Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 16:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Islamofascism

[edit] Votes

Neologism just like Judeofascism. They should be treated equally. --Islamist 01:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • obvious Keep, 62,000 Google hits. Gazpacho 01:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually there are only 621 unique hits. The rest is google ghosts. Try to list until the last page of search results. Mikkalai 01:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: You are not the first person to misunderstand this figure. The figure of 621 is the number out of the 1000 best matching pages that Google considers to be distinct, not the number out of all 62,000 matches. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Not scientific I know but I have never heard the term Judeofascism but have heard Islamofascism many times. I doubt the former is a term at all. UDoN't!wAn* 23:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete or wiktionary. Neologism. Political slander of dubious merit under the notion. Probably original research: no authoritative sources with academic discourse of the term are provided. Mikkalai 01:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe no academic discourse, but the term (or the closely related "Islamic totalitarianism") has appeared in, e.g., an influential New Republic column entitled "Towards A New Liberalism", by Peter Beinart and this George Will column. Here it's cited by Andrew Sullivan in an interview. It's also used commonly on Free Republic and sites of that ilk. I think it's a legitimate political slogan, and we could have an article on it. keep. Meelar (talk) 01:36, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme Keep Islamist has been involved in snarky POV edits/vandalism of this page. He keeps removing wikiformating and link descriptions from the related links section. User:Islamism is trying to clobber Islamofascism, since he objects to the term. He creates an objectionable article for the bogus neologism Judeofascism (153 hits) and then claims that the article on Islamofascism, a real word with 62,500 hits, must share the same fate (Merge and Protect/Deletion) as his obvious VfD fodder since the two words have a similar construction. There is a big difference between a term with 62,500 hits and one with 153 hits. There is a difference between a term which is used noted authors in influential publications vs a neologism tossed about on antiwar.com. This is pure bad faith VfD.

This article got split out of the list of political epithets because because the section gradually grew in size to the scope of an article. The term islamofascism may have once been an epithet, but over time it has evolved into a word describing the concept of violent totalitiarian islamism. As a notable word/concept it deserves its own comprehensive and NPOV article. If the final decision is to redirect, I urge that it not be protected, because Islamofascism will once again grow big enough and notable enough to be split out, again. Sealing the redirect will prevent tender love and organic growth
The term islamofascism gets 62,500 hits on Google compared to 153 hits for Judeofascism. The ratio is 85,100/73 on Yahoo! Search. Islamofascism has become a fairly common term since 9/11. Klonimus 23:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • This was written after Mikkalai's comment: "Actually there are only 621 unique hits. The rest is google ghosts." Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Example citiations are provided below :

  • "Islamofacism" gets another 4,130 Google hits (or 483 if you subscribe to the "Google ghost" idea). Islamofascist gets another 67,200 (709 if you don't want the "ghosts"), and Islamofacist another 877 (577 de-ghosted). It seems to get sufficient hits to include as a term in common use. Keep Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Dumbya gets 23,000 Google hits [1], yet it is a redirect, not its own article. --Blackcats 07:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An interesting dilemma, given that I already voted to redirect Judeofascism to Zionism... but that was because the description for Judeofascicm was essentially the same as the negative connotation attributed to Zionism. I'd suggest a redirect for this also if there were an appropriate topic to redirect to, but what would it be? Islamic fundamentalism? Problematic, as that could be used to describe those who simply ascribe non-politically to deeply held religous beliefs. The term is in use in popular culture, and has a meaning unique from any article to which it might be redirected, therefore I must vote keep, but with the admonishment that the article should acknowledge that this is an inherently POV term invented by persons with beliefs that are probably generally hostile to Islam. -- 8^D gab 03:17, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
  • Redirect to list of political epithets and permanently protect. Neutralitytalk 03:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • The reason this article was taken out of list of political epithets was that its entry had grown out much longer than the typical single paragraph list entry. As is the article is about four paragraphs long with an extensive list of outbound links. As is the article needs some serious work to make it more encyclopedic, but thats what tender love and organic growth are for. Klonimus 03:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, redirect. An article on fascistic tendencies in both Islam and Judaism cannot have such a title so long as its use —among politicans, scholars, judges, journalists, etc.— remains limited as an epithet. El_C 03:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think there is good evidence that this term has grown out from being a mere epithet. it's mentioned in books, editorial pages and government officials. Klonimus 03:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • So, where is this evidence? Note that if they depict it as "Islamofascism", than that denotes it being an epithet rather than a construct. E.g. "Christopher Hitchens, for example, describes Islamic extremism as “Islamofascism” and strongly favored Operation Iraqi Freedom." Source: D.D. Walton, "The West and Its Antagonists: Culture, Globalization, and the War on Terrorism," Comparative Strategy, July/August/September 2004, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 303-312(10). El_C 04:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Au contraire, we have many articles on epithets. See e.g. nigger. Meelar (talk) 20:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, redirect. It's an epithet. As George Orwell said in 1948, the word Fascism itself has been so commonly overused that now it merely means "something bad". Tempshill 20:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect nobs
  • Redirect to list of political epithets, until such time as this concept develops into something more than just an epithet. The article must be proportional to the thing. Has only appeared in two books before 2004. [2] --bainer 05:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand why you might think that Islamofascism is a mere pejorative epithet; The term itself has a pejorative connotation. However it is a very common concept in neoconservative circles, and since neoconservativsm is a notable political ideology, it's common concepts are also notable. May I suggest looking at.
