Talk:Neo-fascism and religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives of older discussions may be found here:


Contents

[edit] Protected

Please try to work out your differences here on the talk page. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Germen: I really hope you engage in a discussion here.--Cberlet 10:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the Celtic Cross

Would someone please remove the Celtic Cross?

This article is controversial, as its intro states. So why then "highlight" a traditional Christian symbol, and then only a Christian symbol? The Celtic cross does not represent neofascism. If some fringe neofascists choose a Celtic cross as their symbol, that does not mean there are "formal links" to Christianity or the Celtic Christian church. This symbol is mainstream Christian [1], not neofascist!! There is no formal affiliation between neofascists and the Celtic churches (or any mainstream church). Please take that Christian symbol down. Thanks. DannyZz 18:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Good Point.--Cberlet 19:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Danny for raising the point. I really never paid attention to templates! That should be removed. As the page is protected now, can you take care of that Chip or is Katefan is the one to do that? Cheers -- Svest 20:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
The problem is also that the template itself is on numerous pages. I have tried to edit the template to delete the image and ask that another image be used.--Cberlet 20:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Am I blind? I don't see any Celtic cross in the article at the moment. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Ha! A trick. I edited the underlying template to remove the Celtic cross image, and since it loads each time, it now seems as if it was never there.  :-) --Cberlet 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Aha, I didn't realize it was in a template. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Good job folks. Cheers -- Svest 22:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

[edit] Templates

Isn't confusing having 2 templates in the same article/page? Cheers -- Svest 22:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

I did notice there is some reverting going on concerning whether the templates are applicable at all... Oddly, no dicussion here on that. --Habap 21:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The semi-discussion is taking place down at the bottom of the page, under "this page is misleading/confusing" or similar heading. A bit misleading/confusing. ;) Your opinions welcome. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Can't correct "Israeili" when page is protected AnonMoos

Good catch. We can fix it as soon as protection is lifted.

I'll fix it. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Call for discussion #2

Germen: please explain why it is so important to promote the term "Islamophobia." What does the reader gain from this? If there is no response, I will ask that the page protection be lifted, but propose that you be restricted from editing this page.--Cberlet 18:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected since it has produced no discussions. Please report again if edit warring begins anew. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I guess this is specifically directed at Chip. Look, I know that you have tried to "balance" the views of pro and antis in the "islamofascism" section but, as so often in WP, it's not necessarily right to do so: giving equal credence to two views can lead to giving undue weight to a minority or poorly supported view. The pros use very faulty reasoning for their use of the epithet, and there are reasonably few of them. Far more serious commentators would not use the term, largely because describing Islamists as "totalitarian" would be very inaccurate. I think we should reflect that inaccuracy. We should definitely note that Ruthven was talking about the state governments of Islamic countries, not about Islamists, who are largely opposed to those very same governments! If you described Saddam as a "fascist", well, maybe you could make a case. But an Islamist who opposes nationalism, hates corporatism and thinks futurism is pretty much the root of all evil? It's clear that there is no serious analysis behind it. If we are going to allow a discussion of "Islamofascism" in these terms, there should be a section on "US fascism" that discusses the Bush administration in the same terms. It's quite the fashion in some circles to take the same badboy checklist approach to looking at Bush and claiming that he's a "fascist". You must have seen the sites I'm thinking of. The only reasons "Islamofascism" is being discussed here as though it were any more credible than the "US fascism" stuff are that a/ we have a lot of US editors, many of whom are rightwingers and b/ it's spouted a lot on blogs and among the less thoughtful commentators in the press. Grace Note 05:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Some of your edits are helpful, others are very POV. A number of scholars have discussed certain Islamic movements as totalitarian, a term often used in discussing some tendencies in some religions. So please do not be patronizing and dismiss and delete what published scholars have to say simply becasue you think they are wrong and right-wing. That's original research. Also, several left-wing analysts have discussed the Taliban and A/Q as fascistic, so it is not just a right-wing idea, and these are people who oppose Bush and the U.S. attacks in the Middle East. This page seeks a fair representation of highly contentious views. I would ask that you revisit this in mind and go back and tone down some of your claims, language, and deletions. Thanks.--Cberlet 12:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
For now I've asked for citations for the original research. Jayjg (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] This article is confusing and misleading

