Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christofascism (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Singularity 07:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christofascism

Christofascism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Properly listing 2nd nomination for User:Jmegill. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Christofascism is a not a notable term. Furthermore, was the article previously deleted and recently resurrected by offsite coordination. Here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=670726#post670726 The article exists for the purpose of making political attacks on Mike Huckabee. This is far removed from NPOV. Jmegill (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable pov neologism.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable neologism, apparent SPA anti-Huckabee POV pusher. SkierRMH (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• The argument that this has to do with Mike Huckabee put forward by several of the above editors doesn't hold water once one actually looks at the sources. The book by Hunsinger does indeed describe Christofascism on the very page given by the citation. That book was published in 2001. Hunsinger doesn't say anything about the U.S. presidential race — He's writing about Karl Barth. — and would have been remarkably prescient to have done so 6 years ahead of time. Let's not let political rhetoric or sides in one particular election come into this. The question is whether a neutral, verifiable, article free from original research can be written on this subject, which is (according to one source) a subject in theology. To that end I note that at least one of the cited sources checks out, although it doesn't say enough about the concept to support a full article by itself. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The user who created the article had posted on Ron Paul's blog "Help define Christofascism (a.k.a. Mike Huckabee)" with a link to the Wikipedia atricle [1]. While the term may not have been coined to attack Huckabee, he does appear to have been the intended target of this specific article. --Tdl1060 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Adwads (talk · contribs) was a miserable failure if that was xyr intention (and if you assume good faith you'll believe xem when xe says outright on the article's talk page that it was not) because the article makes no mention at all of Huckabee in any revision, and some of the sources cited were published long before and had authors who were long dead before Huckabee announced his candidacy. As I said: Ignore the election shenanighans, and concentrate upon the actual article. Let it be ironic that those readers who come to Wikipedia to find out what this concept is, thinking it to be a cheap meaningless election jibe, be surprised to receive a decent education in something that theologians have been discussing and debating since the 1970s. Uncle G (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Actual, reliable sources dating back to 1986, older than the first instance of islamofascism. Frankly I think both terms are mornonic, and I think anybody that uses either should be locked in a room with someone who uses the other. However, both terms are in common useage. As for it being just an attack on Huckabee, at the present time his name is not mentioned, and if it were added, I would certainly support removing any unsourced references. Regarding the fact that the randroid Ron Paul supporters might have added the article, so what? If kooks can come up with real references, kooks get to edit articles. All of wikipedia is founded on kooks being just as competent to cite the works of others as experts are. Mykej (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I put a few references into the article out of the many available. This is a widely discussed concept. If anyone tries to hijack the article as a WP:COATRACK then that is an editing issue, it doesn't mean that the whole article should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This article is about meant for political attack. Adwads added the unsourced statement "Huckabee's faith-based campaign has drawn concern about a new wave of christofascism in America." to Mike Huckabee's political position page. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee&curid=12515996&diff=179219647&oldid=179207599 The article in its current form was created by Adwads. Jmegill (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This AfD is about this article. If you see an unsourced contentious statement in another article you are entitled to edit it out, but it doesn't mean you have to delete a whole article about a notable encyclopedic subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, excellent article, well referenced, and well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- my objection was on the notability of the term. I just don't think that it is notable. Jmegill (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Its notable if its being used by multiple authors, and at least two sources define the term. Its defined in at least three books, and Google News has it in dozens of current articles.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Notability is not based upon your personal opinion. It is based upon people in the world at large thinking that something is notable enough that they create and publish works of their own about it. And as you can see, theologians have thought that this concept is notable enough that they've been both supporting and disagreeing with Sölle about it in print for over 25 years. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As a Christian I am offended by this term. As an encyclopedist, I find the page well cited and appropriate. Keep it.