Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 4

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC) User:Marudubshinki closed this WP:RM request on 25 Dec 2005. User:Slim Virgin has argued with his finding of a move verdict on his talk page. --- Charles Stewart 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This move is listed on Wikipedia:Requested Moves here.

---

• Talk:Islamofascism (term) — Islamofascism (term) → Islamofascism – They're the same thing, no reason to have it at "(term)", there's no "alternate use" for the phrase. Chaosfeary 14:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

---

• Strong Support -- everyone who opposes it here makes the same arguement: islamofacism doesnt exist/its just a term that people like Bush use. IRRELEVANT! There is an article on giffen good even though many economists believe they don't exist. There is an article on Bushism even though many people claim that its just a term his opponents use. There is an article on god even though some people think that god doesn't exist. Etc. Etc. Having a succinct article title does not imply a point of view. The appendage of "(term)" should only be used for disambiguization, as per wikipedia's naming conventions. If some people argue that islamofacism doesnt exist that is something that belongs in the article and that would appear to appease all those who oppose the move. The point is that, even if "islamofacism" is a POV title, "islamofacism (term)" in the absence of disambiguization is even more POV. Can you imagine an article titled, "God (fictional character)"? As to creating a separate article, I think that has been substantially ridiculed here: this article covers all of that and more. Masterdebater 23:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chaosfeary 14:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Karl Meier 21:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- This is the emerging concensus on VfD. Klonimus 08:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that this claim of the existence of an emerging consensus on VfD for this sort of thing remains unsubstantiated, despite two requests for explanation. --- Charles Stewart 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • They are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term). Several users requested the article be moved back to Islamofascism as part of their keep vote.—jiy (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. the wub "?!" 14:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support—jiy (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support As per Wikipedia naming conventions. -- Zeno of Elea
• Support LuiKhuntek 08:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose --- Charles Stewart 15:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Imc 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. BrandonYusufToropov 21:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Term. Any doubts?! Call me fascist, call you fascist, call my mamma fascist, call your daddy fascist. Indeed, Fascists called temselves fascists with no red faces. Why not Islamomafia? Because Bush said it?. Is this wikipedia or a joke? Bush also said that Iraq got WMD! (i.e. Bushism and for a larger list Wikiquote). So do we have to have an article called "I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."?!. Please guys! Do we remember?! Notable people and organizations are saying Bush is an x and he's saying they are an y. Do you know what I mean by call me this, call you that?! I hope so. It's a term. -- Cheers -- Svest 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}
• Oppose Yuber^(talk) 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support The appendage of "term" is only a distraction and confusing and it makes the reader instantly wonder "what then is the other thing then called Islamofascism without the "term" appended to it." --CltFn 23:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose An unofficial voting section? Anyways the word should be treated the same other (term) articles are treated. There is NO confusion, all styles of this word redirect here. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cberlet 14:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose (term) rightly refuses to endorse the term as referring to something undeniably real. We should stay neutral as to whether there is such a thing as Islamofascism. Dsol 15:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How does Islamofascism on its own endorse the view that it is something undeniably real? Does God's lack of a (term) clarifier endorse the view that God exists undeniably? If you want to make it clear to editors that it is a term, do so using comments. If you want to make it clear to readers that it is a term, do so in the prose of the article.—jiy (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- This is the emerging concensus on VfD. How many times are we going to vote about the same issue . Many in the VfD voted "Keep, move to Islamofascism." - their votes should be counted here. Zeq 13:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and a lot of dead voters in Florida thought George Bush should be president in 2000. This would be a different vote, Zeq. If they have an opinion, they can express it here. BYT 13:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Equally, many said that this move would be a bad idea. Should their vote be discounted? --- Charles Stewart 13:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- Bill Levinson 14:30, 10 December 2005 (EST). I thought I voted a couple of days ago but I don't see my vote here so I had better re-post it.
• Support simple common sense. Borisblue 19:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. its a term , not a concept/philosophy/fact . Everybody calls people he doesnt like as butcher , coward , **** , .... these are all terms , no matter whoever use them . Use common sence guys . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c}21:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Using this logic the term Nakba should be called nakba(term) Zeq 10:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nakba is an article that is principally about what Nakba refers to, which, AFAICS no more than two sentences about the term itself. This article is principally about the term, with a long-standing agreement that it is unacceptably POV to talk at length on what the term refers to in an article by this title. Your example supports the oppose case. --- Charles Stewart 21:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is a term. Making it a non-Term article would totaly change the entire page. I support making Islamofascism as a separate article showing the lack of proof for Islam having facsistic tendencies. I also want to see more on american terrorism and Judeofascism.--Striver 22:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Striver, you support creating another article titled Islamofascism? One article here and another article there?? That sounds messy. Babajobu 16:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This other article cannot fail to be POV, given this manner of dividing up the content. I would put it forward for AfD. Please don't create this article. --- Charles Stewart 22:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sure it's grand as it is. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Bits in parentheses after article titles (such as, in this case, "term") are disambiguations. As there isn't anything to disambiguate between, adding "(term)" is unnecessary. I see two main arguments to oppose: that it's a term and should be labeled as such, and that without the label "term," the article would sound like it is something undeniably real. The first isn't correct: we don't label the George W. Bush article (president) or (man), nor the Democracy article (politics). The second is also wrong: we have Holocaust revisionism, for example, with no modifier. Farhansher argues that "it's a term, not a concept/philosophy/fact." This is a red herring: we don't label concepts or philosophies or facts with parentheses. There is no need for parentheses. Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 01:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. As per Blackcap. Given people on both sides trying to push POV, I'd rather have them do it in the article itself than in the title. IronDuke 01:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Its already been moved but what the hell, reason per Blackcap. To be honest when I came I was expecting to see something about 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) or Amin al-Husseini - FrancisTyers 00:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Important point by nominator: Although Anonymous editor said this is an "unofficial vote", this is a completely legitimate vote done as per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Instructions and Wikipedia:Requested moves#Current discussions.