In paragraph 3, the article states: "Groups and movements that are not constructed around a religious identity or theology are discussed on the pages Neo-Fascism and Neo-Nazism." Then to the direct right of this exact paragraph is a huge template listing these same neo-fascist groups. How does this make any sense? Please remove the template as paragraph 3 suggests, there are no formal links, and the template is misleading.DannyZz 18:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. There are varieties of neofascism being discussed on different pages. The template indicates on what pages which text can be found:
Neo-Nazism
Neofascism and religion
Crypto-fascism
Neo-Nazi groups of the United States
This is the page on Neofascism and religion. Many people dispute that a particular religion has some branch or splinter group (or the whole religion) that is neofascist. Others insist it is true. We try to cautiously show all sides of the disputed claims on this page, which exists as a separate page precisely because the claims around religion are so contentious.--Cberlet 22:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This page is about neofascism and religion, but the first thing the viewer sees is the template, which includes groups not affiliated with religions, exactly as paragraph 3 states, they are covered elsewhere. The template is misleading. Someone, like I did, comes on this article, immediately see religion and a list of neo-fascist organizations. On that list how many are applicable to this article? how many are associated with religion? That's why it is confusing. Thanks.DannyZz 23:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Danny, I humbly submit that you are for the moment outnumbered on the templates' inclusion (Jayjg and Cberlet) and that it may be more advisable for you to begin to discuss this issue on the talk page instead of just reverting blindly. Maybe you can find a way to compromise somehow in a manner that's acceptable to all parties. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Jayjg entered the above discussion at all. Did I miss something? Thanks.DannyZz 20:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right, he hasn't spoken up yet. But he has reverted your deletions of the templates, which means he at least implicitly disagrees with the changes you've made, whether he's said something or not. I didn't mean to imply that only you should start talking, just wanted to make a suggestion that there is clearly not a consensus to remove the templates, so it's best to open a dialogue now to start working on a compromise instead of getting into another edit war. That's all. Thanks Danny. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
And now I explicitly disagree with the changes DannyZz has made. The Templates are useful because they, like this article, all discuss fascism and neo-fascism. That's precisely the purpose of templates, linking together articles discussing a common topic. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. What do you think? about the non-applicable groups being included on this article?DannyZz 21:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Danny, since I'm functioning as an admin on this page I can't really get into weighing in on content disputes myself. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Oops. Above, I stated that there was no discussion of these template reverts. There is! I think that the templates are appropriate because neo-fascism is present in all of the articles mentioned. If someone is looking for information on neo-fascism, they can look at all of the articles, then compare and contrast. It's a useful linkage, I think. --Habap 21:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
DannyZz: Templates are just Tables of Content for OTHER pages that have related content. The Templates for Neo-Fascism and Fascism are on the page because someone felt it would be helpful to readers to see the related pages. Maybe we could move the Neo-Fascism template down a paragraph. Most readers on Wikipedia appear to know that Templates are just Tables of Content.-- 21:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no general Religions Template. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who brought this subject to earth. I was confused actually. However, after comments here, I am not that confused now. I hope readers would find helpful having two templates. I am therefore supporting the idea of having 2. Cheers -- Svest 22:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

[edit] Template

Cberlet But they aren't related, and that's my point. How many of the template groups are related to "religion"? Not many. Can you provide a count? It's misleading to have them prominently displayed here on a page about religion. Would it make sense to also include a huge template of religions? No, in both cases. DannyZz 22:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

But isn't neo-fascism related to an article on Neofascism and religion? It's not just a page about religion, but a page about the darker aspects of some pockets within organized religions. I would think that a template of religions might be appropriate, though the individual links to each religion already in the article take care of the pretty well. --Habap 14:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, the applicable neofascist groups already in the article are taken care of pretty well, so why bring non-religious-neofascist groups in and prominently display them up top in a template? It is unnecessary, the links to "neofasicsm" are already there. The template confuses the reader right from the start about the article's contents. The vast majority of the template groups aren't a part of this article. DannyZz 18:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Danny, look at Battle of Malaya. The "vast majority of the template" battles "aren't a part of" that "article". Then look at Wikipedia:Navigational templates for a list of templates. Or at Economy of Qatar for an article which uses two templates (OPEC and WTO) to provide links to related articles. In none of the cases does one article provide the same information as the others. If they did, we wouldn't need an article on every OPEC nation or every type of Neo-fascism. You need to understand how these templates are used throughout Wikipedia. If they are always confusing, then please help folks figure how to make them less so. If it's only confusing here and not elsewhere, please help us understand why. --Habap 22:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
In fact, the whole reason for a template is to include links to articles that are related, but not mentioned in the article. --Habap 22:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see what you are saying.....but I still don't believe this article should have a template linking it to a vast majority of groups that have no connection to religion. If a relgion template were created, listing all the worlds major religions, do you think it would be good to include it too? The links are very, very weak in both cases.DannyZz 16:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

But there is no such template, and in any event it would make more sense to insert a "Religion and" template. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Though I thought his contributions here were fine, it appears as if DannyZz was a sockpuppet of a banned user. Thought I'd mention it here for anybody interested. See [2] · Katefan0(scribble) 23:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victor D. Hanson

The statement of Pr. Hanson are totally inaccurate!

  • ...has been perpetrated exclusively by Muslim fascists and directed at Westerners, Christians, Hindus, and Jews...: More Muslim Iraqis than westerners were killed by terrorism in Iraq.
  • Yemeni attacks on a French ship: French?!
  • the suicide car bombings in Morocco: Car bombings in Casablanca Attacks?! I was among the survivors in Casa De España and the total of people died in the 5 bombings around the city is 33 which includes 8 Europeans. The rest were Moroccans!

