims, altough some do.--Irishpunktom\^talk 23:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Muslims get offended by Islamofascism, then it is offensive. The N word was not originally a bad word, but over time, blacks were so offended that the word is undoubtably offensive. Faz90 02:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is common usage in English, not what offends Muslims. Unlike kike or nigger, "Islamofascist" is a word that appears in newspaper opinion articles and even in scholarly writing. Not that it matters, but your wrong about the history of the N word: It has always been used as an intentional insult. How else can we interpret Thomas Carlyle's "Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question"?

What offends Muslims stikes me an unreasonable standard to follow. Every time you open the newspaper, you find that Muslims have a new and even more ridiculous reason to feel offended: an unreadable British novel, mild-mannered Danish cartoons, how prisoners' books get treated.Kauffner 07:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the term "fascism", when applied to the proper name of any religion, can be anything but offensive. Most of the English-speaking world is not fascist and would consider the term as negative. The term may have technical merit, but it can also be offensive. Now, in fairness to readers who should be warned, using the term in a Muslim-majority country would be dangerous. In that case at least, the term is "highly" offensive. --Vector4F 21:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap

This article is a mess. Is there a tag that could be used to replace all those "citation neededs?" This isn't even worth reading at this point.... Kyaa the Catlord 08:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascist salute

I keep seeing that picture, or variations of it, inserted and deleted. Can anyone say what it is that the Hamas people are doing with that salute? Or, rather, can anyone point to an authoritative source on what it means? I have a feeling it doesn't relate to fascism, but do not know for certain. IronDuke 18:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It is up to the AscendedAnathema to explain to us the relevancy of the pic in the article. As i explained on the edit summaries, the article can't come to a conclusion that Hamas is an Islamofascist group, it can't even come to a conclusion that the term is not an epithet. Therefore, posting such a pic can only contradict the content, leaving thus no chance to the monsieur tout le monde reader to judge himself. You just label such a group with the term while there are so many critics on the sections below! I've seen many pics of that kind and never ever jumped to such a conclusion. As an example, you can check this one and still no one can judge it plainly. Nobody has the right to label someone especially when an issue is too much debated. Cheers -- Szvest 18:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Apart from the above, the pic is not free to use. It is said: To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. -- Cheers -- Szvest 18:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Thanks for linking to that pic. I agree with you, there is no prima facie evidence that the Hamas picture depicts a fascist salute, but I don't want to dismiss it entirely (nor do I want to include it) until someone can point to a source that says: "The salute means X." I'll try to research it myself in the meantime. IronDuke 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, the French site from which the picture and others like it (from what I was able to interpret) goes on about how such pictures are not likely to be publicized in the Western media because of the lighthandedness, self-censorship, and outright sympathy desplayed towards such organizations despite the existance of many pictures of hundreds of militants engaged in this pose. Evidently, this is also what is happening here. AscendedAnathema 19:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

AA, if you want the pic included, you have to show that the French site is authoritative in some way, and that it is demonstrating that Hamas is deliberately attempting to evoke fascists in their salute. Or find another, authoritative site that says this. IronDuke 19:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ascended, this is an encyclopedia and info should not be censored. However, the point is that who says that the salute means X as IronDuke put it? And whether it is published in the Western media or not is just irrelevant to our project. What i am talking about is also the copyright issue. Someone will surely delete it shortly and definitly as it is against our policies. I can't delete it as i am an involved party in this discussion. Let's use our common sense and think as IronDuke does. Indeed, the uploader doesn't even know if it relates to Hamas or Hezbollah!!! So where and what is the point? Cheers -- Szvest 19:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Members of Palestinian Islamist organization Hamas holding a rally. At the instant this image was captured, the men behind were in a position recognizable as a Hitler salute similar to World War 2 Nazis.

. Where are the reliable sources regarding what is portrayed in this image? Netscott 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any. So, identifying it as the Hitler salute (or, alternatively, the Bellamy salute) is a personal interpretation and violates both WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It shouldn't be included. bcasterline t 22:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm highly inclined to agree. Source? Anyone, Sources? :-) Netscott 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I found this that seems to be where the image came from. I'm going to see what I can turn up for it's true origins. Netscott 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Note also this identical image, which provides more context and is used in three other articles. It identifies the organization as Hezbollah, not Hamas. bcasterline t 22:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like we've got a candidate for Speedy Deletion. Netscott 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Submitted for SD. Netscott 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work User:Bcasterline, ;-) Netscott 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe they are Iranians. [[22]]. The guys sitting in front of the recruits looked a lot like Shi'ites to me, not that I'm any expert. I still wish someone could say what exactly they are up to (and no, I do not think they are attempting to mimic American schoolchildren from the early 20th Century, amusing as that idea is). IronDuke 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Hitler/Bellamy/whatever salute is not limited to any particular group.