--Cberlet (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Never heard of the construct—sounds like a made-up, attack pov term. A quick google check shows mainly usage on some fringe blogs, no notable usage in reliable sources. And, the term is supposed to have been made up by a certain Dorothee Sölle, but the article on that person does quote any source whatsoever, so is she really notable? And, even if this person did coin the word (on what page on that book is it supposed to appear?), so what? Anyone can take any two words and string them together, this does not ipso facto make the construct notable, let alone encyclopedic. Turgidson (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What makes it notable and encyclopaedic are all of the other sources, cited in the article, which you appear to have simply ignored. The World Wide Web is not everything that exists, and Google Web is not the only route to information. Avoid FUTON bias. Moreover: Thinking that (to pick just one) a professor of Christian theology writing in his field of expertise is not a reliable source is patently ludicrous. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "FUTON bias" — is that a WP policy or guideline? On the other hand, I know about WP:FRINGE, and that's definitely a content guideline. I find this article violates it. I don't know who is that prof you are referring to (is that Dorothee Sölle, with no references whatsoever in the article?), but appealing to authority does not cut the mustard in this case. What does "Christofascism" (clearly a made-up neologism, with little or no everyday usage beyond fringe blogs) have to do with Christian theology? (I don't see "Christofascism" mentioned in that article — is that a case of "FUTON bias", again?) Could you please point me to the relevant theology book where the concept is discussed? Thank you. Turgidson (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The term has unquestionably gone beyond being a nonce neologism and has entered into vocabulary of both scholarly and op-ed writing. older ≠ wiser 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Dorothee Sölle is a notable much published author, there is a reference cited for Christofascism in her article. Paul foord (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- well-cited, not a neologism; appears in a number of scholarly articles going back several years. --Stlemur (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete or merge the content and cites with some other article(s). keep (1) My thoughts have not changed in two months that this is a neologism, even if it was first coined in 1970, as there is scant evidence that it has been used in the 37 years since. (2) Several of the linked sources do not even use the term. (3) One of the sources claims to be a speech delivered in 2006, in the area I live in, but only has a trivial mention, for a speech I can not confirm even was given. (4) This article is a synthesis of trivia mentions. (5) Is this really notable? Bearian (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading further, and DGG's arguments, has convinced me that the term is, indeed, notable. It still needs more sourcing, but that (by itself) is not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Even at the time of the AfD, the extent of documentation was more than adequate--it is now even better. The version AfDs 3 months earlier did look a little like a political attack, but it should have been more carefully investigated at the time. DGG (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Dorothee Sölle, per the sourcing arguments given above by User:Bearian. This is not a generally-used term that has floated free of its usage by Sölle and entered the common vocabulary. The requirements of WP:NEO are strict, and I don't believe they have been met. See Bevery Wildung Harrison's 2004 book, Justice in the Making, which is available for searching through Google Books (see page 136). They way she uses the word Christofascism is in one particular sentence that cautiously attributes it as Sölle's word. She uses it in quotes, as though it's not a word in general circulation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Unlike the previous incarnations, this one does assert notability and it cites reliable sources. It should also be noted that this term is fairly common in parts of the blogosphere, though it may be difficult to find reliable sources backing that up. What we have now, though, is enough for a valid Wikipedia article. *** Crotalus *** 19:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Offensive if you're Christian, possibly, but notability trumps sensibilities. Keep. Lawrence Cohen 07:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is notable and well sourced. Badagnani (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The blog writers who use this term surely think of it as a new coinage, and I doubt that any of them have heard of Dorothee Sölle. If this article is to be kept based on blog usage of the term, the article will need to be *rewritten* to acknowledge both meanings (the theological meaning from forty years ago, and the current term of American politics). I think WP:NEO will be rolling in its grave, since it assumes there is a single widely-understood meaning. I wonder if either set of writers can point to a single Christofascist, and if there is any general agreement on who those people are. Is there such a thing as an admitted Christofascist, or is it only a term of abuse? EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I say it's the latter: just look at the attempted moral equivalence "justifications" on Talk:Christofascism: "The term itself is constructed much like an already accepted term: islamofascism", "Are we not supposed to have an article about "communism" because people don't like communism?", etc, etc. It all smacks of WP:POINT. Turgidson (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. What on earth has this got to do with moral equivalence? It's got to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I had never heard of this term before I came across this article in the proposed deletion category, and checked it out on Google books and Google scholar which revealed loads of reliable sources to demonstrate verifiability and notability, so I removed the prod tag. I also only have a very vague idea of who this Mike Huckabee guy is who seems to get brought into this argument. The fact is that Christofascism is an accepted term in the academic literature, as is shown by the fact that there are far more references from reliable sources in this article than in most others. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The "academic literature" on what? Could you please point to me what accepted field of study in Academia studies this so-called phenomenon? Are there endowed chairs, perhaps, or annual grants to study it? Someone above said "a professor of Christian theology writing in his field of expertise" talks about "Christofascism" (whatever that is). I challenged the notion that this has got anything to do with Christian theology, and I still did not get a reply on that. Turgidson (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The answer to your question is where it should be: in the references in the article. Have you actually read it? You seem to be arguing to delete something which is totally unrelated to the article we are supposed to be discussing. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You say "If this article is to be kept based on blog usage of the term...". Who has suggested that? It should be kept based on the academic use of the term. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or, if anything is indeed notable, merge it as a small detail on the Clerical fascism page. Dahn (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Good point—unlike this non-notable neologism made up by some obscure academic, and employed almost exclusively on fringe blogs, Clerical fascism is a well-established neologism, introduced by a clearly notable figure, Luigi Sturzo, employed by widely recognized scholars like Hugh Trevor-Roper, Roger Griffin, and Walter Laqueur, and describing a real, readily identifiable phenomenon (from the Ustaše to Rexism, from Vichy France to the Iron Guard, etc, etc). By contrast, "Christofascism" is a made-up, portmanteau term, designed—from what I can tell—to épater la bourgeoisie, and not much else. Turgidson (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I find your argument a bit flaccid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And I find your response a bit vacuous. Turgidson (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Does that make both of you flatulous?--Cberlet (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet, Griffin published my article on Christian Identity as a form of Christian fascism. Keep. Contentious but cited.--Cberlet (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I see nothing credible that shows that this article is a POV attack against Huckabee. The article is neutral, it doesn't even mention him, and the term predates him by a wide margin. Christofascism doesn't apply to Christians generally—as it is antithetical to the teachings of Christ—rather to a minority that ascribe to theocratic authoritarianism and totalitarianism. The term is considered objectionable by some people, but then so is Islamofascism, it's cognate. However, that is an editing issue, not a reason to delete. This term has passed beyond being a non-notable neologism, maybe not by a lot, granted, but a pass nevertheless. It's adequately sourced, as DGG and others have pointed out, although it could use more. I don't know what the original article was like, but this AfD is about this article, as Uncle G rightly points out. I find the all the keep arguments compelling, and some especially compelling. — Becksguy (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It's not a question of whether this made-up term is similar to "Islamofascism, it's cognate"—that term pertains to a notable phenomenon, identified for example here and here, and gazillion other instances. To whom does the made-up term "Christofascism" apply, really? Is there someone—preferably alive, preferably with a WP page—who any of those who support this term would like to point out as a "Christofascist", and perhaps even add the term to the respective article, see if it passes WP:BLP? And, please, not a historical figure who already fits into the already widely recognized Clerical fascism category, which is a perfectly valid notion, with a wide range of applicability, as indicated above—but someone specifically identified in a reliable source as being a "Christofascist". Unless there is a recognizable, notable exponent of "Christofascism" (either a specific individual, or a specific organization, or a specific entity—anything with a WP page, let's say), I say the term is void of applicability, with no life of its own except on some fringe blogs—meant to shock the bourgeois, but not much else. Is that congruent with WP:FRINGE, WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, or WP:NEO? Turgidson (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You are right that it's not about it's relationship to Islamofascism, Turgidson. But have you looked at the article recently? Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Uncle G have done an phenomenal job of adding reliable sources to the article in the four days since the AfD nomination. As of now, there are 14 references, including relevant and serious theological sources, and USA today. And I've got three more to add: First Things The Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life; Michelle Malkin plays the victim card from Salon.com; and Reflections on culture, politics, and religion from an evangelical worldview from Evangelical Outpost. And none of them are fringe blogs. The only criteria for notability is reliable sources. And it doesn't have to be a WP page, as there are an extremely large number of notable WP articles that haven't been written yet. It's possible that the term was coined and/or adopted for your reason, among others, but I think you will agree that none of us will know that for sure (or not), as it's speculation, unless someone writes something reliable about it. Sorry, but I just don't see violations of any of the criteria you mentioned. Granted, it's not in the same class as Islamofascism in terms of usage and penetration (but neither is Clerical fascism as best I can see), but the term Christofascism (or -ist) has been demonstrated to be a notable term and concept. — Becksguy (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm striking my comment that the article could use more references, as it's way more than enough now. I suggest that the AfD be closed as a keep per The Heymann Standard. After all, Bearian changed his !vote. — Becksguy (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.