I had to remove than the entry as being innacurate from a Professor. God bless his pupils and the National Review. Cheers -- Svest 15:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

I don't see the value of the Victor D. Hanson text. It is repetitive, and demonstrably not accurate. What is the point?--Cberlet 23:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Because it's an example of someone who beleives in the existance of muslim fascism. Somehow the difference between documenting something and edorsing its content seems to elude FayssalF. What VDH thinks is very relavent IMHO becuase VDH is himself very notable to people who bleive in the existance of Islamofascism. Klonimus 23:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
No Klonimus. The fact behind my removal is not related to documenting Vs endorsement. Not at all. Otherwise, I'd have also removed statements by Hitchnes and May. If you had a chance to read my reasons above you'll clearly understand that it is because the statements of VDH are simply innacurate. And obviously, I am not questioning his notability. There are no other reasons except innacuracy. Cheers -- Svest 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
I have actually published articles stating that certain forms of militant Islamic fundamentalism qualify as forms of clerical fascism, so I do not think I am ducking the issue when I state that the material is bad enough in that it is repetitive, but wholly not acceptable since it is simply false.--Cberlet 02:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. -- Svest 03:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Well, Hanson's comments were correct in the context of the article. And you obviously missed the - yes - Yemeni attack on the - yes - *French* tanker "Limburg". On the other points: at the time of the article, the victims of *Islamist* attacks in Iraq were predominantly western, while the victims of Baathist attacks were predominantly Iraqi. Only the merger of the two "resistance" movements in what could arguably be called a variant of national socialist movement changed that picture. However, who IS grossly inaccurate in his quote is professor Juan Cole in stating that the term "Christo-fascism" would be simply offensive. This is not true; in fact in the form of "Catholofascism" or "clerical fascism", it is a common term to refer to the nature of "Generalissimo" Franco's regime, at least here in Europe. I therefore ask you to either move Hanson's quote back in or remove Cole's, since his pupils must be at least equally mis-informed. --- Anonymous Coward without a Wikipedia account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.126.219.114 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Nazi mysticism

This article needs to more prominantly link to Nazi mysticism. Sam Spade 21:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam, do try to pay attention to details. The Nazi mysticism page is 90% about historic German Nazism. This page is about Neo-fascism. There is a Neo-Nazism, where there are already cites to the work of Nicholas Goodrick-Clark.--Cberlet 21:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Support Sam here, there's redirects to this article from Islamic fascism, which was in it's original incarnation supposed to be about Islamic Fascism in WWII, someone looking for that would be left high and dry here. Rich Farmbrough 12:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger from Islamofascism

please see the talk page--Tznkai 20:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

After much discussion, the consensus appears to be that this page will keep a section on Islam, but the discussion of the term Islamofascism will be elsewhere.--Cberlet 14:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned Rant

DOWN WITH FUNDAMENTALISTS!!! WE THE PEOPLE DECREE: 'LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL...'


Ignoring the POV rant above, note to:

[edit] Reconstructionism

Someone had inserted a lengthy apologia into the Christian Reconstructionism section, defending Reconstructionist leaders against charges of fascism and stating that the movement could be considered "Christian libertarianism". I've reworked the section because it was inaccurate and POV. A movement that explicitly denies human rights, and is in favor of "deny(ing) religious liberty to the enemies of God" [3] cannot possibly be called libertarian whatever else it might be called. If any credible sources can be found arguing that Reconstructionism is not fascist then those should be included, but the garbled apologia that was in the article was inappropriate and POV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Axis and Islam

Since Islamic fascism, Islamic Fascism, and Fascism and religion point here, I copy what I tried to add about The Axis and Islam and was deleted:

[edit] The Axis and Islam

[[Image:Magazine_cover_Vienna_Illustrated.jpg|thumb|The Mufti [[Roman salute|salutes]] Muslim Axis troops in the cover of [[Wiener Illustrierte]].]] The explicitly Fascist governments of The Axis tried to allure Muslims in spite of their ideologies of racial purity. First Fascist Italy and later Nazi Germany tried to form corps from Muslim Allied prisoners. The initial military unit was formed on May 1942 when Indian PoWs (Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs) were used by Italians in the war against the Allies. However it was reported that the Indians were found to be wavering in loyalty, especially after the Axis defeat in the battle of El Alamein in November 1942. They were disbanded, but revived again by the Germans as the Tiger Legion. Also in 1942 Nazi Germany released some Soviet Muslim prisoners. The Nazis had the support of the Indian leader Subhash Chandra Bose, the Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husayni, the Iraqi Prime Minister Rashid Ali al-Kaylani and its 1940 Golden Square coup.

The puppet state of the Independent State of Croatia was based on Croatian nationalism. Unlike the hated Serbians, Balkan Slavic Muslims were seen as "Croatians of Islamic faith", "brothers", and received some sympathy from the state. In 1943, Germany formed the Handschar Waffen SS Division from Muslim Bosnians.

The article on Łukasz Hirszowicz's The Third Reich and the Arab East has a timeline.