Votes for page moves are done on the TALK page, not in a subsection.
Yes, this is different from a Vfd, but that's how it goes. --Chaosfeary 02:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral -- removing "(term)" would definitely be more in line with how other such terms are handled in Wikipedia, but I do think there is a benefit to adding "(term)" to the titles of articles on controversial terms: it reminds everyone that we should be describing how the term is actually used, rather than arguing about the accuracy of the term. So neutral for now. Babajobu 12:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't do votes initiated by banned users. But no, I don't think the proposed move, predictable as it is, is a good idea. BrandonYusufToropov 12:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, Jayjg already did a checkuser on Chaosfeary's IP and determined that he could not be Enviroknot. You can find Jayjg's comments on SlimVirgin's userpage, because Slim asked for the checkuser to be run. Babajobu 12:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: More personal attacks (see previous ones)

Brandon, if you want to leave messages for people that aren't directly related to this move, leave them on their talk pages, not here. It seems you're just determined to run smear campaigns on anyone that shares a different opinion than yours... --Chaosfeary 12:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral -- I generally agree with Babajobu. For reasons stated here, I see a useful distinction by adding the suffix (term). OTOH such a naming convention could lead to endless non-substantive arguments over what to call pages like Creationism --FRS 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral/Ambivalent For the same reasons as those given by User:FRS above. //Big Adamsky 01:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The article used to be called islamofascism and became saddled down with edit wars about how to document the referent of the term. It seems that it is only by making it clear that the article is about the term that this situation is avoided. --- Charles Stewart 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If you want to make it clear to editors that the article is about the term, then do so by inserting a comment into the page source. This is a sloppy remedy that conflicts with several infrastructural guidelines, namely not to reflexively disambiguate page titles. —jiy (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Call me fascist, call you fascist, call my mamma fascist, call your daddy fascist. Indeed, Fascists called temselves fascists with no red faces. Why not Islamomafia? Because Bush said it?. Is this wikipedia or a joke? Bush also said that Iraq got WMD! (i.e. Bushism and for a larger list Wikiquote). So do we have to have an article called "I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."?!. Please guys! Do we remember?! Notable people and organizations are saying Bush is an x and he's saying they are an y. Do you know what I mean by call me this, call you that?! I hope so. It's a term. -- Cheers -- Svest 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}
• Comment Anyways the word should be treated the same other (term) articles are treated. There is NO confusion, all styles of this word redirect here. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Islamo-fascism (link=history) is locked and protected to redirect to Neofascism and religion. SlimVirgin, abusing your admin to help your friends Yusuf, Anon and Yuber again (like blocking people for "personal attacks" while ignoring the personal attacks on those people made by your friends)? I wouldn't be surprised...

There is no "confusion", but this does not make sense. There are not "two meanings" of Islamofascism, so there is no reason to have an article called "(term)". This is not per naming conventions and was solely done by the little cliqué of Yuber, Yusuf, SlimVirgin (admin) and Anonymous editor seemingly dedicated to enforcing Islamic POV and dogma on all relevant articles... --Chaosfeary 02:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral, I agree with CltFn and Dsol. Term doesn't look or seem good but it also seems to serve a point. So, who knows. gren グレン 02:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Both Klonimus and Zeq talk about "an emerging consensus" on VfD. What is this talking about? Links please. The most relevant such discussion, the previous VfD for this article before it was moved, favoured the term label over the article without. --- Charles Stewart 18:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment When will this vote close? It seems to be going on forever and are we supposed to wait until the proponents of "move" get their way. So I think that the person who started this should end it now. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon, I agree, this is a strangely elongated process. We may need to get an admin to weigh in. BYT 16:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, the user who started this is in jail. He's been blocked twice for disruption caused in other articles [1] and [2]. Cheers -- Svest 16:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I also agree that this process has been strangely elongated. I suspect dark forces are at work. Dark, powerful, anti-Islamic forces. Babajobu 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In the real world (i.e. away from the fevered world of sinister "parliamentary tricks" and mysterious vote elongations) the problem here is that talk page votes on redirects do not automatically summon the attention of an admin who closes the vote. Not sure exactly what the protocol is here, but we should get an uninvolved admin and ask them either to close or to tell us what the next step is. Babajobu 14:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Svest 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Baba, I already did that before you started talking about evilness. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Evilness"? Whenceforth comes talk of "evilness"? Regardless, which admin did you contact and when? Let's get this issue settled already. Babajobu 20:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we shall see who shows up. Anyways there is no reason to keep this vote open anyways. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

<-------- back to start Yes, but so far as I know there is also no way to "close" a vote like this. We really need an admin to show up and tell us what to do. Now picture the scene in Superman (movie) where Superman wails over the corpse of Lois Lane, but instead of Superman and Lois imagine Babajobu and this vote, and imagine Babajobu shouting "Admin!! ADMIN!!!!!!!!". Just like that. Where is the f'shtinkin admin? In the meantime I've decided it's vaguely Islamophobic to apend "(term)" to the title of "Islamofascism", because it suggests that readers of this article, unlike readers of Zionist Occupation Government or Vast right-wing conspiracy or the readers of all the other controversial terms in Wikipedia that do not have "(term)" apended to title, do not have the necessary intellectual maturity to understand the difference between discussion of a concept and validation of that concept's existence. Still, I'm leaving my vote at neutral, because there is no doubt that this article caused confusion, anger, and hurt feelings in a way that those other articles did not. Babajobu 20:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's wait Babajobu and calm down. Until then the vote is closed regardless. It's been almost over 2 weeks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I can't find any precedent for an article in Wikipedia that has "(term)" in the title even when no other article with the same name exists. Has this been done before, or are we only doing it to ward off confusion on Islam-related topics, and thereby implyng that readers of Islam-related articles are more likely than other Wikipedia-readers to get confused. Do we know of any precedents? If so, I would feel much better about this. Otherwise, it feels very condescending to Muslims. Babajobu 20:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There's somehow a similar case, American terrorism (term). But there was a consensus about to use it. In our case, we haven't reached a consensus yet to use it or not. That's why we are voting. Cheers -- Svest 21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Yes, the concept of a vote is not novel or unfamiliar to me, Fayssal. Nor is it really relevant to the question I asked, which is whether "(term)" has ever before been used in a Wikipedia title for any purpose other than disambiguation. The article you cite appears to use "(term)" to disambiguate from another article on terrorism in the United States. I'm wondering whether by approving the use of "(term)" in the title of the Islamofascism article we will be implying that Muslim readers are less capable of recognizing such distinctions themselves. It seems a little fishy, considering Wikipedia articles on controversial topics involving other communities do not include "term", presumably because we think readers are sophisticated enough not to need this sort of disclaimer. Still, there is no doubt that "term" here has helped reduce emotional edit-warring, which is why I won't support the move to the non-(term) title. Just wondering what type of message we are sending, especially because we may be establishing a new wiki-precedent. Babajobu 22:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Babajobu. Particularly to the point is whether an article with this form has ever been up for AfD before. As far as I can see, it has not. --- Charles Stewart 22:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how the (term) usage could be seen as condescending to Muslims. It's slightly strange, in that one might expect there to this article because there are other articles called "Islamofascism (film)" and the like, but it's easy to grasp the point that this is meant to restrict what one is to understand is covered by the article. --- Charles Stewart 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that we don't use "(term)" in this way for controversial concepts relating to any other community. Zionist Occupation Government or Vast right-wing conspiracy or Great Satan do not include "term" in the titles, presumably because we assume that Jews or Americans or political right-wingers do not need help to understand the distinction between having an article on a concept and validating that concept. But we are inventing a non-disambig use of "term" specifically for an article that is potentially offensive to Muslims. This could be perceived as implying that Muslims are less equipped to make intellectual distinctions that are easy for members of other communities--and that is a racist, Islamophobic implication. I'm just saying we should consider this stuff before setting a new precedent here, if in fact that's what we would be doing. Because I would not support adding "term" to any of the other articles we mentioned, or to the article on Clerical fascism, or to future articles on "Jewish fascism", et cetera. So what will it mean to only use "term" for non-disambig purposes on Islam-related articles. Just saying we should think about that. Babajobu 22:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think guys we are confusing eachother. For me, people who voted support believe that this should be a separate article (separated from Neofascism and religion, where all religiofascism articles are being packed). People who voted oppose believe the opposite and argue that it already exists Neofascism and religion#Islam, and therefore, this article should be about the use of the term. In other words, it is simply a difference between this [3] and this [4]. Cheers -- Svest 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Fayssal, the current debate is not about the content of the article, but about whether the title should include "term" as a a disclaimer. Regardless, because mainstream sources disagree as to whether "Islamofascism" is a real phenomenon or a slur cooked up by bigots, Wikipedia could never have an article simply describing "Islamofascism" as a phenomenon. We can only discuss how the term is used, and how it is understood by those commentators who use it and criticize it. This is consistent with Wikipedia's coverage of other controversial concepts. I recognize that the "term" disclaimer has soothed hurt feelings relating to this article, but I wonder what message we send by singling out controversial concepts relating to Islam for special treatment in their titles. Why do Jews, Americans, Hindus, Catholics, and left-wingers not need to help understand the difference between having an article on a concept and validating that concept, but Muslims do need that help? It seems like we're begging that question by singling out "Islamofascism" for special treatment. It's just something to consider before we set a precedent here. Babajobu 23:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Babajobu. I was right than saying we are confusing eachother. Now, what is your advice and opinion? I believe that there's no Islamofascism as I believe there's Islamist extremism and terrorism. We have no guarantee that if we remove the (term), the article would stay stable and nobody would restart again the edit warring. Intelligent readers (be them Muslims or not and depending or not on the content of the article) already know about the topic. What about the rest (and I say especially when we would be having a non-stop edit warring and protecting)? So the issue now, is about what goes in the article. If it is only about removing the (term), I have no objection at all as per the reasons you presented and the logic behind it! Cheers -- Svest 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Fayssal, I share the concern that removing "term" would kickstart the edit warring once again. This is why I'm hesitant to vote "Support". But I do think we should all think carefully before setting a new precedent here (assuming this is a new precedent: perhaps there are already articles out there that have "term" in the title for disclaimer rather than disambiguation purposes). As for what goes in the article, I really think all we can do for a controversial topic such as this is describe how it is used, what users describe the term as meaning, what the term's critics say, and the grounds on which they criticize it. That's more than enough for 32 kb! Babajobu 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

