Talk:Islamic fascism

POV of this article

This article is full of original research that comes from an anti-islamic POV, especially this line "Islamic fascism is a combination of Islamic fundamentalism or Islamism and fascism." This is uncited and seems to have been made up by the creator in an effort to give definition to an obscure term. Yuber 06:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly not anti-Islamic.

As for original research, I have put up some of the links I will be referring to. But the main point is that I have barely started it.

As for the "POV" which means point of view, I don't think it has an anti-Islamic view at all, nor even an anti Islamic fascist point of view. Just like fascists themselves, this is a small, very small group within Islam and the article says that. It makes no judgements and nor should it.

I don't get how you can or would want to propose the deletion of an article and question its neutrality so early and without contributing anything positive and without discussing with me first. Is this how Wikipedia works? Walkingeagles 07:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In a word, yes! The Vfd is all about the concept of content being "unworthy"--not the CURRENT content, but what COULD be there. For example a page about banana eating will get nowhere, but a five-sentence page about nukes could evolve into an amazing overview. It is the concept that is being voted upon. The current content is largely immaterial, you could in theory start a crappy article and someone could come along and turn it into an awesome work. However if you improve upon the current content while the debate rages, the awesomeness of the new details may sway the voters to decide it isn't so bad after all. It makes its promise all the more visible.

The person didn't know what to make of it, so put it on Vfd for the rest of the community to give their opinion. Therefore, we assess what it might one day become.

What you intend to add to it is immaterial. Wikipedia articles are viewable immediately, so each edit must be as clear and useful as possible. Dozens of people could potentially come to a page under construction and be misled or confused by the content therein. So every little edit, every little word change, every typo fix, each must be done with the view of it being "perfect" and free of any trace of opinion. You must try to write as if you are a dull, mindless drone. It's hard, I know, but that's the way it is here. Master Thief Garrett 07:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks, I see that most of your discussion got a point. I believe Yuber is right in that it seems that This article is full of original research that comes from an anti-islamic POV. However,-as Master Thief Garrett stated, the article can be developed later to include different researches of different backgrounds. It is up to future contributions.

Walkingeagles is doing a good job but I still think that the article should be merged with Islamofascism as Firebug suggested earlier.

I support the idea of Vfd while merging this article with the main one. Svest 08:14, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

References

Walkingeagles, I think that the mentioning of the CNN article needs a reference (link to the article in CNN). Otherwise, the information would be removed. Svest 08:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

what makes it "Islamic"?

Header says it all. What makes these manifestations of fascism specifically Islamic, as opposed to ordinary fascism? Can anyone explain this in 100 words or less, preferably in the article's introduction? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:32, 24 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. I urge WalkingEagles and Klonimus to debate me here about the history of their supposed "Islamic fascism", I'm sure their extensive knowledge on Middle Eastern history and Fascism will help them.Yuber 16:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With your permission I'd love to include your thoughts on this in the article. I didn't really understand what your problem with the article was but I do now. Hopefully that will address the concerns people have.

I am sad you think I am anti-Muslim because that is simply not true and is simply not reflected in anything I've done, said or written. Like most Americans probably I am concerned about the threat of al Qaeda but am opposed to the seeming intolerance of Christian fundamentalism of Islamic fundamentalism equally. There seems to be many people keen to scream (virtually!) at each other over this topic, so I probably should have started elsewhere on Wikipedia like Lego or something. Although perhaps there are also such problems in Legoland. Anyway, I'm still learning so I hope you cut me some slack as the article evolves and contribute anything you can. I really appreciate you explaining you views in detail, I am obviously still learning and maybe others are too if they haven't closed their minds to new data. Walkingeagles 16:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Walkingeagles, We are still waiting for referencing your article. I am putting this comment here again in case you didn't see it above. Here it goes again: Walkingeagles, I think that the mentioning of the CNN article needs a reference (link to the article in CNN). Otherwise, the information would be removed. Svest 08:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) Svest 08:51, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a propaganda phrase. What about "Dollar fascism"? Who would that apply to?

In a propagandistic sense it's always worthwhile to identify an enemy with known evils.

That's why Bush mentioned Hitler again recently when talking about terrorism. If that does not make people willing to rally behind him - what will?