Hi. Please read carefully. Your text is about the Axis. It is about pre-1945 events. It does not belong on this page. The text you posted was moved to the Fascism page. If you have text about the ideological roots of fascist ideology in contemporary Islamic movements, it might go here or someplace else.--Cberlet 14:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Much of the section on Islam currently reads like a POV essay and a series of quotations. This isn't an article I particularly am working on (just dropped by), but someone should probably take a serious look. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qutb and Carrel, on fascism

I contribute to some articles on Islam, including Sayyid Qutb, so I am biased. However, this section appears to be a serious misrepresentation of multiple scholars and multiple texts. Some scholars cited are not at all making the claim for which they are being cited. No one seems to have proof of the claim which this section advances. Just going down the section:
  • The Rudolf Walther article in Die Zeit is speculative. He is not citing anything, just interpreting. The "decisive affinities" he claims are never proven, only stated.
  • Walther's statement "Qutb cites no author aside from the Koran as often and as extensively as Carrel." is unproven. No citation, no publication referred to. This claim should be the result of survey, perhaps even quantification.
  • Abdal Hakim Murad's passage is not related to the claim that Qutb's facism derives from Carrel. Murad writes "Qutb was influenced by the Vichy theorist Alexis Carrel (1873-1944), through his odd, vitalist tract LHomme, cet inconnu, which remains an ultimate, though unacknowledged, source text for much modern Islamism." This cites a correlation, an influence, and does not specify what that influence is. Murad cites as his source a book by Euben, but Euben makes no mention of facism here, only Carrel. In Murad's notes, he also quotes Youssef Choueiri's book Islamic Fundamentalism, where Choueiri writes: "What Qutb fails to inform his vanguard, however, is that the code of conduct he subsequently elaborated in his �commentary� on the Koran matches that of Carrel much more than Muhammad�s own Traditions. The result is not an indigenous form of governance, but a Third World version of Fascism." Carrel's "code of conduct" does not match Qutb's. Carrel advocates Islamic law? Carrel advocates jihad? Very poor use of citations here.
  • Choueiri is quoted, from Murad's notes. see above point. Also, Choueiri says Qutb's Qur'anic commentary is the proof of this, but the only English commentary on this I know of (Mysticism and Politics, Olivier Carre) makes only three mentions of Carrel (the same number as of Freud) and no mention facism. the actual Qur'anic commentary makes none that I am aware of. I need Choueiri's full text to say more, but this is far from a thesis on Qutb deriving fascism from Carrel.
  • Tariq Ali's citation does not even mention Qutb, only "the fundamentalists" and his analogy of these particular Muslims as Muslim versions of a French neo-fascist group is highly speculative. No argument is made about why this comparison is made.
  • John Calvert's text does not mention Carrel, only Qutb, and his comparison of Qutb and fascism is set against Bolshevik experiences and Lenin. His mention of a "derivation" is not at all explained.
  • The Salafi Islamist article is completely ungrounded. The statement is made that "Qutb developed his idea of "Jaahiliyyah" directly from the writings of Alexis Carrel", but no explanation is given. This observation is in turn cited from a Virginia tech Ph.D. paper, which itself does not explain the development. The Salafi article also cites the Choueiri piece, which I have already addressed.
I suppose if something is said enough it simply becomes accepted. No direct quotes from Qutb, despite the claims that Qutb cited Carrel more than any other source and that Qutb's infamous concept of Jahiliyya came directly from Carrel. I know of only one book in which Qutb quoted Carrel - this is directly cited in the above by Ahmed Bouzid's Ph.D. thesis (which never mentions fascism). We even know from some above sources that Qutb disagreed with Carrel, yet these discrepanies are never explained together. The causation argument between Qutb and Carrel's facism (not the correlations, the "derivation" of Carrel's concept into Qutb's writing), as presented in the article, is a mess of a conjecture. I am currently seeking to compile all of Qutb's writing which mentions or even suggests Carrel's influence, as well as reviewing all known secondary texts which address this issue. Right now I cannot call this theory anything but original research. I have spoken on this issue over at Talk:Islamofascism#Influence_of_French_fascist_philosopher_on_Sayyid_Qutb. --Vector4F 06:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC) --Vector4F 06:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed the disputed text, see subsection below (hadn't seen you had contested it here also). Lapaz 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khalid Durán

This article mentions that Duran "coined the word Islamism", but the Khalid Durán article says he coined the term "Islamofacism." I am thinking the later is the case and the former is wrong. --Vector4F 07:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a cleanup

This article needs a rather thorough cleaning--too long, too many quotes (especially in the Islam section), unorganized, and not particularly helpful. Some of the debating opinions could be moved to their own articles--for instance the debate over the influence of fascism in Islam could be moved somewhere.Publicus 18:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexis Carrel and Sayyid Qutb

I removed the subsection "Fascist connections to Islam" which was based on Original Research about Alexis Carrel ties to Sayyid Qutb. Please refer to Talk:Sayyid Qutb#Connection to Alexis Carrel for further explanations (not by me, but by someone who claims having read all of the books mentionned by the Wikipedia who dug that up on the internet). Carrel wasn't a fascist by the way, although he was eugenicist. That's not exactly the same thing, although nazism did implement eugenics policies, being an eugenicist doesn't necessarily make one a fascist. Lapaz 20:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Important distinctions. Article is better without most of the text that was cut. The section on Islam, however, could still use some fresher cites.--Cberlet 13:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations

Removed unsubstantiated allegations against RSS leaders as well as unnecesary Hindutva category.--Babub(Talk|Contribs) 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the book, We or Our Nationhood Defined?:
  • "German national pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up purity of the nation and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races, the Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into a united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by." (We or Our Nationhood Defined, 1938, p.37).
Seems like a reliable source...--Cberlet 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
See: http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/fascism/Nazi6GurujiWithdrawn.html. All RSS people have renounced this book. Even its author renounced it. It hasn't been published sinc 1948. Basicaly, it is today to tool to vilify/ harass the RSS.--Babub(Talk|Contribs) 03:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There are published sources that suggest that ultra-nationalist forms of Hindutva--including elements within the RSS and the RSS itself--have aspects of neofascism. We can't simply delete the reference entirely just because supporters of the RSS object to it.--Cberlet 13:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Correction. RSS itself objects to it, not its supporters alone. I agree this reference can be mentioned. But this should not be mentioned as an established fact. It can be "it is alleged by some that so and so may have admired Hitler etc". And mention the objection to the term "fascism" by RSS. You can find this here: http://www.voi.org/books/ayodhya/ch14.htm. --Babub(Talk|Contribs) 13:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense, it will be tricky to write fairly and NPOV.--Cberlet 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context

I find the first three paragraphs of the Context section as they now stand poorly written to the point of incoherence. I made a few copy edits on what I could understand, but most of this is so confusing that I don't think I could confidently edit it and stay true to the author's intent.

I'm pretty confident that in a topic like this, if I cannot understand, then neither can a very large percentage of likely readers. Would someone like to take another shot at this? If it cannot be made more comprehensible, perhaps it should be gone. - Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Fascism page

The Islamic Fascism page and several others were the subject of lengthy and heated debates, numerous attempts to delete the pages, POV wars, numerous attempts to rename the pages, etc. These discussions are therefore on a number of pages going back over a year. Most recently there has been a discussion on Islamofascism, although even that page has had several names. Almost all of the text on the Islamic Fascism page that was recently revived already had been moved to either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. The very outdated and redundant page was simply switched back on by deleting the redirect. Therefore almost the entire page was redundant. There was no serious attempt to engage editors in a discussion on either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. There was no substantative discussion over several weeks--I waited to see if there was a serious dicussion. There was not. POV page forks are a violation of Wiki policy. Any editror can do what I did. I have no intention of trying to suppress claims about Islam and fascism, and in fact have written scholarly articles where I argue some forms of militant Islam are indeed forms of theocratic or clerical fascism. At the same time, I was just quoted in Newsweek saying that the term "Islamofascism" creeps me out. Over time, the two pages Islamofascism (on the term) and Neofascism and religion (on the contemporary debate), along with a few pages that mention the Grand Mufti and the Phalangists, have been the best way to keep this topic from turning, once again, into an endless POV war. If people want to have this discussion, that's fine, but it is not a useful procedure to launch a discussion on an inactive redirect page. Please have the discussion over at Islamofascism by simply clicking here.--Cberlet 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Discussion

It appears that User:Francis Schonken is going to insist that we all go over to the outdated Islamic Fascism (that was turnd from a redirect back to a redundant POV fork page) and debate a merger proposal. Please take a moment and post comments at Talk:Islamic_fascism#Merger_Discussion--Cberlet 19:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous politician?

Could someone explain the odd turn of phrase "Anonymous Israeli politician Obadiah Shoher"? - Jmabel | Talk 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First, to answer your question -- "Obadiah Shoher" appears to be an Israeli politician, writing under that pseudonym to hide his real identity. At least, that is what he claims on his website (see http://www.samsonblinded.org/About.htm ). I was planning merely to clear that up with a short explanation, but after looking into the subject further, I decided to remove the material from the article. For one thing, although he is very forthright about the extreme hardline stance he advocates, Mr. "Shoher" takes issue with the label of "fascism". Secondly, there is some suggestion on various blogs, etc. that the whole thing is actually some sort of hoax. "Shoher" himself even refers to the book in a black-humoresque way as a "valuable replacement for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery". Basically, I don't think we really know what we're dealing with here. Whatever the case, it surely doesn't belong in this article. Cgingold 15:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like it might deserve an article of its own, but mention would only belong here if we can find a reliable source that calls him "neo-fascist". Anyway, if someone wants to follow that up, probably something like "The pseudonymous Obadiah Shoher, who states that he is an Israeli politician" or some such. - Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Concur with Jmabel. Certainly "pseudonymous" is the word here. john k 12:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Neiwert citations

We say "David Neiwert has two essays that discuss these debates [about the U.S. Christian Right as possibly fascist] in detail." Then we provide two links. The first appears to be the front page of Neiwert's blog, Orcinus, not a link to a particular essay. The second is a link to a self-published essay in a PDF; I suppose enough of of Neiwert's work has appeared in respectable outlets that his self-published essay is citable, but what is the other essay alluded to?