  • Keep, seems notable on Google. Megan1967 05:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirect. I agree that Islamist (talk · contribs) has behaved badly regarding this (blanking the article and making it a redirect), and has been pushing a very clear PoV in a number of related articles — but that's irrelevant. This article, the one on Judeofascism, and any other of the same kind, are simply ill-disguised attacks on racial or religious groups; they invent a term and a concept to go with it, and then use it to smear those groups. The claim by Meelar that it should be kept because some right-wing writers have written about 'Islamic totalitarianism' fails if only because it confuses totalitarianism with fascism. Klonimus' contention that the notion is encyclopædic because it's used in U.S. neo-conservative circles is equally unconvincing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Finally, a voice of reason. El_C 11:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) His comment, that is, not his vote. The epithet is clearly notable enough to be redirected to list of political epithets. Please reconsider your vote, Mel. El_C 11:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, OK — though I'm inclined to say that if it's just the term that's notable, it should be moved to Wiktionary. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks. It's a valid concern, but it's important, I think, for Wikipedia to verify to the reader that it is (still) an epithet. El_C 13:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Sorry, I did the same thing as Islamist, because I misread the page, not realizing it was on VfD. Islamofascism should do whatever Slogan 'Islamofascism' does, and since it's a redirect, it should be a redirect too. If this is not made into a redirect, it should at the very least be moved to Slogan 'Islamofascism' instead of its current localtion. LDan 23:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually you did not mis-read it when you got there it had been vandalized which included removing the VfD template. Dalf | Talk 00:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be widely used with a fairly well defined meaning and the article is of sufficient size and quality to be kept, rather than merged. TigerShark 10:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm torn on this. On one hand, this concept does appear to be fairly notable - the term has been used by many prominent right-wing commentators in the United States. On the other hand, I see no effective way to prevent this article from becoming a POV playground. Currently the article has some serious NPOV issues, which I am going to attempt to rectify. Firebug 11:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a way: Neutrality, bainer, and myself are voting redirect/protect. El_C 12:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)\
      • I'll go along with that. Change vote to redirect and protect. Firebug 17:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Voting to redirect implies that the subject is non notable. 62.5 Kilogoogles is pretty darn notable. Klonimus 15:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Neutrality's solution. Agree with El C. It's what wingnuts call it, not what it is. You could sum up all there is to say about it in two sentences. Lists of who have used it are particularly ridiculous but I look forward to the same idea being applied to cunt. Grace Note 12:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If only I could be so concise, I would be far less longwinded. True, every word, down to the final (and inexorably most decisive) note. El_C 13:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back to list of political epithets. Keeping it as a separate article legitimizes it and encourages the POV pushers (witness Klonimus's edits and proposed outline on the talk page). This is purely an epithet, and the only way to make sure it is treated as just an epithet is to merge it back into the list. Protect the redirect only if necessary. —Charles P. (Mirv) 12:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I have to disagree, The concept of Islamic Fascism gets 704 kilogoogles, this suggests that the term is notable as a concept more than an epithet. And anyways the extant article is too long and encyclopedic for it to be a mere list entry.Klonimus 15:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • "Dubya" gets over a million hits. It's still an epithet. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Send it back to the fire from which it came. Okay, I've had my moment. El_C 13:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to list of political epithets. This is an epithet, not a well defined concept. 80.203.115.12 15:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well beloved-epithet of newspaper columnists everywhere. Slac speak up! 00:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect, very redundant article and an offensive slur. See talk page of the article for further discussion.Yuber 00:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't agree that it's the same as "Judeofascism," but it's still meaningless. "Fascism" as it's commonly applied is a deliberately vague term, and there's no natural link between Islam and fascism. --Leifern 02:34, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Merge back into List of political epithets and Redirect. I am not opposed to epithets having their own articles, someone above mentioned nigger, but in this case even if the term does see some amount of use in terms of google I do not see it as a significant term historically or in any other context. Some time down the road I think revisiting the issue of it having its own article is a good idea but for now redirect it back.Dalf | Talk 05:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep and delist; this appears to be a bad-faith nomination. Islamofascism gets 63000 hits, Judeofascism gets 150. Do the math. —RaD Man (talk) 05:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back into List of political epithets and Redirect. This is an epithet, not an encyclopedic topic. An encyclopedic article might conceivably be written about the history of the word's usage, but I very much doubt it. - Mustafaa 06:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of political epithets. --Viriditas | Talk 07:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important political term for an important political concept. Capitalistroadster 02:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to an article named something along the lines of Islamic Theocratic Intolerance. I am on the border here. There is an obscene amount of historical evidence to give legitimacy to this term, c.f. the definitions of "fascism" at Fascism. Through every period of history since the historical (a term I use in an attempt at compromising deference to the Muslims who insist that Islam goes back to the creation of the World) inception of Islam, i.e., the time of the Prophet, pbuh, every characteristic of fascism has, at one time or another, characterized the majority interpretation of the Prophet's teachings. That said, however, in every Muslim realm where shari`a has not held political supremacy, the same characteristics have been, without a single exception of which I'm aware, absent from Muslim rule. So, the facts seem to me to indicate that there exists Islamofascism on the theocratic level, but not on the Islamosecular level, and so it seems to me that the term Islamofascism is too all-encompassing. It makes it sound as though all Muslims are fascists, which is simply not the case. From what I am preached by my Muslim friends, the teachings of the Prophet, pbuh, are also non-Fascist. I don't think the Wikipedia should play the role of inventing or supporting politically or emotionally charged appellations. It is my observation, that the term Islamofascism is used primarily by right-wing pro-Israel American Christians (NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT, to quote Jerry Seinfeld) more than by anyone else, to describe the exact phenomenon which I'm describing...but that doesn't mean that the term is exact or definitive. That point should be made VERY CLEAR in the prélude to the article as renamed according to my proposal. I hope people will consider my input carefully, and change their votes accordingly if they agree. We can take up a vote on an appropriate name afterwards, if need be. Tomer TALK 08:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify my "redirect" vote. It is not a genuine "redirect", it is a keep, but rename. "Islamofascism" should be a redirect to something, I don't know what, perhaps Intolerance in Islam, as it is a subject about which voluminous amounts have been written. My opposition is to using what is really an epithet as the name for an article, especially when it denigrates people by association. I registered this same opinion in the discussion at Arab anti-Semitism. I'm saying keep the content, redirect Islamofascism to a renamed article, one which would ultimately be a better home (or lead article) for most of the content of Islam and anti-Semitism as well. Tomer TALK 11:15, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is borderline, and I was initially inclined to vote delete for the reasons stated above by Mel Etitis and El C. However, this term is starting to be used by reputable journalists on both the left and right. A quote here from Nick Cohen of The Observer during a debate last year:

Far too many people on the Left are inclined to make excuses for Islamic fundamentalism. They accept its misogyny so long as it doesn’t target Western women. They accept its fascism so long as it is anti-American fascism. We now have a Stop the War coalition led by Islamic fascists and Marxist-Leninists, and much of the Left is silent about it. Acknowledging the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism would sully their consciences, which they want to keep clean for the battle against America ... Much of the Stop the War coalition now actually supports a fascist resistance movement and ignores their Iraqi comrades entirely. You have to look back to the Hitler-Stalin pact for a historical parallel. The concept of fascism is being lost. It’s something you hear about on the history channels. But Islamic fascism is still fascism ... Islamofascism has been ripping through the Arab world, often supported by America, and it should be the Left’s worst nightmare. [3] SlimVirgin (talk) 09:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is a term of widespread use, regardless of whether one believes it is valid or not. the tone of the article is NPOV. --Briangotts 16:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an added note, it is intellectually dishonest for Islamist to create a bogus Judeofascism article, solely for the purpose of demanding this article's deletion. Briangotts
  • Delete, or Merge and Redirect to list of political epithets --AladdinSE 09:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep' this probably it seems to be in pop use Yuckfoo 06:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hesitant redirect: I confess to being the person who seeded the current incarnation of the article by farming it out from List of political epithets, and I am not happy with what has happened to the article since. Reason for farming out the content: the Islamofascism entry outgrew its section at that page, and it attracted a large proportion of the comments on the talk page (about 1/3 by my estimate): some other editors of that page also wanted to see the section farmed out. If we could keep the page focussed on the use of the term Islamofascism, I would vote keep, but I see no case for a page of this name being used to discuss the political phenomenon, which would much better be discussed in the Islamism article or a related page. --- Charles Stewart 08:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Phrase being frequently used in general political debate; content disputes are a separate issue. Dbiv 11:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • holy sweet crap... - The last time I read that it was fine, which is an acievement of itself considering how Charged up some people can get on this topic. But now.. it's fallen apart. Merge back into List of political epithets and Redirect --Irishpunktom\talk 15:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you sure you werent looking at the recently vandalized version. It's been reverted back. Klonimus 23:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Checked Back, seems ok. Keep an eye on this though. keep--Irishpunktom\talk 13:42, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I hear the expression on CNN all the time. It's not a nice expression but many aren't. UDoN't!wAn* 23:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note User:UDoN't!wAn* is an apparent sock puppet, just signed up on 22 Apr 2005. zen master T 00:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Info should already be covered elsehwere (under less of a cloud of POV hopefully). zen master T 00:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: A neutral article acceptable to all could be written if it stuck to the epithet itself (e.g. history of usage), rather than trying to invent a theory to justify the slur (as User:Klonimus is currently doing). Mirror Vax 00:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even islamofascists can get their own WP entry! --Mrfixter 01:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep article seems fine, reasonably NPOV, and this is a common term for a real phenomenon. ObsidianOrder 03:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously a KEEP! This is a real and growing phenomenon. Porphyria 14:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Last time I checked, the article discussed the usage of the term and separated it clearly from those who the term is used against. Since this term is used a lot these days, it deserves a discussion on its usage, origins etc. It is however most important that we make sure that this article doesn't deviate from that. If links to religious or political ideologies are needed, it should be stated clearly that "islamofascism" is a term usually (mis)used against those. If there are people who would object to the mere existence of the article, well... don't look it up. Where I come from there are people who are personally offended by practically our entire manga section (often for religious or semi-religious reasons), yet the deletion of those articles would bring, indeed, a tear to my eye. Although I don't feel that way about this article, I still think it's a bad idea to delete it, just because people are offended by it. Just make sure the article is as "clinical" as possible and it will all be allright. One could even mention in the article that a lot of people have objections to the term. Shinobu 22:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meaningless fight talk, with a bogus poli-sci sheen. Orwell wrote a brilliant essay emphasizing that the popular epithet "fascist" had degraded to a point that it no longer had any practical meaning beyond "that which the speaker considers objectionable for some undisclosed reason." (Quoting loosely.) Others might disagree on that contention of his, but I see little in contemporary discourse likely to have made Orwell change his mind on this. I'm with him. Plus the compound-word thing feels like Newspeak. Brr. Same problem with Judeofascism, which I also voted to delete. BrandonYusufToropov 15:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: POV attack targeting religions should not be kept. --Ragib 15:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I agree with Ragib. This is nothing more than a thinly disguised pretext for slamming a wide spectrum of people by squeezing them all into one contrived bucket. What an embarassingly awful article. What's next, "christofascism"? --Lee Hunter 20:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If I get a vote, I vote keep, it's interesting and added a link to a CNN story that was on tonight about Aryan Nation wanting to be buddies with al Qaeda. Might be interesting. Walkingeagles 04:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose we should apply the same decision made here to the newly created (and gruesome, watch out!) Islamic fascism that Walkingeagles just made. --Dmcdevit 05:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this term does get used so we should cover it. Rhobite 05:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Do not delete this article. Perhaps some changes could be made in terms of neutrality, and once it is acceptable, protect it from further editing (other than through the discussion page). Otherwise i see no problem here. It is a notable issue. Once again Keep
    • Unsigned vote by User:Aeroflot on 06:35, 24 Apr 2005. I moved it out of Mel's comments section. Klonimus 08:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of political epithets. As others have said, the article itself might be useful material for an article on authoritarian currents in contemporary Islamic politics, or something like that. But the word itself is inflammatory, pejorative, inaccurate, and misleading, suitable perhaps for op-ed discourse, but not as the primary title for a Wikipedia article. I beg others who voted "keep" for this article -- especially those who voted "keep" based upon User:Islamist's behavior -- to reconsider their positions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP, remarked 209.6.216.228 (talk · contribs), at 01:49, 25 Apr 2005
    • This anon seems to specialise in PoV edits ranging from near-vandalism to genuine vandalism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect. It's just a slur. Anything of substance can be discussed under Islamism and Islamic Fundamentalism. Also, any word in Islamo- is ugly (on morphological gorunds). This article can only ever be about bloggers and fearmongers on the extreme political right, and not about the movements they refer to, which have their own articles already. dab (ᛏ) 12:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Many supporters of deletion, I suspect, are shy of the forthcoming exertion to come with the article in question. This vote of mine is not without ambiguity; however, I believe the content is being unjustifiably threatened, but in parallel does not warrant its own special article. At first, I voted to keep the article, but after contemplation, I changed my vote. It suits a journal, but not an encyclopedia. The content, much of which is noteworthy, should be placed in a suitable article in an impartial tone. Usedbook 18:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Redirect, or Keep depending on if its NPOV and can be so maintained. Its of course a huge double-standard that a title like Judeofascism can be deleted, and Islamofascism can be claimed to be NPOV. Many here I suspect are newbies, and hence dont have the concept of NPOV under their grasp. Others are yet POV warriors seeking to push or repeat an agenda. If its written in an NPOV way, keep. But the mere existence of this kind of article lends its proponents to claim it like it was theirs to define, forgetting the basic fact that its just a word, and a POV word at that. Theres nothing wrong with POV word articles, as long as the articles themselves are not POV. Judging by many of the comments above, it would seem that there is a basic ignorance of that distinction. So, thats my vote. -SV|t 21:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. To suppress such a well-documented and scrupulously colorless report might suggest that some agenda is at work. --Wetman 01:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP We don't create terms or conceive of a philosophy attached to it. We report what exists in popular culuture, academia, etc. There is ample documentation of use in the popular media. Lotsofissues 13:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Common and completely misleading term. -Sean Curtin 00:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to, and merge all relevant content to Islamism. Then protect the article. --Blackcats 06:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, since the article defines it as a political epithet rather than any actually existing political entity. --goethean 17:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I change my vote to redirect to Islamism. Since Islamofascism is defined in the intro of Islamism, the Islamofascism article is suprefluous.--goethean 17:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do not let Islamists hijack (no pun intended?) Wikipedia! - BSveen 21:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
What a surprising vote from someone who shows his hatred for the Islamic religion on his userpage. I guess a deletion of a redundant article is Islamists hijacking Wikipedia, some NPOV editor you are.Yuber 04:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Enhance, Redirect if not delete. I still see paragraphs in the article that start with an S and end with a D like Some people have used..., Some have applied..., Supporters of the term contend.... Some or many? The other para suggests that most Muslims feel that the comparison of Islamic extremism to ideologies such as Nazism or other forms of fascism is offensive and nonfactual.. Most or all muslims? Equal-Arm, Unequal-Arm, or Spring balance? The article obviously has not been enhanced enough in order to be deserved a status of a NPOV article worth reading for most people. Doesn't the style sound like a bloggy one? The existance of Islamofascism is still questioned let alone its POV style! Well, I gave my vote before the end of the month.
All that said, I have just presented a newbie one called Americofascism to Vfd (Btw, I had given before my comment somewhere in this discussion about the fact that Islamofascism would open the door to all kinds of X-rated fascism articles that goes from A to Z like Americofascism). So that is what happened! So we got work to do; let's again vote and argue our POVs regarding the new star. Cheers Svest 06:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is PROPAGANDA, not an article. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. Islamofascism is a neologism and is not an accepted word in circles other than neo-conservative hate forums. We do not need this utterly disgusting anti-Islamic and anti-Arab propaganda on our encyclopedia. - Stancel 16:36, 30 Apr 2005 {UTC)