From this time up until 1942, the salute used while saying the pledge was to make a military salute to the chest or brow, and then extend the arm straight out with the palm facing the flag, as shown below. This type of salute originated in ancient Rome and has been used by many groups. The salute is most widely recognized now as a "Nazi salute," but in fact it was Mussolini who adopted it before Hitler as apart of his fascist party, precisely because of its Roman origin. The Nazis later adopted it from the Italians. Its use in America prior to this time has no direct relationship to the fascists, however, it was a nationalist salute to the State. In the Italian and German usage the salute was to the leader himself, as it was used in Rome to "Hail Caesar" ("Heil Hitler").

From an excellent article on rationalrevolution. - FrancisTyers 17:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, we even have an article on it. - FrancisTyers 17:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I saw that. But it still doesn't say where the Iranians got the idea to use that salute. Trying to be like Romans? Nazis? American schoolchildren? What does it mean to them? IronDuke 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro again

Okay, it's a little depressing, but I guess what's happening here is the intro continues to be used as a platform to attack the term itself. This is inappropriate, regardless of anyone's personal feelings about the term. There's plenty of room for criticism below the intro (and already a fair amount of implied criticism in the intro itself). IronDuke 23:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of a lot of the Islamophobia article. Netscott 00:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the intro overviews both sides of the dispute (pro and con), which was my intention in writing it. It's consistent with WP:LEAD. bcasterline t 00:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I made some small changes which I think improves NPOV. Yes/no? In my opinion, the intro should define the term, define its usage, define the intent of its usage (pejorative), and briefly summarize the pro and con sides of the argument behind its usage. In its current form, I think the intro does this impartially. It's also referenced, so it's not inaccurate. Thoughts? bcasterline t 00:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I think you've put your finger on it. If you wanted to write an article Islamofascism (dispute), you'd be well on your way with that intro. However, this is an article about the term, not the dispute surrounding the term (although it's relevant and should of course be dealt with in its own section). And again, I've been watching this page and seen the intro slowly drift into a polemic over and over. This is not the place for that. On a more practical note, I'd appreciate people engaging my edits head-on, saying precisely why they disagree, rather than a simple dismissal in the edit summary. For example, one of the two small areas I deleted read: "others argue that the term Islamofascism, which is typically applied to Muslim militants rather than truly fascist governments..." Yet this contradicts our own article which, in naming organizations that have been labeled Islamofascist, lists Al-Qaeda, the current Iranian government, the Taliban, The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Six organizations, of which three are or were governments. And what on earth is a "truly fascist" government anyway? The other section I deleted "Although several modern political and militant organizations describe themselves as Islamist, none refer to themselves as fascist," manages to be both redundant and irrelevant. Does anyone honestly think they would label themselves with a "pejorative epithet?" IronDuke 00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For an article to cover its subject thoroughly, it should cover any and all disputes. (Evolution does, for example.) Really, there's not much to cover about the term "Islamofascism" except the dispute behind it. The sections you deleted were accurate and referenced (by the Sobran and Stille essays). Islamofascism is typically applied to militants. That 3/6 organization mentioned are governments is not necessarily important: the term is more often applied to the 3/6 that are not. Fascism is not an agreed upon term to describe even those three governments, a fact substantiated by the references. On the other hand, that none of the organizations labeled Islamofascist label themselves is important. That's what makes its usage pejorative. bcasterline t 00:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for replying in a calm, non-nasty manner. (I know that might sound strange, but this page seems to generate that sometimes.) Let me try and take your points in order. First, your use of Evolution as an example is spot on. There are three long paragraphs there telling us what evolution is, then one sentence at the end alluding to controversies. This is an excellent way to structure articles. Sadly, it is not the way this article is structured. In the current version, we have three sentences that give a pretty good account of what the people who coined/use Islamofascism mean when they use it, and then three "cautionary" sentences reminding the reader that the whole concept is just a load of racist crap (although this is done in a subtle way). When you write "Really, there's not much to cover about the term "Islamofascism" except the dispute behind it," I have to strongly disagree with that. The word may be controversial, like the concept of evolution, but it's central purpose is to explain (however poorly) a modern politico-religious phenomenon. So… Breaking the last three sentences down sentence by sentence (which are not at all referenced or supported by the Sobran and Stille essays as far as I can tell, but do please correct me if I've overlooked something):