(re Babajobu's point) - I'd like to have the precedent that things like Zionist Occupation Government should have (term) attached to them, to make it clear that WP doesn't regard it as NPOV to describe, in this example, the Israeli government by such a title. But you are right, we should probably advertise this precedent at WP:VP to get more input on whether this is a good idea or not. --- Charles Stewart 23:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Charles, I would not support changing Zionist Occupation Government to Zionist Occupation Government (term). It's not necessary. In order to abide by Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability and NPOV, the article is written so as to convey that this is a term used by some, but disputed by others. That's all that's needed for me. It seems silly to shout in the title that "This is a term and a concept, boys and girls, as distinguished from an indisputably real thing such as a building or a mountain!" Adding "term" to the title of the ZOG article would seem like a pointless bit of intellectual condescension that no one needed. I feel sort of the same way here, but I also have to deal with the fact that the article has been much more stable with "term" in the title. Anyway, I agree with you that we should solicit feedback from WP:VP before setting a new precedent of using "term" as a disclaimer (rather than as a disambiguation tool) in the title of articles on concepts that may be offensive to Muslims. Ultimately I think it should be up to the voters, though, rather than the admins, and the voters seem to be choosing the title with "term". Babajobu 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I should say that it's not so much the offended Muslims I'm worried about with this article, so much as the war of civilisations crowd. I'll post something to WP:VP(policy) (it's not actually a policy proposal, but it could result in that). --- Charles Stewart 00:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive P#Qualifying articles with "(term)" --- Charles Stewart 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Backlog

The backlog at WP:RM goes back to 15 November, and most admins are reulctant to close votes which are still active, like this one. It is possible to ask for the vote to be closed, either by approaching an admin (be careful how you go about this to avoid the impression of cherry picking an admin who is likely to favour your side: very bad, and admins don't like to be used this way), or by asking on the WP:RM talk page. Personally, I'm happy to wait. This isn't urgent. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as it's standard procedure. So these sorts of move votes can go on indefinitely? Babajobu 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It turns on how many admins are interested in closing the discussions. The backlog on WP:AfDs is much shorter than on RMs. It could be another week before the discussion is closed: if it's still open on Friday, I'll pester someone to close it. --- Charles Stewart 20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources!

Chaosfeary, I have to go against you on this latest revert dispute with Brandon. I agree with you on a lot of things, but it's not okay to insert comments like that without providing sources. Imagine if Brandon just did a brain-dump into the article, adding whatever content he thought was accurate and relevant. You wouldn't like it, and you would be right not to like it. We need to demonstrate that whatever content we add is backed up by reasonably mainstream sources, otherwise this article will turn in to an endless revert/edit war between people who prefer their own interpretation of the term to the other side's. Babajobu 12:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, removing it now (if not already gone). Sorry. I think it's pretty NPOV though - All it does is explain why most groups, even those sharing views that would traditionally be seen as "fascist" do not label themselves as fascist because of the negative images/history associated with facist groups/governments. That's basically what I mean. --Chaosfeary 12:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The thing is that it suggests that the groups are publicly denying their fascist nature in order to avoid the pejorative power of the word "fascist". I think it's more likely that it would never even occur to these groups that they are "fascist", because they don't think in terms of that kind of western poli sci category. But regardless, what I'm saying is that what I think or you think or Brandon thinks can't be presented in the article as fact. When we're dealing with such a hotly disputed topic I think we need to not merely cite sources to affirm a given comment as "fact", but actually just cite sources and attribute particular views to them. Say, "Chaosfeary, a columnist for National Review Online, has argued that "Islamofascist" groups disingenuously deny their fascist nature because they hope to avoid being associated with the Nazi movement." Or something like that. Because no one can disagree with a comment like that, even if you despise NRO and the term "Islamofascism", you have to agree that Chaosfeary does indeed argue that. Anyway, you know all this already, I don't know why I've just spent so much time spelling it out. Babajobu 12:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Juan Cole and the 'F' word