[edit] Comments

Don't place votes in this section

(copied here from Talk:Islamofascism)

You can, of course, create any number of words using the formula: X + Fascist tendencies = Xofascism. How about 'Graecofascism'? 'Sinofascism'? 'Hindofascism'? The trouble is, having created the term, it's also easy to create a concept to go with it, and then to create a history. You don't even need to go outside the facts; there'll always be, in any nationality, race, or religion that's been around for a while examples of people or groups acting badly. The term 'fascism' is being used in such a Usenet/school-debating-society way that that's all you need. Wikipedia isn't here to invent new concepts, nor to parrot whatever nonsense the U.S. neo-cons have come up with as they flail around trying to find reasons to attack other countries. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I am not sure you are being fair to school-debating-society's ;-) Dalf | Talk 22:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't forget Wikifascism :) TigerShark 12:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm seriously considering creating an article on Christofascism if this article and Judeofascism aren't deleted or redirected. Why should only two of the three main Abrahamic religions have an insulting POV article with the suffix "-fascism" attached? Or would that constitute WP:POINT? Firebug 17:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It would of course be deleted by the same faction who want this epithet kept. Grace Note 16:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily so... I for one would vote to redirect Christofascism (which would be a pretty obvious neologism, btw) to Christian Fundamentalism. -- 8^D gab 16:49, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
        Wow. I guess I'd consider such a vote as an irrefutable demonstration that there are people voting on such issues who haven't the foggiest notion what they're talking about. Tomer TALK 23:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hinduist, Buddhist, etc. 'fascism' are a frightening reality, involving ...'the most heavenly exctacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimantalism'... [towards] a new high-tech Dark Ages. But I have yet to see the oh' shorthand used in any serious exposition (from within revolutionary currents, at least, where I've seen such concepts elaborated on at some length). E.g. [4] El_C 21:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the article is developed, it's becoming more and more distasteful (and many of the comments made by those who want to keep it betray an ignorance of the issues here, as well as a disturbing emotional tone). We're told, for example, that some Islamic leaders allied with fascists in the second World War, but no mention is made of the fact that the fascists in question were Christians, and the purely pragmatic, non-ideological nature of the contacts is not properly explained. There's in fact no indication that any of the Muslims involved held any sort of fascist belief. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Hitler was not a Christian, he was an occult follower of the "Thule Society," a pagan group that was highly influential in the Nazi hierarchy. User:Porphyria 00:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Mel: Your assertion that the contacts between Islamic leaders and European Christian fascists were non-ideological in nature seems to overlook recorded statements of, e.g., the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. User:Mike Thomas 00:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm arguing this in two places – here, and on Talk:Islamofascism – and the result is sometimes a bit disjointed. It seems clear that al-Husseyni was ideologically involved with Nazism (just as some English aristocrats, royals, and politicians were), but any general Arab support for Nazism shouldn't be attributed to so-called Islamofascism.

Here's the logic, folks: I identify a Nazi-sympathizing Muslim. Islam therefore has a fascist dimension. Hmmm. Does the failure of the Catholic Church to vigorously and explicitly oppose Nazi crimes against Jews justify an entry for Catholifacism?

I suppose that what's offensive about this article (and the comments of some people on this page) is that, whereas we talk about Italian fascists, and Spanish fascists, and Greek fascists, etc., rather than Christofascists, when it comes to the Muslim world it's OK to lump all the Islamic countries and groups together. The turning of Judeofascism into a redirect presumably involved a recognition of the same fact in that case; there are of course Jewish fascists (Jews are no more immune to human stupidity and nastiness than any other group), and many people have seen the actions of certain Israeli politicians and parties as having fascist aspects — but it's wrong to use the general, smearing, and to my mind bigoted term 'Judeofascism'. Why on Earth can't the same reasonableness be applied here? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like your reasoning here, but the thing is. If the use of the term was reasonable then it would not belong in List of political epithets. The question for me is weather or not the epiteth merits an article and if such an article can possibly in the current enviornment be NPOV. I think the answer to the first question is yes, this term is used enough that someone will likely look it up here. The second question is what will they find? I voted to re-direct because that seemed the safest waty to make sure they found somethign reasonable. If the article could be keep about the epiteth and NPOV I would have voted to keep. Dalf | Talk 09:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Islamic/Islamo Fascism

For those of us learned in Middle Eastern history, it is clear that fascist-derived ideologies and Islamism have always been violently opposed (see:Hama Massacre). The fascist-derived ideologies in the Middle East such as the Kateab Party, the Baath party, and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party have been almost entirely supported by Christians or minority groups in the Arab world that feared Islamism. The founder of the SSNP was a Christian, as the founder of the Baath was Greek orthodox. The Kataeb was founded by Bachir Gemayel, a Maronite Christian militant. All these ideologies were officially secular but had mainly Christian support. Islamic fascism is a contradiction in all senses of the word. Islamism has no ideas about racial superiority either. That is why it is utterly ridiculous to have an Islamic fascism article.

My views on this article are that it is a way for WalkingEagles and Klonimus to insert their own judgement into an Anti-Islamic term that should frankly be listed under political epithets. Just because neo-cons have started using this term more does not make it factually or historically correct.Yuber 16:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Yuber, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia ergo it is encyclopedic, It's pretty clear at this point that Islamofascism is a widely used term with a specfic meaning, and hence deserves inclusion in WP. Just because you and your buddies don't like the term, or think it's anti-Islamic, has no bearing on the matter. Klonimus 01:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nice job not refuting anything I had to say :).Yuber 02:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, you remind me of the texas farmer who was the best shot in the west. First he would shoot, and then he would paint a bullseye. I'm not playing a game with you about weather Islamofascism exists or not. It doesn't matter if the term is as you claim "factually or historically correct", it matters that it is being widely used to mean a specific concept. And therefore must be documented in an encyclopedic encyclopaedia.
At the moment I have to say that I agree with the general direction of the Islamofascism article. It was a mistake on my part to combine Islamic Fascism (Fusion of Islam and fascist political movements) with Islamofascism (term to describe totalitarian Islam, and groups that support it.). I think the current split is a good idea, and the two articles can crosslink. I do wish the whole thing could have been done with less rancor, which would have been the case if people hadn't been so quick to delete materiel they found objectionable. . Klonimus 17:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to Resort this VfD

IMHO it would be nice if thise VFD could be reformated along the lines of.

  • Evidence of Notability
  • Keep Votes
  • Delete Votes
  • Redirect Votes
  • Comments

The current VfD would make a nice article in itself. Controversy surrounding Islamfascism anyone? Klonimus 01:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No resorting, please. It only confuses things even more, and breaks the cronological flow. --cesarb 01:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps once this debate is closed. At the moment any resorting, especially by an involved party, would just complicate matters. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And for heaven's sake, the last thing we should ever do is an article based upon a controversy as expressed in a VfD. Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia. (And, no, please do not resort or refactor VfDs, ever.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question for all who vote to keep

If a coalition of hate groups (may Allah(swt) forbid) started talking about a Jewish conspiracy to control the global media, coined a single catch-word for that supposed conspiracy, and kept posting that single catch-word on blogs until it started showing up on Google, would that new word deserve an entry in a responsibly -edited encyclopedia? (Not a rhetorical query, I'd like your answer, please.)BrandonYusufToropov 17:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is in fact such a term. It's called Jewish Supremacism. It gets thousands of Google Hits and was coined by a White Supremacist. It is merely a political epithet just like Islamofascism.Yuber 17:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well Yuber, go make an article on it. Klonimus 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why would I? That would be hypocritical of me, and I have no interest in making articles just to degrade religions and people, unlike some people here.Yuber 23:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There's also Zionist Occupied Government, for which we have a decent article that treats the slur as a slur and doesn't spend time on the backgrounds or political views of U.S. neocons. As it should. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Go make an article about Jewish Influence on American Politics Klonimus 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If I were going to do that, which I'm not, why would I use that awkward title when Zionist Occupied Government and variants get thousands of Google hits? —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Nigger" gets thousands of Google hits too, but we don't make "Nigger" the primary title or even a redirect to "African American". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Precisely. Yet we (or Klonimus and co., at least) use "Islamofascism" as the primary title. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mirv, ZOG is a term used by racist kooks, Islamofascism is a commonly used word in the media when talking about totalitarian Islamism. Klonimus 01:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Islamofascism" is similarly a term used by racist kooks and political polemicists. In academic discourse, for example, it is a non-starter. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Islamofascism" gets used in the Wall Street Journal, National Review and the Sunday Times, this suggests that it has entered the mainstream of respectable opinion. Weather or not you personally agree with that. I take your further silence as the sound of profound ownage Klonimus 16:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Two outlets of U.S. right-wing opinion, and which Sunday Times? Your failure to refute my argument about academic discourse is telling. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am unsure how many people voting to keep this article are doing so out of a misguided attempt to present articles on all phrases that enter common parlance. This is not and has never been the objective of a responsible encyclopedia. (Is there an entry in the Columbia Encyclopedia for "trailer trash"? Or "retard"? Or "wetback"?) This is the kind of pejorative we're dealing with, and if you don't think so, you're not thinking very hard. BrandonYusufToropov 01:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for someone who voted to keep to respond to this (non-rhetorical) question. Once again, it is:

If a coalition of hate groups (may Allah(swt) forbid) started talking about a Jewish conspiracy to control the global media, coined a single catch-word for that supposed conspiracy, and kept posting that single catch-word on blogs until it started showing up on Google, would that new word deserve an entry in a responsibly -edited encyclopedia?BrandonYusufToropov 19:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who answers your question can probably expect to have his words used against him in some way. You're not exactly being subtle about it. Rhobite 20:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I translate as: Yes, there is a double standard at work here, but I'd rather not discuss it. BrandonYusufToropov 20:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No there isn't such a term, but if it existed then it would merit inclusion and good article. I can understand why you might find casual use of the term islamofascism offensive. How ever the term is in wide use, and a comprensive encyclopedia must document it. This is independant of the moral value of the word itself when used to describe totalitarian Islamism. Klonimus 01:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, thanks for the stealthily amended answer (above) to my complaint (below, entered 23:01 24 Apr), but it would have been more comprehensible, and more honest, if you had not gone back and quietly edited the line I was complaining about, so as to make it look like I was making things up. You did offer a straight answer to the question, though, which is something. What you're saying is that something patently offensive, a la "K-ke conspiracy to dominate world media" deserves an entry on its own, yes?[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 10:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure go wild on Jewish influence on world media,Jewish influence on american politics, [[Jewish influence on israeli politics, Jewish influence on iraqi politics, Jewish influence on candian politics anything you like. Having an article on something doesn't mean you agree with it, wikipedia exisits to document all that exists. BTW I changed my signature so that anyone could see that I edited my reply. Klonimus 00:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are either deliberately ignoring, or somehow failing to understand, my point. I suspect it's the former. But, just in case .... I am not talking about sanitized article titles like the ones you propose above, but rather something patently offensive -- just like Islamofascism -- as the title for an article. You're not talking about calling the page something vaguely intelligent like Political trends in Islam, but instead insisting on a single, foul-sounding coinage that lumps 1 billion people together with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. My question is, if bloggers made a similiarly offensive, similarly paranoid neologism about Jewish people show up on Google, would that offensive term itself be appopriate as the title of an article? BrandonYusufToropov 02:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If that term became very popular, was cited in prominent mainstream media and books, and described a concept that is notable: then yes it deserves an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia exists to document what exisits. Klonimus 16:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With respect, I can't help noticing that you're ducking the question I posed. BrandonYusufToropov 23:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have not and do not indend to vote, but I just wanted to say, perhaps the problem here is systemic bias against Islam due to lack of editors. Ideally, I'm sure we all agree that whatever the decision is, delete, redirect, or whatever, should be applied consistenly to equivalent articles. We all know that there are probably fascist tendencies everywhere. So consistency should be easily achieved, escpecially with all of this interest. --Dmcdevit 20:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of people ready to insert Islamic bias at the drop of a burqa. Klonimus 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • To say that is intentionally dishonest. How could anyone imply Islamic topics have the same scope as Western ones? Compare Israel and Belgium, for example, to Western Sahara and Mali. I think the idea that a because term is heard of (it's certainly not wide) makes it encyclopedic is just wrong. That's for a dictionary. There has to be something to it to be encyclopedic. And, just wondering, where is Islamodemocracy? Surely that's just as common a phenomenon... --Dmcdevit 22:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • My understanding is that the article is NOT about the supposed phenomenon, but is about the epithet. Dalf | Talk 04:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • That last note was meant as sarcasm, didn't you hear my tone of voice? :) --Dmcdevit 04:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Israel is far more interesting to more wikieditors than Belgium,Western Sahara, and Mali are. Sadly, in the present world, Islamic Democracy is much less common than Islamofascism, but hopfully in the future Islamic Democracy will become more common than Islamofascism. I think we can all agree on that. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, ergo it is encyclopedic. Klonimus 01:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Umm... I'm sorry but interest is not what makes something encyclopedic, and lack of interest does not make it not encyclopedic. You should come take a look around CSB sometime. --Dmcdevit 02:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Answers to Yusuf's question