• "Although several modern political and militant organizations describe themselves as Islamist, none refer to themselves as fascist." First of all, I see no cite for this. The article you reference make no mention of this (although there is this in Sobran "After all, nobody calls himself an Islamofascist.") Second, it's totally beside the point. The point isn't that these groups don't identify themselves this way. Of course they don't do that. That's why it's labeled an epithet. It would be like saying, "Many editors on Wikipedia refer to IronDuke as a Doodyhead, although IronDuke has never referred to himself as Doodyhead." But it's not only redundant, it's argumentative, implying basically: "Look, real fascists identify themselves as such, Islamists don't call themselves fascists, so therefore they aren't." It's not a specious argument, but it is an argument. It shouldn't be there at all without a cite, and should occur in the criticism section, not the intro.
• "Due to the implicit association with 20th century fascism, therefore, this political epithet is usually used pejoratively." Okay, I won't point fingers, but I will roll my eyes at this. I don't mind the sentiment here, but an epithet is always pejorative. That's, um, what makes it an epithet. Yeesh.
• "…others argue that the term Islamofascism, which is typically applied to Muslim militants rather than truly fascist governments…" The rest of the sentence is fine, but the part I've clipped out isn't. There is no evidence at all for this that I can see. Bcasterline, you write: "Islamofascism is typically applied to militants. That 3/6 organization mentioned are governments is not necessarily important: the term is more often applied to the 3/6 that are not." Okay, coupl'a things: first, Of course Islamofascism is applied to militants, but being militant does not preclude running a government: e.g., Iran, Hamas, Taliban. Second, I see no evidence that the term is applied more to stateless militants than state actors. But even if there were, it would not go in the intro. It's all contrary, argumentative stuff (again: "truly fascist?" Come on.), and should go in criticism. Just as in the evolution article you pointed to. IronDuke 03:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolution includes its controversies, the presence of which in this article you at first challenged. This article's intro is also structured in the same way: it explains the term and its context (sentences 1-4) and related controversies (sentence 5). The article could use some work, but I believe the intro properly introduces Islamofascism.

You say the article's "central purpose is to explain a modern politico-religious phenomenon", but you presume that there is such a phenomenon, which, as the article and its sources demonstrate, is the focus of the entire dispute. I'm not taking sides pro/con -- but, besides perhaps its spelling, there's nothing about this term that's agreed upon. (Considering its a neologism, this is not surprising.) Again, it's difficult to say much about "Islamofascism" except to present two sides of an argument. In other words, a dispute.

Responding to the same three points...

• Because it provides context, and especially helps to clarify any possible confusion between "Islamist" and "Islamofascist", that sentence is not beside the point. It doesn't make any argument. It's just a (cited) fact, one which clarifies "Islamofascism" as a neologism.
• An epithet is not always pejorative. Political epithets usually are, but I think it's important to emphasize the fact that "Islamofascist" is not used amicably or even impartially. I don't understand why this is a troublesome sentence, since even the most POV zealot (on either side of the spectrum) will agree that it's true.
• Again, this belongs in the intro because it as an overview of the dispute. The first half of the sentence presents one side of the dispute, the second half presents the other. "Truly fascist" is also appropriate because scholars (as the citation explains) disagree on what a truly fascist government is. Some, in fact, think "fascist" should apply only to Mussolini.

I pieced the current introduction from two other versions which were being wholly reverted back and forth. Most of the wording is taken from one or the other, pieced together in what I thought was a NPOV and coherent manner. I'm not especially attached to it, so if you can come up with a better version, please do -- but I really don't feel that excising a few sentences (of the same POV) is an improvement. bcasterline t 05:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I won't go point by point with you again (unless you're really keen for me to). See my thoughts below (if still interested). IronDuke 15:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for intro

So, here's what I (and others) noticing: this intro keeps pitching wildly back and forth. I wouldn't say between two POV's, exactly, but well, I won't characterize the two versions other than to say we can do better. If there were a group of us who were monitoring the intro (not owning, mind you: monitoring) and we could agree on an intro, I think it would vastly improve this article. Nothing hurts an entry like being editing twenty times a day. What I'm proposing, I guess, is a cabal, but not of like-minded individuals but, rather, of people who disagree strongly. But if some decent number of us can agree on an intro, maybe we can convince others. What about this:

• Start with a definition based on what the people who invented the word think it means.
• Then segue into who the word is generally applied to.
• End with a criticizing sentence that indicates 1) Offensiveness to some 2) contention that the metaphor is historically inaccurate, not fascist, etc.

Any and all of the above points can be expanded at length below Table of Contents. In my view, everybody gets their say here, but the intro isn’t skewed either way, or peppered with apologies. How does this sound? IronDuke 15:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this for the intro:

Islamofascism is a neologism and political epithet used to compare the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism. Organizations that have been labeled Islamofascist include Al-Qaeda, the current Iranian government, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah. None label themselves fascist, however, and critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam with a political movement is both offensive and historically inaccurate."