None of the citations in this section are especially strong; does someone have some better sources to cite on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Wait until my chapter is published next year in the collection dedicated to Stanley Payne.  :-) In the meantime, Neiwert's essays are one of the more thoughtful treatments of the subject, and while it is his own blog, he is a well-published and well-respected author. Let my try to fix the cite links.--Cberlet 19:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Author David Neiwert began exploring these issues in 2003 in a series of online essays:
"Bush, the Nazis and America," (2003), in four parts: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4;
"Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An Exegesis," in html at Cursor.org;
"The Rise of Pseudo Fascism: An essay," in PDF format
working...


[edit] "offensive to the religion itself"

In the intro to the Christianity section - what an earth does this mean? Surely the author means that the connection is offensive to (all) members of that particular religion. (That in itself is clearly untrue. There's a minority of Christians who would agree that some self-professed Christians are fascists (and some of those accused of fascism would surely say that the accusers were not true Christians). In any case, its not the religion itself that is offended, just particular people within it.) Loxlie 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read more carefully: "considered by some to be offensive to the religion itself."--Cberlet 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I read it very carefully. To clarify, it's not the question of who is claimed to be offended, but the stated object of the offense. I'll use slightly different wording/emphasis to make (what I hope is) the same point: Surely the author means that the connection is offensive to members of that particular religion. My point is that individuals are offended, rather than an abstract belief system. Loxlie 05:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let me take a stab at this: On the one hand, Loxley is correct, of course, to say that a religion cannot itself take offense. I believe the explanation for that phrase is along the following lines: those individuals who articulate such sentiments feel that the accusation is offensive, and anthropomorphically project their own feelings onto the religion, as if it were a living being. Nonsensical, to be sure -- but in their mind it makes sense, presumably because they are so thoroughly identified with the religion that they simply don't make the distinction. (This is hardly unique to Christians, as we've all seen of late... )
I think perhaps the solution is to put the words "offensive to the religion itself" in quotes, as I've just done, thus suggesting that the very notion itself comes from those individuals who say this is the case. I will go ahead and make that change, unless someone has a better suggestion.
After subjecting that paragraph to close scrutiny, I now have my own question: Who, exactly, does the word "some" refer to? Scholars? Members of the media? Christians? People in general? I think that probably ought to be spelled out more clearly, perhaps even with a footnote.
Cgingold 09:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Much cleanup needed

I'm cleaning this article up, section by section, to delete uncited point of view, unnecessary wordiness, formatting issues and disorganization. There also seems to be a lot of repetition of content in more than one section, but for now I'm only going to focus on content that is within a given section. As it stands, this article looks too much like an essay, in which the writer is trying very hard to use as many words as possible. Spylab 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite accomplished many good things, but there is now an obvious POV problem with the way the most recent and increasingly majority view among scholars of fascism has been dismissed and framed in a negative manner. I hope we can find a way to correct this. The snotty tone in the post above is not constructive. Sometimes using more words reduces offense in a controversial entry. It is not always sophomoric excess. There was a conscious attempt to not use the most offensive terminology in the opening paragraph of each religion's section, since the terms are often offensive to members of that religion. I hope we can restore some concern with religious bigotry to this entry. Next time you rename a page, you might ask first. The spelling "neofascism" is commonly used these days. --Cberlet 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The linking of <<religion>> with historic fascism or neofascism has generated contentious debate among scholars and in the media; and is considered by some to be offensive to the religion itself.
This phrase repeats again and again; and while helpful, gets a bit repetitive. Alas, I have no solution at this time. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 17:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The phrase repeats because this page ended a months-long edit war on three other pages now combined into this page. I know it is annoying, but sometimes the history of the creation of a page, and the discussion that resulted in specific wording, actually is worth considering--especially on a page where some members of a religion are deeply offended by the topic itself. Rewriting the phrase is more of an aesthetic issue--what some find better wording others will find awkward--but deleting it needs to be discussed with the history of this page kept in mind.--Cberlet 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I figured as much. It just comes off as awkward in reading the article as a whole, not so much in section skimming, which is what I imagine most casual readers would do. If I find a solution, I'll post here before taking action. Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That phrase, while likely correct, is uncited opinion. It should be backed up by reliable sources instead of stated as fact. Spylab 21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I took the sentence out of most of the sections because in those sections, the sentence that followed immediately after it said the same thing, and said it better (and in some cases had examples and references). I only left the sentence in the Christianity section because ther was no other similar sentence nearby. Also, I adjusted the wording of the sentence because it's unneccessary to elaborate with words like "contentious", and because it's impossible for something to be "offensive to the religion." A belief system has no feelings; only followers of a belief system can be offended. The new version says The linking of Christianity with fascism or neo-fascism has generated debate among scholars and in the media; and some consider it offensive to Christians. Also, I removed the cleanup tag, because now the article is organized pretty well. It's still needs a lot more references though. Spylab 01:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I take it, Spylab, that your idea of a discussion consists of you writing what you want in the entry, and announcing it on this discussion page? I am under the impression that Wikipedia culture suggests an actual discussion where ideas are exchanged. Can you be a little less aggressive and a little more collaborative?--Cberlet 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My two cents: Too many edits in too short a period. Better to undertake an editing project of that scope with a degree of collaboration and consultation. No doubt the "bulldozer" approach saves a lot of time (for the person doing it, at least) -- but using a more collegial ("Wikipedian") approach is more likely to produce good results in the long run. (I would have thought that Iraq/2003-6 had demonstrated that "Shock and Awe" was, um, overrated... :)
To be sure, Spylab has accomplished some good results with his -- I believe the word is, "Herculean" -- effort. But it leaves behind a new array of issues that will need to be dealt with. I myself haven't invested all that much time in edits to this article, but I know others have... I do think Cberlet is showing admirable restraint in his comments. Cgingold 14:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
A few things to throw in the pot: 1. I think the mention of clerical fascism needs to be higher up, as it was used originally to talk about Catholic fascism. 2. The section on Judaism: Zionism was of course heavily influenced by fascism, at least in the Revisionist Zionism tradition of Jabotinksy that flows through Lehi and the Stern gang, but this was not at all religious and so shouldn't be mentioned in an article on religion and fascism. (Whereas Kahane was religious.) 3. I think the genocide mention in that section is correct but superfluous - you don't have to support genocide to be fascist. BobFromBrockley 11:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
All good points. Why don't you go ahead and make the edits?--Cberlet 13:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and Bibliography