  1. I voted redirect to list of political epithets but I see the case for a keep vote provided the page documents the use of the epithet and only provides links to more appropriately titled articles for discussion of the content. In an ideal world, editors could actually keep to such a policy, and so an article on Yusuf's hypothetical epithet would be good for Wikipedia, but too many editors are too gummed up with hormones and propaganda not to opine on the content, so redirects are better. Please note the parallels between this argument and that on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Prussian Holocaust... --- Charles Stewart 08:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm gonna be bold, answering, as one who did not vote for "keep", in a forum in which the requestant has not requested my input: Islamofascism is a term that has come to be accepted in journalistic circles, if only "outside CNN", as a descriptor of fascistic tendencies exemplified by the leadership of certain (sadly, the vast majority of) Islamic régimes. Wishing the term into oblivion is neither intellectually honest nor encyclopedic. That said, you'll note, my vote was to redirect the content of this article to Islamic Theological Intolerance or something equally descriptive. The concept within modern Islam is, not only present, but prevalent, and in certain circles, predominant. The term "Islamofascism", however, as derogatory as it might sound to the vast majority of Muslims, is one that has gained a not-insignificant currency in the Journalism of the West. The only relevant question here, if I might be so bold, is whether or not this term should be the TITLE of an article, or a redirect to an article describing the phenomenon. My contention is that Islam has inherent tendencies that permit the interpretation thereof in favor of Fascism, but that the term "Islamofascism" should be applied exclusively to such groups as follow this interpretation, which is, unfortunately, gaining sway within the muslim world. As such, any such article should concentrate on these groups, rather than dragging down the erstwhile phenomenal accomplishments of Islamic Civilization (which OK, here's my bias, is nothing more than the preservation and encouragement of the achievements of civilization overtaken by muslim warriors, but that really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand). To say, however, that fascism is not a(n unfortunate and predominant) trend within modern (vocal) Islam, is neither historically nor intellectually honest. I wish it were otherwise, perhaps more than most muslims, in fact, but the fact remains, Islam in "this day and age" has been coöpted by the dominance and influence of Wahhabism and Allawitism, both of which are quintessentially fascist, sadly. Tomer TALK 10:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you should have voted redirect. Apart from that I pretty much agree with everything you say. --- Charles Stewart 10:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) --- Postscript: A caveat: I don't think that Islam is ideologically a good fit for quasi-fascism, but the fact in most Arab countries is that Islam provides the only non-suicidal means of dissent. The connection is structural and circumstantial, and quite different to what User:Klonimus has been arguing. --- Charles Stewart 11:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you're illiterate: I did vote redirect... Just to make sure... Tomer TALK 12:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Illiterate? No, rather literate, just time-challenged: I misconstrued a less-than-ideally-worded sentence that I could have figured out with more care. --- Charles Stewart 19:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I guess I can understand the argument for a redirect to list of political epithets. I agree we could probably handle such offensive terms in this way, assuming intelligent editing that does not succumb to cultural or political bias.
I do have a couple of questions about some of your underlying assumptions, though, which I hope you'll consider.
When you say that fascism is descriptive of 'the vast majority" of Islamic regimes -- I hope you don't consider Egypt, UAE, Indonesia, Turkey, etc. to be members of this universe of "Islamic regimes"? Do you? That there are Muslims within a secular government does not make it an Islamic regime!
Which "Islamic regime," specifically, do you consider to be fascist? If your answer is, say, Saudi Arabia, how does the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a bitter enemy of the ruling monarchy enter into your calculus? Does that mean that the ruling family are Islamofascists, but Bin Laden, by opposing them, is anti-fascist? Are you sure you don't mean to say that some governments that rule over Muslims are authoritarian?
No, they are totalitarian, try waving an Israeli Flag in Mecca or Riyadh and see how long it takes before you get arrested. Try walking around in shorts on a hot summer day in Jeddah, Try having a satellite dish and watching CNN in Teheran. Islamism invades every aspect of life in Saudi Arabia or Iran, not just politics. Egypt is authoritarian, Saudi Arabia/Iran are totalitarian. The bitter enemies of these totalitarian regimes, do not in anyway exonorate the regimes they are attacking. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were totalitarian states, same for Saddam era Iraq and Iran. Klonimus 20:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(sigh)I know you don't like those countries. Question is not whether you like them, but whether a) they are "Islamic regimes," as has been claimed, and b) whether they are fascist, according to some meaningful definition of the world. I can't get Bridges TV (Muslim cable network) here in Massachusetts, but that doesn't mean Massachusetts is fascist. Are you arguing for Islamototalitarianism? If so, you're on the wrong page. Please stay on topic, and please try to focus on the actual conversation we're trying to have, ok? BrandonYusufToropov 22:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Iran claims to be an "Islamic Republic", the rulers of saudi arabia claim to be custodians of the two holy mosques and defenders of the faith. IMHO they are self proclaimed "Islamic regimes." Both governments also enforce sharia law which would make them Islamic by definition. I personally have no opinion if they are fascists or not, but I think a good case could be made for both sides. Klonimus 01:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yusuf, you seem to be missing the point that Wikipedia does not exist to pass judgement, only to document: that means that we are documenting the claims that surround the useage of the term Islamofascist without passing any judgement over its existance or nonexistance, pejorative nature, moral value of those who use the term, history of use, etc etc.Klonimus 01:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, you and I simply disagree on this.
  • If it were as you say, we would have an independent main article on the word "Nigger," and we don't.
  • Why don't we? Because it's patently offensive.
  • Now then. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two examples I thought of, too, that might conceivably be called "Islamic regimes."
  • But -- reality check -- the claim was that a majority of these "Islamic regimes" were fascist, and that is simply not factual, unless "fascist" means "objectionable to the speaker" or some such ridiculousness.
  • Factuality is apparently not a big deal for you, which is fine, but if you believe, as you appear to (with others on this page) that there is some "trend" toward fascism in Islam, then I submit that it is incumbent upon you to explain why you believe this, and to use the words "Fascism" and "Islam" as though they had consistent meanings. BrandonYusufToropov 01:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When you say that fascism is a "trend within modern (vocal) Islam," I assume you mean fascism, the real thing, as opposed to fascism, the "boo" word that carries no actual meaning beyond "you're a bad guy." So presumably you are saying that there is a sect within Islam that embraces corporatism? I'm unfamiliar with this sect or its proponents. Can you please be a little more specific about it?
Its the fusion of government ideology plus national oil companies as a source of wealth. Klonimus 20:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
a) That's a "trend within modern (vocal) Islam"? Where's the trend? Which scholar is espousing it? b) By your logic, USSR, which had both oil wealth and a state ideology, was fascist, not Communist. Is that what you mean to say? Again, I thought fascism had something to do with corporatism.
Again, thanks for the response. BrandonYusufToropov 12:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


It seems that this is going nowhere! I just wonder how come a NPOV of a few right-wing writers (I say a few) could turn into a 1-0 in the propaganda war and How the right played the fascism card against Islam! I just wonder indeed how come two articles of the same nature (talking about this one and the other shamefull non-sense fictitious Judeofascism) could have different fates! How come Judeofascism got already a status of pending deletion?!! Because of google hits?! Is this the main argument? (If yes is your answer, then refer to the end of my intervention below). Who spends most of his time discussing the phenomenon of Islamofascism on forums and blogs? Aren't they people who got an anti-islamic agenda?

In this list of pejorative slogans at Nationmaster.com both expressions are listed and explained without any POV. So wouldn't be the same in Wikipedia? Worse indeed. Some users have already started Islamic fascism and claim both articles mean different things!! . So explain to us how different they are please! It is clear that there is a difference between Big mama and Big Mama, between bin Laden and Bin Laden ("He's one of them bin-ladens") as refering to Arabs.

If we follow this trend we will end up having duplicate articles confusing readers and ourselves.

I still believe this article have to be kept but also have to focus on the pejorative nature of the term instead of claiming non-sense things relating state controlled business to fascism without any single reference! Do we have to include countries like France into that category?!! A break please!

Do we have to start an article called Americofascism (or whatever you name it) because of Guantanamo camp? It will be a total non-sense kind of article though I will give you this argument:

  • "Islamic fascism" offers you 17,500 barrels of oil.
  • "american fasicm" cannot offer you less than 17,300 dollars.
  • guantanamo +fascism in google gives you 48,200 handcuffs.

I am sorry but I am not that good on googlewhacking though the above is not a real GW. --Svest 14:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do not delete votes

Somebody deleted (by accident? intentionally?) a keep vote. Please please please don't do this, it makes things far more difficult for everyone, okay? BrandonYusufToropov 16:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. It was clearly unintentional. It probably happened because I saved the page twice when the server was having some problems. It is already fixed by TShilo12 now. --Svest 16:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
No problem, sorry to even bring it up, but I wanted to err on the side of caution. BrandonYusufToropov 17:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recap for those who voted to keep

I voted to keep because there are indeed fascistic trends in contemporary Islam.

Are you really and truly sure you understand the definition of Fascism? Is it worth clicking on the link for thirty seconds or so to check? Do you realize that people who are actually promoting contemporary brands of fascism in the Middle East are bitter enemies of Islamists? Do facts matter in an encyclopedia, or not?
    • Somehow you seem to miss the point, that Islamofascism is "new" idea, and not one derived mathematically from first principals of Islam and/or Fascism. So insisting that it be made to do so is silly and nonproductive. And voting to delete on this basis is also silly. Klonimus 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
      • Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
      • `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
      • `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
      • `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' BrandonYusufToropov 20:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC), channeling.

I voted to keep because the term is apparently in common use.