Interestingly, Juan Cole, who is quoted in this article as criticising use of the term Islamofascist, is not beyond using the 'F' word himself, at least as applied to Likud and Zionist Revisionism

"*A group of Israeli rabbis has issued a call for the Sharon government to cease its policy of cavalierly allowing the killing innocent civilians in the Occupied Territories in the course of its military operations against radical groups. They say such actions are inconsistent with the essence of the Jewish religion. Too right! Judaism has given us so much that is noble in ethical religion, and what the Likud is doing is an insult to that long and glorious tradition. Likud's real roots lie not in the Bible but in Zionist Revisionism of the Jabotinsky sort, which is frankly a kind of fascism."[5]--FRS 15:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, can anyone find a cite for the claim in Juan Cole that he won the "Legion of Iran" award in 2003? This 'fact' was introduced to the article on October 9 by an anon IP [6], and the text reached its present state on October 11. A Swarthmore PR [7] dated October 18 has, word-for-word, the exact statement as the WP article: "He received the Legion of Iran, the highest official honor for a foreigner, during a visit to Iran in 2003." There's nothing in Cole's c.v. or on his website to support the claim. It sounds like a subtle defamation to me, taking into account that a lot of Cole's critics would not exactly consider this "honor," well, honorable. --FRS 18:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Guardian's ascription

Moved comment from entry:

The Guardian attributes the term to an article by Muslim scholar Khalid Duran in the Washington Times, where he used it to describe the push by some Islamist clerics to "impose religious orthodoxy on the state and the citizenry" [8].

It was likely not the Washington Times that carried this piece, if it was indeed published, since LexisNexis carries no story appearing in that paper between 1981 and 9/11 in which either "islamofascism" or "islamo-fascism" appear.

Can someone verify a cite?--Cberlet 21:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I missed this before. I carried out the LexisNexis check. I'm pretty sure the author of the Guardian article screwed this up: and it's rather bad of the Guardian not to check this. Khalid Duran may have used the term before 9/11, but if so, it was almost certainly elsewhere. --- Charles Stewart 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wandering paragraph

I'm baffled by the following section:

Several other outspoken critics of Islam go further, and claim that Islam itself is fascistic, arguing that Islam shares with fascism what they claim are its essential characteristics, such as supremacism, leader worship, exclusionism, totalitarianism and glorification of violence. These critics do not generally discuss the philosophical bases of fascism, nor do they tend to cite fascist thinkers, but rather approach their understanding of Islamist philosophy by operating a checklist of perceived evils that they consider Islamism and fascism to share.

As you can see from the bits in bold, it starts out talking about some anonymous "critics" (?) who supposedly equate even Islam with Fascism, (and by the way everything they claim as essential to Islam is pretty much the same in Christianity) but then we wander back again into the "Islamism is like Fascism" line which was already covered earlier in the article. This seems like a bunch of blather that someone pulled out of their ... uh .. heads. This should be rewritten so that it make sense or be deleted. --Lee Hunter 02:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This stuff was commented out not too long ago, pending citations being provided. I don't think the article benefits much from them, frankly.

As for the 2nd para of the intro, I'm going to disagree with you, Lee, that "tactics" are irrelevant. It's tactics, much more than expressed ideology, that "earns" political figures, regimes, or militant groups the name "fascist." Actions of both the Bush and Clinton admin's have been labeled fascistic (see Neo-fascism#Clinton_Administration and Neo-fascism#Bush_Administration), and to the extent using the term is anything more than name-calling it is mainly because the conduct so described has something to do with perceived fascist tactics. __FRS 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't support nonsense in one WP article by pointing to even worse nonsense in another WP article (and even at that the Clinton bit you quote doesn't seem to have any mention of tactics). Fascism is identified by ideology not by a set of tactics. Those tactics are used in a broad spectrum of political movements and criminal organizations. For example, cracking skulls of your opponents does not somehow qualify a person as a fascist. --Lee Hunter 02:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll refer you to here then: Talk:Islamofascism/Archive03#The_Latest_Obscenity_Has_Seven_Letters

" Gentile is said to have defined Fascism as: "A mass movement, that combines different classes but is prevalently of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy."

"“Other characteristics on most scholars' checklists: the rejection of both liberalism and socialism; the primacy of the nation over the rights of the individual; the demonization of the nation's enemies; the elimination of dissent and the creation of a single-party state; the dominant role of a charismatic leader; the appeal to emotion and myth rather than reason; the glorification of violence on behalf of a national cause; the mobilization and militarization of civil society; an expansionist foreign policy intended to promote national greatness.”"

Don't you agree that many of these characteristics are about tactics and that several are (at least arguably, and in accordance with the thesis of those who use the term) attributable to certain self-described-as-Islamic regimes or miltant organizations?--FRS 02:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary of critical view is intro appropriate

I think a summary or synopsis of the criticsm section is appropriate and warranted in the intro, presumably one editor disagrees with my interpretation, what do others think? zen master T 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't necesarily object to a (longer) summary of the criticism section (we have already the statement that the appropriateness of the term is "hotly disputed.") The reason I deleted "Critics view the term as Rhetorical device, propaganda and as profoundly insulting to Muslims" is that academics have criticized the term as historically inaccurate while Silvio Berlusconi has criticized it as unfair to "real" (Italian) fascists. On the article as it exists presently, and as far as I know, the only notable critics expressing the view that it is "profoundly insulting to Muslims," are themselves rather extremist (one being "skeptical" of the HolocaustTalk:Islamofascism/Archive03#Joe_Sobran, and the other using the 'F' word himself to describe a present-day Israeli political party). --FRS 21:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Consistency check -- show of hands, please

I want to see how sincere this latest discussion is. I have a question for everybody who has argued that it's simply a matter of objective WP policy -- rather than eagerness to legitimize a smear against Muslims --- that the word (term) should not be used in this article title ....

Would you, or would you not, consistently apply your argument by committing right now to support a move of American terrorism (term) to American terrorism? Please indicate below.