I also removed the citations, which don't belong in the introduction. That's what the rest of the article is for. bcasterline t 18:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it, nice work. I confess, I still hate "none refer to themselves as fascist," but a lot of editors seem to like it, so I can chill out. The only thing I would ask is that, while I agree with removing cites in the intro, do make sure they are listed at the end as references, because some of the intro claims are not repeated elsewhere, and people have questioned those claims. IronDuke 23:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke, the "none refer to themselves as fascist," got a point. In Fascist Italy, they had Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria internazionalista, Milan fascio among many others. That is to say that "Fascists" called themselves Fascists, which is not the case in this case. Cheers -- Szvest 12:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Even the Nazis didn't call themselves fascists. Do you think the word should be restricted only to Italy?

To me, "Islamofascism" suggests a merger of fascist and Islamic doctrine, not a form of fascism. If you define the word this way, there no reason to expect Islamofascists to call themselves fascists and no reason to discuss the usage of the word "fascist" by Muslims.

In addition, I don't see any reason to go into the issue of whether the word Islamofascism is offensive. This is a totally subjective issue. People can be offended by one set of things today and then be offended by a different set of things of tommorrow. (Look at the Juan Cole example.) For Muslims, the issue is that they don't think non-Muslim should be allowed to dis Islam. ("The dhimmi does not speak of Allah or his apostle.") The offense they express is part of a strategy to intimidate non-Muslims, not a response to inappropriate word usage. "Islamofascist" is not like the N word. The people who use it don't intend to be offensive. They believe they are describing a real phenomenon, a substran of Islam. The article can just say that no one describes themselves as an Islamofascist and leave it at that.

Why describe Islamofascism as a "neologism"? It been around for quite a while now. It's a neologism only in the sense that every word was a neologism at one time. Kauffner 03:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is overly simplistic, ignores the complexity of the issues, and the matter of an encyclopedia legitimately being aware of when terms are considered offensive by certain constituencies. Many Nazis did, in fact, consider themselves "fascists." I know of no contemporary Islamic militants who call themselves "fascist" although some respectable scholars call some Islamic militants "theocratic" or "clerical" fascists. This is a complicated matter not solved by uncited, opinionated assertions.--Cberlet 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamofascism is the perfect example of a neologism: it's a term which was coined to express a new, previously undescribed concept. Not all words were once neologisms, and when it was first used is not really relevant.

To omit discussion on the offensiveness of the term would make the article incomplete. I agree that it's a subjective issue; but that means it should be discussed with a neutral point of view, not omitted. bcasterline t 04:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make sure that readers understand that there is controversy concerning the usage of the word, there is an entire section entitled "Criticism of the use of the term." Is it necessary to make this point in every section?

You can provide examples of criticism, but offensiveness is just a touchy feelly thing that happens in the head of the person offended. It is the equivalent of discussing whether a particular word make a certain category of people happy or sad.Kauffner 04:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to make that point in every section, but it is necessary in the lead to provide an overview per WP:LEAD. Offensiveness is an element of the criticism, as a couple of the sources explain, so its inclusion is also important. For perspective, Queer mentions the offensiveness of that term, even though it's equally "just a touchy feely thing". bcasterline t 12:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks, sorry if this is not exactly in the right place but... IF someone wants to take a stab at posting a definition and discussion of the nature of Islama(o)facism, I humbly recommend keeping it simple. Don't try to over intellectuallize it. If Christopher Hitchens or Khalid Duran or Stephen Schwartz coined the term, then it seems appropriate to stick with that definition/attribution until such time as there is a clear consensus of some other nuance.

This is a new term entering the lexicon. It means somewhat different things to different people (or nothing at all) and at this point that interpretation is somewhat in a state of flux. So attempting to submit a detailed authoritive reference at this juncture is putting the cart before the horse IMO, and frankly a little bit self-important (in the mildest and most friendly use of the word)

For example: To me it represents a theocratic totalitarian ideology that substitutes a fanatic interpretation of Islam for fanatic nationalism/racism. And there is a component that in my view includes a zealous hegemonic "Jihad" to export that theocratic ideology at any cost. A "Greater Islamic Reich", if you will permit the allusion.

What about the Fascist/Corporatism component? Splitting hairs, don't really care. And it sure ain't Marxist/Leninist. (Who was it, Claire Booth Luce or Ayn Rand maybe that said communism and fascism were the same thing? Or something to that effect.)

Now... will that satisfy some poli-sci post graduate? Probably not. Or its like pornography, you can't quite define it, but you know it when you see it. The Taliban, Al Queda and the current government of Iran fit the bill in my view.

PJNevada 6/29/06