Is the word "Jap" in common use to describe Japanese people? Does it deserve an article unto itself? How about "Sand Nigger"? Is there any point at which patently offensive epithets do not deserve an entry?
    • If they are a neologism of utterly minor usage, like Judeofascism, then they dont belong in WP. Otherwise they do. Klonimus 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • FWIW, Sand Nigger is currently a redirect to List of ethnic slurs, as is Jap. I think that Islamofascism and Islamofascist should be redirects to List of political epithets for the same reason. (They're not quite ethnic slurs, because most commentators who use these terms deny that they are referring to all Muslims or Arabs.) Firebug 06:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Great Firebug. But, as we know, Islamofascism is a phenomenon according to some writers. It is not a connotation as for Sand Nigger or Raghead. On this basis, the article should exist by itself. The question now is why having two articles instead of one? According to Klonimus, there is a big distinction. Defending the idea of having two separate articles, He explained this yesterday in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Islamic_fascism. He wrote:
Just so people are clear on what it being voted upon.
    • Islamofascism Term used to describe totalitarian Islamism
    • Islamic fascism Term used to describe actual muslim fascists. I.e Bosnian SS Units, Grand Mufti, etc.
(by Klonimus, only signed timestamp) 20:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Now, do we agree about the definitions or not? Personally, I don't buy it for reasons explained in response on the discussion there. IMHO, we need to discuss this here as well as we are doing in Islamic fascism before deciding what to do; whether to merge and then keep them or not merge and redirect them to whatever we agree about. --Svest 10:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
RE: "Do we agree about the definitions or not?" I just want to point out that Klonimus is now arguing that Islamofascism is a "new idea" that need not conform to the real-world definition of fascism. Yet, before he took this position, in his many edits on this article, he repeatedly (and vainly, in my opinion) argued that state-controlled oil wealth amounted, more or less, to corporatism. This was a clear attempt on his part to match this patently offensive epithet with the actual poli-sci meaning of the term "fascism."
Well, which is it? Is "Islamofascism" a "new idea" that floats effortlessly above the real-world meaning of fascism? Or is it an actual description of an Islamic political philosophy advocating the combination of state and corporate power? Forget about whether anyone else agrees about the definitions. Does Klonimus agree about the definitions?BrandonYusufToropov 12:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unlike some people on wikipedia, I can change my mind. I carefully reconsiddered what my understanding of the facts of the matter are and came to a new conclusion. Islamism and Fascism are distinctly separate idea's however many Islamist movements are inspired by fascists and may share elements of fascism. My current understanding is that Islamofascism is a notable neologism used to describe sub-types of Islamism that share certain attributes (Anti western, pro Jihad, and seeking to create totalitarian Islamic societies) At this point I don't think Islamofascism as a concept is deeply connected to fascism. How ever many Islamofascists, are inspired by people like the Grand Mufti who are undeniably fascist. In some countires the government is Iran, or is influenced by Islamofascists (Saudi Arabia. I still think that the fusion of oil wealth plus Ideology brings elements of fascism to countires governed by Islamofascit governments. Klonimus 03:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I voted to keep because Wikipedia is here to document, not to pass any kind of judgment on, ideas.

Are we prepared to employ this standard consistently, even with ideas with which we personally disagree? For one fascinating answer, see [[5]]

Even if the word "fascism" isn't quite a perfect fit, I voted to keep because I feel sure there is something troubling happening in Islam, and this term is the word that currently seems to be connected to that troubling process, the details of which I am unable to specify.

See systemic bias.
    • See I voted to keep because Wikipedia is here to document, not to pass any kind of judgment on, ideas. Klonimus 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I voted to keep because journalists are using this term, and they tend to be correct.

No comment.
    • See I voted to keep because Wikipedia is here to document, not to pass any kind of judgment on, ideas. Klonimus 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I voted to keep because I personally do not like Islam, and this term insults Muslims in a way that I feel is probably justified these days.

Okay. Nobody actually wrote this, but: shoe ... fit ...
    • No one has said or Implied anything remotly like that in this entire VfD: except you. There is no vast zionist conspiracy to fill wikipedia with anti-Islamic bias. The vast majority of wikipedian's dont care about Islamoanything, but they sure do care about creating a comprehensive encyclopedia that doccuments all human knowledge. Including knowledge that may be offensive to some muslims. Klonimus 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov 18:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Brandon, this "patently offensive epithet" is just that--it is not a scientific term, and is therefore not bound by the need to fulfill any criteria whatsoever, other than its ability to get people to latch onto it. At the same time, however, there are three problems with what you're trying to do here. (1) You're basically trying to browbeat people into agreeing with your point of view by arguing in terms that really have, unfortunately, nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the article. (2) You're using this logical subterfuge to cloud the issue: there is a phenomenon in the muslim world which this word was specifically coined to describe (which, frighteningly, has more in common with Hitlerian and Goebbelsian Nazism than it has to do with the more readily recognized forms of Spanish and Italian fascism). And (3) you've turned a VfD discussion into a freeforall. Stick to the subject matter. You've succeeded in derailing the relevant discussion (the de/merits of the article), and turned it instead into a discussion of how those who wish to keep the article, with whom you've been very unprofessionally adversarial, should really be doing original research instead. Tomer TALK 13:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying, but I would ask you in turn how you would pursue a discussion of the "merits of the article" if it was your faith or nationality that had been targeted by an article's patently offensive underlying assumption/implication.
Let's begin here: Would you agree with me that it is possible that the reason some people want this article to stand independently is in order to lend some kind of legitimacy to a blatant religious slur?
With respect, the "merits" of such an analysis as appears in Islamofascism are not what we should be most concerned about. (And as a side note, I think my edits have substantially improved the "merits" of this particular piece, which should count for something.)
With regard to your points on the "phenomenon in the Muslim world" that you find disturbing. Let me draw a parallel.
  • The Cosa Nostra has for many years appropriated the trappings of Roman Catholicism in its rituals, meetings, initiations, etc.
  • The Cosa Nostra has also undertaken many loathsome crimes, including assassination, drug dealing, mass murder, extortion, etc.
  • Are members of the Cosa Nostra "Catholic"? Interesting question we could debate at length.
  • Do the actions of members of the Cosa Nostra represent a "phenomenon in the Christian world" that we would find disturbing? I think not. Rather, they are thugs.
  • Their actions represent a "phenomenon in the thug world," definitely disturbing, but not to be confused in a million years with Christianity or its teachings.
  • If someone were to write an article about, say, Catholic doctrine as reflected in Mafia hits, would you expect a Catholic to patiently discuss the reasoning in the article? Or would you expect that Catholic to tell you forthrightly that the very existence of the article was patently offensive and did not belong in WP? BrandonYusufToropov 14:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Brandon, as I've pointed out previously, I think this should be a redirect, either to an article that deals with racism, anti-semitism, anti-westernism, or whatever, in the muslim world, or simply back to list of political epithets. I agree it's patently offensive, and while anti-semitism and anti-westernism are rampant in the arab world, there are other articles that deal with this already. The Islamofascism article had the potential to be a decent article at one time, but there are related issues, no matter how remotely, that are too close to the hearts of too many of us for it to long remain an NPOV article, unforunately. Deleting it altogether, however, is a bad idea, however, IMHO, because it will open up the slate for someone to start this whole machlochet again. (Hmmm...maybe I should start Machlochet and make it a redirect to this talk page...) Tomer TALK 17:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see that the issue is getting out of hand and being deflected to personal attacks instead of being a responsible discussion. We don't care too much about keep, delete, merge, but we do care more about being reponsible. User:TShilo12 claims that there is a phenomenon in the muslim world which this word was specifically coined to describe (which, frighteningly, has more in common with Hitlerian and Goebbelsian Nazism than it has to do with the more readily recognized forms of Spanish and Italian fascism). Are you serious??! Is this the point you are trying to inject into the article? Is this the agenda behind your support to keep the article? If yes, then I would really Reconsider my earlier keep and merge vote.