We need to figure out how to deal with the new reference and citation systems. In the past, many of the sections were referenced to a list of books at the bottom of the page. Now there is the addition of the new citation system. Sould we move all the bibliographic data and/or external links to under the appropriate topical section? Or do we now have to add full references after each sction? Or do we put in partial cites as references in each topical section and have them refer to the complete bibliographic cite below? And if yes to the latter, do we now combine all the sub-biliographies into one long one alphbetical by author? I have deleted the "unrefernced" tags since both tags were on sections for which there were proper bibliographic lists at the bottom of the page.--Cberlet 17:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several acceptable solutions to this, but if there is going to be a list of references above and beyond individual citations, those belong in a single section near the bottom of the article, after the notes. The Manual of Style is quite clear on that. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu nationalism

I read the section in question over very carefully -- both versions -- and seriously considered merging elements of both, something along the lines of:

Some critics of Hindu nationalism in India (including many Marxists, as well as some Muslims, Hindus and Christian missionaries) view elements of the Hindutva ideology as fascist.

But it struck me that there is no real need (that I can see) to include a listing of identifiable groups some of whom see Hindutva as fascist. For one thing, there are surely others, who we would be leaving out (unless we came up with an exhaustive list, which would be absurd, IMO.) And besides, the original list of three groups carefully left out Hindus, the clear implication being that there are no Hindus who see it as fascist -- only non-Hindus, who are presumed to be antagonist towards Hinduism. Once Hindus are included among the critics, the whole purpose in selectively listing three groups vanishes.

I have no axe to grind here, and I took Bakasuprman's concerns seriously, but in the end I have to say that his edit was very POV. If there's any doubt about that, look at the highly POV link to Islamofascism for Muslims. Please. As far as I can see, the section as currently written meets WP:NPOV. Cgingold 06:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Because those "Hindus" that claim the RSS is fascist are generally of the Marxist persuasion. Its a fringe theory that the Sangh is fascist and undue weight is given to random "communalism combat/secular/human rights" orgs rather than real, mainstream sources. Its a term used "3M" axis by people like Koenraad Elst [4]. Whoever this Cberlet (talk • contribs) guy is, he seems to see fascists everywhere.Bakaman 06:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a fringe theory that RSS or Sangh are fascist. There is a large body of scholarly literature that identifies the links between the Hindutva movement and fascist ideology. I will start putting in some citations. BobFromBrockley 14:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't need to, as I see the bibliography has plenty of sensible, sobre, scholarly works that assess this claim. BobFromBrockley 14:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Not "mainstream" but invariably partisan. Claims of "Fascism" in RSS are largely political epithets used by partisan groups with an agenda against Hindus, not by impartial scholars, who dispute such outrageous perorations. Rumpelstiltskin223 15:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You do know that half the sources, maybe more, in the bibliography, are in favour of the Sangh Parivar? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I have restored two removed bibliography items, both of which can be found on academic reading lists[5][6] and are cited in peer-reviewed academic journals[7][8], and left the items added by Rumpelstiltskin223, and started tidying the list a little. It now contains a range of views, from defences to critiques of RSS, and books which are neither but are in fact scholarly assessments. BobFromBrockley 11:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tags and cited material

A number of fact tags have been added to sections for which there is copious cited material at the bottom of the page. As the discussion above in "References and Bibliography" suggests, as editors here we need to reach some sort of agreement as to how material is cited to avoid this sort of unconstructive drive by tagging in the future. At least we need to agree on some consistent method.--Cberlet 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what happened here is that much of this was written before Wikipedia moved to a strong guideline for inline citation. I am sure that most, perhaps all, of what is here is citable to the sources provided, but this may end up requiring re-research.
Can someone indicate here anything of which they are sincerely dubious, so that efforts can be focuses where the facts might be controversial, rather than on pro forma citation.