WILL commit here to supporting that move by voting "support" when I raise the issue:

• Support, so long as other editors of that page agree with BYT that "term" does not serve a disambiguation purpose. Readers of that article do not need simple intellectual distinctions pointed out to them in the title of that article
• Support, on principal that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," a principal I commend to those who are "profoundly insulted" by the current article's title--FRS 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WILL NOT commit here to supporting that move by voting "support" when I raise the issue:

Thanks, BYT 12:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Oh hooray, another of BYT's meandering wiki-inquisitions to ferret out people's true motivations! Well, BYT, since I've already stated that I would not support moving Zionist Occupation Government to Zionist Occupation Government (term), I think your question has already been answered. But in case you really have this much trouble making simple connections, I'll add that if the addition of "(term)" to the American terrorism article does not serve a legitimate disambiguation purpose (from the book of the same name and the article on terrorism inside United States), then yes, I would support removing "(term)" from the title of that article. The article should be written so as to indicate that the term is not universally accepted, just as the "Islamofascism" article is. Other than that, I don't think readers of that article need help to understand the difference between the existence of an article on the topic and a validation of that topic. However, based on my experience here, I'm not sure the same can be said of the "Islamofascism" article, and keeping "(term)" here may be necessary. Babajobu 14:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to get testy. I'm just trying to see how far proclamations of noble-sounding principles (Zeno's, for instance) actually extend into the real world outside of this article. There are, occasionally, fascinating divergences. But I've got you down as a "yes," thanks. BYT 14:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As to how far these principles extend outside this article, I think the answer is pretty darn far, as evidenced by the fact that none of the other controversial articles cited have "term" in their title. American terrorism is the only other borderline case, and the addition of "term" was presented as a means to disambiguate it from the book of the same name, and the article on terrorism in the US. So intellectual condescension and genuflection before a community's sense of honor by adding "term" to the title seems unique to this article. I do hope it doesn't spread to other Islam-related articles. Babajobu 14:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Genuflection"? That's needlessly hostile language, Baba. Listen, I really had no idea, until it came up here, that the (term) thing was unique to these two articles. I'm not asking anyone to genuflect to anything. Maybe we do need to rethink this.
• But if we apply a principle, we should do it consistently. And you know what? We can rewrite a disambig page if need be, so that everything comes out fair and square.
• Please acknowledge that the people who have been agitating for this article, all along, are not above gaming the system, or kicking it to the ground when they feel so inclined.
• Chaosfeary, for instance, whose parliamentary manipulations we are now all discussing with reverent care, redirected the Christianity article to Nazism in a fit of pique when his attempt to link Islamofascism to Islam failed.
• That is uncool. Agreed? Similar shenanigans are uncool. Agreed? If a rule applies to one article, it applies to other articles. Agreed? BYT 15:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't intend use of word "genuflection" to be hostile. Muslims are not alone in genuflecting; Jews do it as part of worship, too, as do many other religious groups. Choasfeary's recent behavior was wildly inappropriate. I hope he stops. To the point: "If a rule applies to one article, it applies to other articles" is inconsistent with supporting use of "term" in title of this article. We should be very clear about what we are voting for here: keeping "term" in the title of the "Islamofascism" article will mean giving special deference to Muslim sensibilities in Wikipedia. There is no prospect here of Muslims being singled out for negative treatment. We are debating giving them special, solicitous wikitreatment, and the outcome of the vote seems to favor doing so. I can accept that outcome, because I don't want to deal with endless revert warring in this article. I've only suggested that we should all consider what message we are sending by having a special respectful/patronizing custom for articles that are potentially offensive to Muslims. Accusations that editors who oppose use of "term" here are "gaming the system" seems strange, since they only advocate treating Islam-related articles like any other. I suspect they feel that the system is being gamed by those who demand special consideration for Islam-related articles. For my part, I don't think anyone is gaming the system, I think they are trying to figure out the right thing to do. Babajobu 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that "editors who oppose use of 'term' here are gaming the system." I said "those who have been agitating for this article all along are not above gaming the system." I don't think you are gaming the system, for the record. If everyone on your side of this debate were approaching the issue as you are, we wouldn't have a problem. BYT 16:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Crappy sources

A couple of editors are trying to insert a mention of an article from faithfreedom.org which they defend on the grounds that the "source doesn't matter". Well, excuse me, but the source very much DOES matter. In fact, the source is everything. Anyone can post anything they want on a web page. You don't need money, editors, intelligence, common sense, education or anything else except a little time on your hands. This POS faithfreedom article that supposedly establishes a link between fascism and Islam is just chock full of screaming howlers like the following "[Islam] is extremely deceptive and despite being a doctrine of war it portrays itself as the religion of peace. It wants to have a universal appeal. It subjugates women and Muhammad was a misogynist of the worst kind but its apologists present him as the champion of women’s rights." This is just a lot of spittle spraying from the lips of a seriously raving mad anti-Muslim crank. This is not a "source" for an encyclopedia by any stretch of the imagination. --Lee Hunter 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Of course I agree, but forgive me for pointing out that the word itself is, inescapably, a slighly lesser volume of spittle spraying from the lips of seriously raving mad anti-Muslim cranks. That one of them currently lives in the White House does not change the underlying dynamic.
• As I may have mentioned before, this article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. But since we're pretending it does, I want to share my firm conviction that this is precisely what intelligent editors can expect to contend with from here on out: people tag-teaming you with faithfreedom.org links.BYT 17:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

User:OceanSplash

I've twice rved additions to the lead section of this article by this user (2nd addition). We already have an article on Ali Sina, and while some mention of his views on Islamofascism might be appropriate in this article, he is not an important figure, and FaithFreedom is just a website he operates, not in any sense a respected journal.

I'd also note that this edit violates the rule about documenting the term, not the phenomenon. --- Charles Stewart 16:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Postscript I got that wrong: Faithfreedom is a site combatting what it calls islamophobic views, and it hosts Ali Sina in particular in order to refute him. Sorry about that, I confused him and the webiste with someone else --- Charles Stewart 17:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

How can you say that faithfreeom is combatting islamophobic views? Take a look at their home page. It's one of the worst anti-muslim hate sites that I've ever seen. Here's just a brief example "Islamic terrorism is inspired by Islamic teachings. We can never get rid of Islamic terrorism unless we defeat the ideology behind it and that is Islam itself. Islam induces hate backed by lies. " Yikes. Talk about inducing hate. --Lee Hunter 17:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this cite worse than Joseph Sobran, the self-described "Holocaust sceptic" who is the source for the quote that the term Islamofascism is just wartime propoganda? --FRS 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

An interesting question and I'm loathe to defend Sobran or his views on the holocaust but considering that he's a nationally syndicated columnist for various notable publications, his words carry more weight than some relatively unknown crank from a fringe website. Some of Sobran's opinions might be repellent but his claim to fame is not anti-semitism. This website, on the other hand, only exists to sling mud at a religion. --Lee Hunter 17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to be precise, Sobran hasn't described himself as a "Holocaust skeptic" but as a "Holocaust stipulator". I read a transcript of his speech to the IHR: he seemed to be saying that he was open to the possibility that the Holocaust hadn't happened, but didn't really care to investigate the matter, and so he would "stipulate" the existence of the Holocaust so as to avoid legal trouble in Germany. Basically I agree with Lee, though, that his notability as a source preceded his flirtation with Holocaust revisionism, and seems to have survived those flirtations, too. Babajobu 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake about stipulator vs "sceptic" (sic). Sobran has also written: "The 9/11 attacks would never have occurred except for the U.S. Government's Middle East policies, which are pretty much dictated by the Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United States. The Zionists boast privately of their power, but they don't want the gentiles talking about it."