If your personal comments are based upon the Grand Mufti, than this excerpt is worth reading:

  • ...The most damaging development in this respect was itself the result of western meddling. When the Mufti (religious leader) of Jerusalem died in 1921, the recently appointed British Governor, Sir Herbert Samuel, took charge of appointing a successor, inventing the new title of ‘Grand Mufti’.
When the local electoral college of pious Muslims voted for a moderate and learned leader and placed at the bottom of their list Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a young man in his twenties, given to fanaticism and hatred of the Jews, the Governor was initially content and confirmed the appointment. However, at this point the Hajj’s powerful family, backed by right-wing extremists, launched a fierce campaign of denigration against the electoral college, accusing its members of treacherously conspiring with the Jews to appoint one of their own party.
Sir Herbert, who was himself Jewish, sought the counsel of E. T. Richmond, who acted as adviser on Muslim Affairs, and who was an extreme anti-Zionist. Richmond persuaded Sheikh Hisam al-Din, the man who had already been confirmed in the post, to stand down. He then convinced Samuel that the best way to restore order was to concede to the agitators by letting the Hajj become Grand Mufti. This was in spite of the fact that the Hajj had already been imprisoned by the British in 1920 for his role in fomenting vicious anti-Jewish riots.
The British themselves were thus responsible for turning an electoral process upside-down in order to install an extremist Palestinian leader. This abuse of power would have fateful consequences not only for the future of Israel but also for ordinary Palestinians who were now subjected to a leader they had not chosen but for whose ill-judged actions they would, in the years to come, repeatedly be held responsible... -richard webster, [6] New Statesman, November 29, 2002

If that happened yesterday and explained today, what about today? Which relation is there between the muslim world which this word was specifically coined to describe (which, frighteningly, has more in common with Hitlerian and Goebbelsian Nazism than it has to do with the more readily recognized forms of Spanish and Italian fascism)?

Cheers and total respect! Svest 16:04, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not injecting anything into anywhere, so put your soapbox away. :-p Tomer TALK 17:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
And no, nothing I said had anything to do with where the (deposed) "Grand Mufti" spent the bulk of WW2. What I'm referring to are the blood libels that fill the official state-run newspapers of such "moderate" countries as Egypt and Qatar, as well as the laws in such wonderful countries as "our friend" Jordan, prohibiting the sale of land to Jews, a "crime" that is punishible by death. Tomer TALK 17:27, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tomer. No worries about the soapbox ;-). I believe we are dealing here with something called Islamofascism and not Arab Fascism. Do you mean you are giving your ok vote on the basis of the Arab official state-run newspapers instead of Mr Big Mufti? Cheers & TR. -Svest 17:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Grrrrrrrr! Apparently you haven't been listening! I voted redirect! I voted redirect! I VOTED REDIRECT!!! </yelling> :-p -t Tomer TALK 17:51, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
One other minor point tho...I would have said "Arab antisemitism" if it were limited to the Arab world, but, sadly, it's not. This same kind of rubbish gets big play in Pakistan and Indonesia, for example, which are not Arab. Tomer TALK 17:53, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Just because there has been a confusion between the explanation given for your keep, but rename and your comments relating the phenomenon to Nazis. I am with keeping it though I will not be against renaming it or even redirecting it. IMO, the problem is the potential duplication (i.e. Islamic fascism). But anyway, let's deal with this first. Cheers Svest 18:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closure

  • Can't we put this VfD out of its misery and close this page? It's clearly a no consensus. --- Charles Stewart 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree No concensus on any outcome. But the article iteself is constantly undergoing work. This suggests that its subject is notable and encyclopedic. And hence the final closure should be 'No Consensus-Keep. Most of the arguments presented for deletion amount to an "appeal to political correctness" noting that article covers a subject which may be offensive to some muslims. IMHO thats a very weak argument for deletion.Klonimus 21:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What say you and I and the rest of the partisans be quiet now, Klonimus, and let the grownups decide this one, eh? BrandonYusufToropov 03:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. There's no such thing as no consensus-keep — it doesn't even make sense.
  2. To say that most (or even many; indeed, any?) people have voted against merely because of political corretcness is absurd and insulting (and indicates that you have either not really read or not understood the arguments. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree with Klonimus and Charles Stewart: This article should be deleted. If Americofascism is deleted, then this article should be deleted along with the other article Islamic fascism. It is not objective to delete articles such as Americofascism while keeping others such as Islamofascism. I might as well create an article called Christofascism. I see alot of hypocrisy with the people voting "keep" for this but "delete" for "americofascism". This is a HATE article, propaganda, and a hodgepodge of misconceptions and allegations. If you want to debate Islam, go somewhere else. - Stancel 18:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that you eem to have missed the point of the process. When you vote and give your reasons, that's when you say what you want to happen. If a clear majority doesn't agree with you, then it doesn't happen. By entering the process, you agree to that. In this case, it's likely that an unpleasant, bigoted article will remain on Wikipedia; that's sad, but it's unrealistic to expect that Wikipedia will be more rational and moral than the outside world. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rough tally

Note: This is a crude tally of votes (and, as many of them were a bit vague, it's not even guaranteed to be pin-point accurate even then). The admin who has the unenviable task of sorting out this VfD won't just count votes, but will look at the arguments offered, and try to come to some conclusion concerning consensus. For my money, too many of the 'keep' votes were either based on Google hits or on anti-Islamic prejudice, but I'll not be the admin responsible because I'm involved.

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

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think the admins themselves should decide this, not some of these bigots. It is Wikipedia policy to be fair, objective, and NPOV. If you want to be objective, you can not delete an article called Americofascism (it looks like this will be deleted) while keeping an article called Islamofascism. It's HYPOCRISY!. If one wants to discuss the authoritarianism in Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia, one is welcome to add information, as long as its NPOV, factual, and without the word "fascism". But making an article by the name of some bogus term and trying to make a point that Muslims are "fascists" is not NPOV. DELETE! - Stancel 18:46, 30 Apr 2005 {UTC}

Taken from the Wikipedia VFD page, "Merged and/or redirected to an existing article" counts as one type of vote. I've changed the tally accordingly.Yuber 23:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: After all we have argued about above -in a civic manner, I only found one single disgusting vote, one vote comming from someone. He it goes: Keep. Do not let Islamists hijack (no pun intended?) Wikipedia! - 21:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC).
This is Wikipedia, not an airplane, neither a Wbur forum! Are you serious? Is that the only reason you got for us here to your vote? No other reason letting us know why? I couldn't judge your temperament but my comment now is based on you userpage instead. I am sorry to give you now my POV on it; I mean you still got the definition of the term fascism the wrong way. Anyways, I hope that your vote will be considered. Cheers and respect - Svest 03:57, May 1, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Why was my vote deleted?

Expect me to be working real hard on Christofascism. - Stancel 12:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia:Avoid personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  3. WP:POINT

An anon editor left {{ unclosed, and this caused yours and MANY OTHER comments not to be displayed. Nothing was deleted, nothing was lost, calm down. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. But if this article is kept on Wikipedia, I'm still going to be working on Christofascism. Until Islamofascism is deleted, I will bring Christofascism to perfect featured article status, although it currently does not exist yet. I hope we'll be able to come to a compromise in the following days, if not, expect Christofascism to grow! I'm doing this in the name of NPOV, because I don't believe it's right to allow this clearly biased article to exist. So in the end if all goes well both Christofascism and Islamofascism and all others of these ridiculous -fascism suffix articles will be deleted. And my plan will have been accomplished. LOL I just told you my plan. oh well. ;-) Stancel 14:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Just to repeat one of Jpgordon's links more clearly: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't starting an article called Islamofascism in the first place be considered "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point"? - Stancel 2:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No. You should read the page to which I gave the link. Creating an article that you think should be here might be a mistake, or misguided, but it's not disrupting to make a point; creating an article that you think shouldn't be here is. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

So what's the final verdict on this? - Stancel 14:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.