[edit] Hindutva

Hindutva section is now very unbalanced in terms of rejections of the claims that Hindutva reflects elemts of fascism.--Cberlet 04:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See the cited sources please. Lionheart5 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I could add 30 cited sources claiming Hindutva reflected elements of fascism, and it would be unfair. Unbalanced sections are unfair and POV in this type of article. This is a contentious page, and our job is to provide and fair, accurate, and NPOV material to assist readers in exploring a diversity of opinions.--Cberlet 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is no more or less "unbalanced" than Neo-fascism_and_religion#Judaism_and_Zionism. Accusing an entire religion of nearly 1 billion people of "fascism" is a very serious matter and should not be taken lightly, or else it might be construed as hate speech. If you think that there is an issue with WP:UNDUE then why don't you list any explanations that you want removed? For instance, that Jyotirmayi Sharma comment is perhaps not entirely notable given that she is just a commentator. Note that most scholars only peripherally mention claims of fascism in Hindutva and focus more on aspects of communalism (an even worse political epithet in Indian context). If you read the cited sources you claim to have very carefully you will see this. Note also that just because somebody mentions the word "fascist" and "Hindu" in the same sentence does not necessarily mean that they are accusing Hindus of fascism. Accusing Hindus of fascism exclusively and repeatedly is something that is done only by Marxists and left-wingers.Lionheart5 05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The article has never accused Hindus in general of fascism, and (by definition, as it looks at a range of religions) has certainly never exclusively accused Hindus of fascism. The section needs to have a balance between scholars who have made a case that Hindu nationalism was influenced by fascism, and those who seek to refute that case. Simply loading the section with assertions that Hindutva is not even vaguely connected to fascism does not make a serious, scholarly encyclopedia article. (Any more than loading the section with assertions that Hindus or Hindu nationalists are all fascists.) BobFromBrockley 09:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (By the way, interested parties might also look at the similar struggle going on at the Hindutva article.) BobFromBrockley 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Does that give you liscense to quote mine Golwalkar? If you want the Golwalkar quote to remain then it must include the proper context for the quote, which I have done with sources. Unfortunately, the section has become bloated like anything so why not save everybody the trouble and remove the whole thing about Golwalkar, including the rebuttals? Lionheart5 10:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I also notice that this issue has already been discussed Talk:Neo-fascism_and_religion#Allegations. Please see it again. Lionheart5 10:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

I am also concerned that the Islam section is POV and does not include all significant viewpoints against the claim of "Islamofascism" (which is a total neologism and is needlessly abused by media/press). Specifically, broad rebuttals from scholars of Islam here is sorely needed. For instance, there is the well-known statement made by Joseph Sobran that it is essentially a war propaganda term. There is also a statement by Eric Margolis that it is a USA right-wing propaganda tool and is essentially Islamophobic [9]. Therefore, I would like to tag it with {{toofewopinions}} so that some Muslim editors with more knowledge about this may neutralize the article. Lionheart5 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and balance

The purpose of an encyclopedia entry is not to argue that one side of a contentious debate is the "correct" side; nor to dismiss one side of the debate as "leftists" or "rightists" and therefore not worthy of consideration. This is the same point made above by BobFromBrockley. My position on these debates I usually reserve for my writing outside of Wikipedia. My position on this matter here on Wikipedia is that this entry plays a special role in defusing bitter and often nasty edit wars by paying attention to NPOV and balance in the context that many members and supporters of a specific religion find the claim of fascist influence to be reprehensible. There is no doubt that some who raise the claim of fascism are religious bigots. But that is not always the case, and our job here is to highlight for readers the most reponsible proponents and opponents of the claim. Our job is not to argue for one side in the debate. Piling on more and more quotes defending one position is POV pushing.--Cberlet 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with almost all of what you say, the problem is that Bottomfrombrinckley quote mined Golwalkar without providing due context for the quote, which I have proceeded to do. Virtually all atatcks on Hindus coming from the far-left/Islamist bunch is based on this one single quote by Golwalkar, and the relevant viewpoints need to be cited to explain what the deal is. Either that, or remove all quotes so as to prevent bloat. Any "intermediate solution" will invariably be biased towards a particular POV, pro or anti. If you have a specific suggestion regarding how to resolve this amicably so that the facts are all mentioned without blost then I am always receptive. Lionheart5 13:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, nd let me add that I consider myself privileged to have this opportunity to work with the illustrious Chip Berlet regarding this issue and really wish for a fair and balanced (ie not Fox News heh) portrayal of this subject. Lionheart5 13:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/o/Talk%7ENeo-fascism_and_religion_1aae.html"