[9]

I think Sobran's ridiculous, but his agnosticism about the existence of the Holocaust and his contention that a Jewish cabal runs the U.S. government do not seem to have interfered with his status as a relatively mainstream political commentator in the US. Babajobu 19:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sobran is a syndicated columnist in nationally prominent newspapers. That doesn't make him right or wrong, but it does make him more relevant for consideration as a source. Until faithfreedom's rants start showing up as op-ed pieces in the New York Times.... they operate in two different worlds. One with, you know, editors. And the other without. BYT 18:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Correction #2 - faithfreedom.org is Ali Sina's site, and is the site OceanSplash linked to. faithfreedom.com is a site devoted to attacking Ali Sina in particular, and what it calls Islamophobia in general. They both fail to rise above the generally awful level of over-emotional sites devoted to the interesection of religion and politics. --- Charles Stewart 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Berlusconi and See Also

What happened to Berlusconi's criticism of the term? Why was that removed? And the "See also" section is degenerated into a monstrosity. What in heaven's name does a lengthy succession of links to different forms of terrorism have to do with this article? Babajobu 17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It was removed because his comment had nothing to do with this particular article. He was talking about Saddam Hussein (i.e. the leader of a secular state) not about Islam or Islamofascism. --Lee Hunter 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lee, I'll look at the citation and if I got it wrong then obviously I won't reinsert it. But you also reverted back to the interminable list of 32 marginally relevant see also links. Is there a reason for that? Are you really attached to every one of those links? Babajobu 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't realize I did that. Sorry. I actually tried to remove them myself once before but was reverted. --Lee Hunter 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the Berlusconi quote definitely refers to Saddam Hussein rather than "Islamofascism", my mistake. Looks like I was going on a summary provided on one of the archived versions of this talk page; I should have taken the time to examine the source myself. Babajobu 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, at least some of the "see also" links should be retained as relevant parallel examples of political rhetoric and historically inaccurate metaphors that have found a place, fbow, in modern lexicon.--FRS 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

FRS, but aren't you really just talking about political epithets that have been incorporated into mainstream political talk? Isn't the link to List of political epithets enough? But if you want to add some, go ahead...I just think we should try to keep the list from growing into a deep archaeological layer of rhetorical one-upsmanships. "Link to propaganda! Link to terrorism involving Muslims! Link to propaganda! Link to terrorism involving Muslims!" And so on. Babajobu 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

See also, again

Striver, Lee is correct that I deleted most of the see alsos, and that he accidentally restored them. I think the see also section is mostly irrelevant to this article. What does the lengthy list of different forms of terrorism have to do with Islamofascism?? Other articles don't attempt this long-winded form of "balance" in their See Also section. Zionist Occupation Government does not have see also links to any sort of balancing "Palestinian terrorism" or "Arab terrorism" articles, nor should it. The long set of irrelevant links is just plain weird, even if you think that it ensures that Muslims are not being defamed, or something. Babajobu 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And Kingdom Now theology!! For heaven's sakes, what is that doing here?? It's as if in the Kingdom Now theology article we added Islamofascism to the "See also" section, just, you know, for balance! Totally irrelevant! Babajobu 17:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I did some copyediting of the section, mostly moving wikilinks that are epithets to that section, and not linking to apirs of closely related articles. We should still delete these, IMO; I did this task for the purpose of seeing what a cleaned up see laso section along the lines Striver proposes would look like. --- Charles Stewart 17:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I do see that it is improved and pared down over the previous version. Still, it's too much. Actually, look at the See also section for Kingdom Now theology...that's what a mature and relevant see also section looks like. Six links, four to other forms of Christian fundamentalism, two to articles exploring broader religious context in which these types of movements arise, but none of this juvenile loading up the section with nervous, "yeah, but look at all the bad things other people have done!" links. Babajobu 17:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no good precedent for what Striver is up to. It is making a point through stealth. I shall rv his edit. --- Charles Stewart 18:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My motives are to show that this is not a issolated issue, that there are other related issue. You dont like it. However, our feelings and motives to the issue is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is: What does Wikipedia policies say about it. You might think bad of my motives, but my motives are irrelevant.

There is nothing wrong in having a long see also section linking to related article. Not having that is only a argument depoyed by those that whant to give the impresion that this is a issolated issue.

The fact is that there is no policies against long "See also" sections, and that the links to the articles are relevant, Religion, politicial ephitets and terrroris. All three are higly related to this article. There is no policy that states that only "Islam" and "fascist" links may be added to the "See also" section of "Islamofascist".

I repeat: Wikipedia policies has nothing against a long "see also" section, not having that is only a argument depoyed by those that whant to give the impresion that this is a issolated issue. --Striver 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But the problem (for me) is that these links are not explicitly related, the linkages are entirely editorial in nature. It would be good for you to specifiy: How is American terrorism, Zionist terrorism, or even Islamist terrorism closely related to the concept of Islamofascism? How is evil empire closely related? How is little Satan? How is disinformation? These just don't make sense as "See alsos," so please defend them. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. They seem more like someone is straining to make a point than providing useful links to directly related information. --Lee Hunter 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Strivers edits ignored the criticisms I made in my copyedit (it is particularly inappropriate to have Tenth Crusade twice), and the new links Goodoldpolonius2 introduced. This is a bad revert, and I will revert it. --- Charles Stewart 20:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Striver, after saying that his own motives are irrelevant, speculates about other editors' motives by saying: "not having that is only a argument depoyed by those that whant to give the impresion that this is a issolated issue." Striver, my goal is actually to have a see also section that is relevant to the article. Do you think it would be appropriate to add Islamofascism and Islamist terrorism to the "see also" section of Kingdom Now theology? I can't imagine that that would be appropriate, but according to your premise that one purpose of the "see also" section is to eliminate "the impresion that this is a issolated issue", then it sounds like you think we should add lots of links about Islamism and Islamist terrorism to articles on Christian fundamentalism. Do you really think that? Because I know you're anxious that articles on Islam and other religions not be treated differently. Babajobu 21:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Strivers answer

How American terrorism, Zionist terrorism, or even Islamist terrorism are related to the concept of Islamofascism?

Well, lets see what the article says:

"[T]he bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face..."

"What we have to understand is ... this is not really a war against terrorism, this is not really a war against al Qaeda, this is a war against movements and ideologies that are jihadist, that are Islamofascists,

"[Islamic terrorist] attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane. Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism.

The use of the term "Islamofascist" by proponents of the War on Terror has prompted some critics to argue that the term is a typical example of wartime propaganda.

Do you see it now? I hope that the inherent allegation of "terrror" made against the religion of Islam through the use of term "Islamofascism" no longer is so hard to grasp that it dwarfs your mind. American terrorism, Zionist terrorism, and also Islamist terrorism are relevant and will stay in the "See also" section.

As for "Zionist Occupation Government does not have see also links to any sort of balancing "Palestinian terrorism" or "Arab terrorism"", i dont care, go take the fight there. Maybe it could be since a search for "terr" in that article gives 0 (zero) hits.

As for "How is evil empire closely related? How is little Satan", it is relevant since this article says:

"Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own."

As for "How is disinformation?" this article still says:

"Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own."

As for "Do you think it would be appropriate to add Islamofascism and Islamist terrorism to the "see also" section of Kingdom Now theology?", that is relevant to the talk page of that article, not this one. I want Kingdom Now theology in this articles "see also" section since it is a perceived totalitarian religous term. quoute from that article:

One of the most controversial tenets of the theology is the belief that secular or non-Christian society is not truly possible, as the only valid legislation, social theory, spiritual beliefs, and economic theory are those derived from the Bible. According to Kingdom Now, a separation of church and state and freedom of (non-Christian) religion, both tenets of democratic society, would not be possible under the theology.

Change "Christian" & "Bible" to "Islamic" & "Qur'an" in that quote, and you have what the users of the term "Islamofascism" perceive Islam.

Also, that article says:

The election of George W. Bush as U.S. President and his appointment of the now-departed John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States, both Born-again Christians, is seen by many proponents of Kingdom Now as a fulfillment of their beliefs.

Bush is quoted in this article. This proves the validity of having a link to that article in this article.

Regarding linking to this article from that article, go to that articles talk page. --Striver 00:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

--Striver 00:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, first, it seems that every other editor on the page disagrees with you, so it might be best not to start with sarcasm ala "dwarfs your mind." Second, these seem to me to be word association games, rather than substance, where you highlight a word to make a link. "Empty" -> "Disinformation," why not use the word "hysteria" also in that quote? A mention in the same quote of "wartime propaganda" -> "Evil empire," and "Little Satan" why not "Joseph Goebbels"? Similarly, there can be an argument for "Islamist terrorism" as a link (though I think it is not a good idea), but "Islamist terrorism" -> "Zionist terrorism" & "American terrorism"? How on earth are they relevant to this article in any way? You didn't explain, just insisted that they stay in the article. Similarly, why delete theocracy? I am not trying to be difficult or push a POV here or anything like that -- the above was my first comment on the page, so I am surprised at the vitriol of your response. I am not particularly convinced by your arguments, but I will wait for other editors to weigh in before editing. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I appologise for the sarcasm and bad tone, i made a inaccurate assumption regarding your involvment in this article. I apologise.

Yes, you are right that i played "word assosiation", but that does not mean that there is no substance. Lets talk substance rather than words. There are a fair amoung of people that regard the term as Disinformation, that is the essence of what its cirtiqs are saying.

And the word is war-time propaganda, at least in the view of a fair amount of people.

"Islamist terrorism", "Zionist terrorism" and "American terrorism" are all related to the allegations of terrorism. I mean, Americans are prominent among them that alledge that the entire religion of Islam is fascisticly employed by some, and there are lots of people that belive American wealth, power and miliary strengh is employed in a fascistic way. You can be sure that the people accused of Islamic terrorism belive there is a American terrorism. And it is ovbious that all those people that are accused to employ Islam in a fascistic way accuse Americans to employ terrorism via proxy in Palestine, though Zionist terrorism. That is a very easly spoted link, those three terms are very closly related to the term this article is about. In fact, even those that use the term Islamofascism belive that the Islamofascists are terrorist that accuse American and Zionist for using terror. If that link is not explicitly dealt with in the article, it needs to at least be referenced to in the "See also section".

Did i delet "theocracy"? In that case, it was a misstake, ill re add it. Again, i apologise for assuming bad faith in your case. --Striver 02:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

When we mention that other articles do not conform to Striver's desires for this one, he says "I don't care, go take the fight to that talk page". Striver, I don't want to make the rest of Wikipedia's "See also" sections conform to your bizarre demands for this article. I am pointing out that you are again demanding special treatment for articles relating to Islam. I would not want to force fifteen irrelevant links about "Islamism" or "Islamist terrorism" into articles on Christian fundamentalism. And fortunately no editors of those articles make silly demands like this. Babajobu 02:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, i have nothing about adding links about so called Islamic terrorism in the christianity terrorism section. In fact, i propose a entire Wikipedia project to be created for that sole reason. I belive that they should be connected. Please go and connect as many Jewish and Christian terrorist article as you find to Islamic terrorist articles, you have my blessing and support.

You reverted and wrote:

rv to last version by Charles; I'm annoyed that Striver, despite the fact that so many other editors disagree with him, intones imperiously "the links will stay!" rather than suggesting compromise

Dear brother in humanity Babajobu, i dont care for how many oppose me, as long as i know my arguments are sound and good. In fact, i am accustumed to being forced to fill talk page after talk page to prove in every angle that people try to attack my stance on, in order to prove it is correct. And my stance is correct in this case. When it is not, i apologise for having had the incorect stance to begin with, just see my previous addition to this talk page. --Striver 03:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Striver, I won't fill the articles on Christian fundamentalism with loads of irrelevant links to articles on, say, Islamist terrorism, because no Christian editors have demanded that and because it's a silly idea grounded in competitive navel-gazing rather than the needs of an encyclopedia. Articles on Islam may be characterized by the sorts of special privileges you demand for Islam-related articles, but I prefer this to damaging the encyclopedic quality of articles on other religions by making them conform to the silly demands that are made for Islam-related articles. And I admire your courage in sticking to your beliefs even when so many other editors think you are being juvenile, but unfortunately in Wikipedia you need to work with editors who disagree with you, rather than "bravely" ignore them. Babajobu 03:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, dont patronise me. The facts are simple: i want a big see also section, you dont want it, you have no Wikipedia policies to support your stance. The sice is irrelvant, the links are relevant. Thanks for the 3rr warning. --Striver 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying not to patronize you, Striver. Agreeing to let you have exactly what you want here would be deeply patronizing, because I would never do that in other areas of Wikipedia. Neither of us have any wikipedia policies to support our stance...this is not a matter of policy but of judgment and quality. You want a special, poor-quality "See also" section for Islam-related articles, and I don't. But I'm willing to compromise. I can accept Disinformation, because many people regard "Islamofascism" as an example of that. I'd also support something like Wartime propaganda, if Wikipedia has an article like that. But all the terrorism and Christian fundamentalism links are just loopy. Babajobu 05:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Trying to find a compromise

Per my last revert, Striver is not alone.

Please Striver, Irishpunktom, don't rv to a version of the article that you know is widely held to be unacceptable. Can we figure out a compromise position? Two things:

1. Annotating see also links is inappropriate. If there is some commentary appropriate to a link you regard as relevant, figure out a way to put it in the main body of the article.

2. See also sections are generally an indication that a page is not yet complete. Only links not in the body of the article should go there, and only links that could be worked into the main body of the article should be there.

If we want a list of resurces of topics on theocratic radicalism, start a new page about that list. Don't attach the list to this article and other articles as you see fit. --- Charles Stewart

Postscript It occurs to me that it is hard to link this article to the many of the links Striver suggested without violating to agreement to only document the term and not what the term is about. But a section on Relation to other religious/political epithets might help with many of the links. --- Charles Stewart 16:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating a Relation to other religious/political epithets seems exactly what i feelt was missing. As i wrote earlier, i belived that the links in the see also should be in the main article somhow... (i think)... im all for creating a section that deals with that. --Striver 19:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. What I'm not clear on is what you want to say there, but if you start the section, I'm sure we will figure something out for which our sum total of unhappiness will be lower. --- Charles Stewart 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No idea, maybe something like:

"It is not uncomon for waring factions to call eachtother with political ephitets. Some examples include X Y Z. Also, those that have been accused fo Islamofacist are also widely accused of Islamic terrorism. They on the other hand counter those using the term, prominantly Americans, of american terrorism, either direct or via proxy, as in Zionist terrorism. Muslims are not the only religion that have denominations perceive to have totalitarian or trimuphalist doctrines, some christian versions include XYZ."

Something like that, with readable grammar. That is a start. --Striver 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to interject-- First, I believe you are using Zionist terrorism in the wrong context here. The related article is related to pre-Israel terrorism, mostly by Irgun and Lehi, against the Palestinians, British, and other Jews -- in other words, pretty undeniable cases of terrorism by secular Zionists pre-1948. I believe that due to a VfD and some discussion, there was an agreement to seperate it from Israeli policy. Thus, if your linkage is to "proxy American terrorism" (leaving aside the value and validity of the concept, which is part of why I object to including it), than Zionist terrorism is a bad link in any case. Again, I suggest that all terrorism links be removed. Also, the statement you are putting forward sounds particularly editorial in nature. Who counters with the terrorism argument? And why does it matter that other religions are totalitarian in nature? It sounds like a "even if this is true, others are just as bad" argument, which I really don't think is a good precedent, better to show the thinking on the term, and make it clear the ways in which it is/is not valid. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If Zionist terrorist is not the correct article, then we should use the correct article.

The word "terrorism" is mentioned like four times in the article, i dont see how one can claim there is no such link. Totalitarian is also what Islam is accused of, and having a section about related accusations is nothing more than reasonable.--Striver 23:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[personal attacks by removed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirv (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 December 2005.

Personal attacks were by User:ApeAndPig - FrancisTyers 19:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest keeping the discussion focused on the term Islamofascism itself ? The term refers to what is perceived as a form of totalitarism with a religious (instead of a political) discourse. Period.

Apparently two different sets of "related links" have emerged, a small one and a long one. I believe that the "small" version of related links seems quite appropriate as it stands, whereas the long one is a hodge-podge of mild- to non-related terms. I count two users in favour of the long one, and everyone else in favour of the short one. Am I being mistaken ? --Thomas Arelatensis 20:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism in Wikipedia

[material concerning dispute between OceanSplash (talk · contribs) and Grenavitar (talk · contribs) moved to User:OceanSplash/Islamofascism in Wikipedia. This talk page is for discussion of the article Islamofascism (term); it is not the place to post lengthy details of user disputes whose connection to the article is dubious and tangential at best. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)]

Mistress Selina

Can I ask what your thinking was when you reverted the page? BYT 02:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mrs Selina, who are you? ;) -- Svest 02:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Lol hello again :p Hehe --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any point in the HUGE amount of "see also" links, it really is unnecessary. It's got more see also's than a lot of really large articles which is pretty crazy O-o --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the links are irrelevant. However, that needs discussion. Episode T. -- Svest 02:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

What do you mean by "episode T"? Sorry, I haven't a clue :¦ --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted Mistress Selina Kyle's last edit. The reason is that I felt the previous version was more NPOV. This is a vexed subject, obviously, but I don't think it is going to be improved any by hasty and biased edits. If someone is said not to claim to be something, for instance, it's quite normal to put the something in quotes. "You are an idiot." "He claimed I was an 'idiot'." These are not "scare quotes". They are simply quotes used as they generally are in English. James James 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

see here: Islamofascism&diff=32833084&oldid=32832858 - Yuber is trying to insert his own POV into articles and adds a lot of uncited opinions of himself, some masquerading as "some critics say"/"some critics" - weasel words..

The article does not need opinions masquerading as facts. "some critics say"/"some critics think", etc. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think both sides do that! Because I'm on RC patrol, I'm just correcting things that strike me as too much one way or the other, rather than taking sides. Personally, the whole article strikes me as an "opinion masquerading as a fact", mostly because one side believes "islamofascism" is an actual something, and the other doesn't. If we simply reported that debate, all would be well. But your side, it seems to me, doesn't want to do that, but wants to talk about "islamofascism" as though it were a thing. Still, please do take the approach I suggested. Bring the things you don't like, one by one, to talk, and thrash it out. The world won't crumble into dust if something you don't like goes unreverted. James James 03:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There was and is no consensus to move this page to Islamofascism

What was the logic behind this move? BYT 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC) <reinserting lost comment>

Inasmuch as a) no one is willing to answer this (including the person who moved the page) and b) the "Move" side did not attain 60%, I have moved this back. BYT 12:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The page move - my opinion

SlimVirgin asked me to look into this issue as an uninvolved party and offer my opinion. Without getting in to the specific merits of whether or not I personally think the page "should" have been renamed, I think this is a case of biting the oldies. Page moves are typically doable by anyone, and the 60% guideline on WP:RM is phrased somewhat loosely. The whole point is that if you end up on WP:RM, the move is controversial. The stakes are, frankly, low here — the substance of the article is unchanged — and getting worked up over a few percent one way or the other seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees. It seems wrong to me that we should give an admin less discretion in deciding how to close a page move discussion than we do when closing an article deletion discussion.

I think Marudubshinki should be encouraged to close out the discussion however he thinks appropriate, and editors should be encouraged to redirect their energy into improving the article and making sure it stays properly focused, rather than fretting over the semiotics of whether or not a parenthesized word appears in the article title.

Hope this helps. Looking forward to the hate mail.

Regards, Nandesuka 23:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as it goes, the above is fair enough, but it misses the point as to why I, at least, am bothered by M's closing: his remarks in 'defence' of his move on his talk page suggested that he did not see why his closure of the discussion should not reflect his personal views on the move, as opposed to trying to find the outcome that best fits the discussion. I regard this as unadminlike. --- Charles Stewart 02:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, but let's remember to slightly gentle on our overworked admins :). Also, let's not forget the distinction between "personal views" and "personal discretion". Have a good new year :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)