Sincerely, Monty Python

PS I you take a loupe and really compare structures you will certainly find ALL kinds of fascism. --217.236.216.179 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

I've removed this again. First, its caption is extremely debatable (the identification of various Islamic groups as 'fascist' hasn't been justified). Secondly, it's not doing anything important in the article; its only purpose seems to be to turn the reader's stomach — presumably in order to stir her emotions against supposedly evil Muslims. Thirdly, have you considered the feelings of the friends or family of the victim, should they come across this? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is an important image, it is clearly associated with al Qaeda which the article identifies as an Islamic fascist group. I agree the image is unpleasant but it is factual and relevant. It has been a very widely distributed image as Google shows and even the video was widely distributed by those responsible for killing him. I have NEVER ever said that Muslims are evil or anything similarly racist. So I really ask that you stop making false assumptions about me and show me the respect and courtesy I show you. Walkingeagles 16:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note Yuber persists in deleting the image which is probably the most powerful visual image we have of the tactics of Islamic fascism. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the beheading, the article identifies al Qaeda as an Islamic fascist group so I can't imagine a more appropriate (although admittedly unpleasant) image. Walkingeagles 23:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How is the image relevant to Islamic fascism? What evidence of fascism do you see in beheading someone? Yuber 23:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Yuber; the image appears to be there either to pander to those sick individuals who wish that there really were snuff films, or to Islamophobes of one form or another. There is no good reason given for the claim that al Qaeda is fascist, and even if there were, the picture doesn't illustrate that fact (any more than a phot of bin Laden having his dinner), and even if it were, we don't need this sort of sensationalist stuff in Wikipedia. I notice that Walkingeagles didn't respond to what I said above, but only repeated his own reasons; that's not the way discussion is carried out. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey folks, sorry if this is not exactly in the right place but... Its all well and good to say that Islama(o)facism "does not exist", or similar. However, it is a new term entering the lexicon whether one likes it or not. It means different things to different people and at this point that interpretation is in a state of flux, so trying to submit an authoritive reference at this juncture is putting the cart before the horse, and frankly a little bit self-important (in the mildest and most friendly use of the word)

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

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

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

IF someone wants to take a stab at posting a definition and discussion of the nature of Islamafacism, I humbly recommend keeping it simple. Don't try to over intellectuallize it.

Removed section

I've removed this from the article:

---

Overtures to al Qaeda by U.S. white supremacists

In 23 April 2005, CNN reported that while fascist groups such as Aryan Nation were seeking ties with Islamists such as Osama bin Laden for assistance in areas such as finance and organization, the FBI had found no sign of ties between the two. In an interview with CNN, August Kreis the leader of Aryan Nation praised al Qaeda, saying:

You say they're terrorists, I say they're freedom fighters. And I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our peoples' heart, in the Aryan race, that they have for their father, who they call Allah. I don't believe that they were the ones that attacked us," Kreis said. "And even if they did, even if you say they did, I don't care!

Kreis explained that the common cause he has with al Qaeda is that they have common enemies, namely Jews and the government of the United States. He gave a public message to al Qaeda: "The message is, the cells are out here and they are already in place, they might not be cells of Islamic people, but they are here and they are ready to fight". al Qaeda's response, if any, remains unknown.

During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had an alliance with Adolf Hitler. Following the war, many Nazis found asylum in Egypt, Syria, South America, and the United States.

The CNN's investigative reporter Henry Schuster also explained another connection:

Three years ago, I met a Swiss Islamic convert named Ahmed Huber, who began his life as a devotee of Adolf Hitler and moved on to praising former Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who led that nation's Islamic revolution and vigorously opposed U.S. policies.

Huber wanted to forge a fresh alliance between Islamic radicals and neo-Nazis in Europe and the United States. And he cannot be simply dismissed as a crackpot: Huber served on the board of directors of a Swiss bank and holding company that President Bush accused of helping fund al Qaeda.

---

It's clearly not appropriate. The main text isn't about what Islamic people or groups think, but about what white supremacists say about them; the only relevant part is wholly in the form of a quotation, and concerns one person who's claimed to be a Muslim and a fascist.

I've also removed a couple of other unsubstantiated claims, reorganised the text to flow more smoothly, and corrected a number of internal links. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vfd discussion

The vfd discussion gained no consensus on 08:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC): Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamic fascism

No consensus?

I am wondering if this is a no consensus:

• 4 votes for keep.
• 3 votes for merge.
• 2 votes for redirect.
• 9 votes for delete.

Cheers and respect from Svest 08:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Unfortunately, "merge" and "redirect" are counted as "keep" votes. It's not obvious, and I think that people should be informed of this more clearly, but there you are. In this case, the votes are exactly balanced, even though only four out of eighteen people voted to keep. It's not clear whether the admin who closed the VfD merely counted votes (which is against policy) or actually looked at what people said (which is policy), because no explanation was given, but we have to assume good faith. A bad result, though, as the majority of those involved will agree. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's the situation. The vfd was up forever, because no admin was willing to address it. The discussion was long, confusing, and more than someone not involved could readily understand. And someone who is involved should not have taken on the task. So I did. As you point out, there are only 9 out of 18 votes for delete. This is not normally considered adequate consensus, and without consensus, an article is kept. Really I think the merge and redirect people most likely carry the day, but you're going to have to decide that yourselves. You don't need an admin or a vfd listing to merge (which can't possibly be the vfd maintainer's job, as that makes vfd maintenance just too onerous) or to change this to a redirect. If you really think I made the wrong decision, you can try re-posting on vfd; maybe the discussion will be clearer this time. But I'm not trying to be malicious, and it was a good-faith decision on my part. moink 10:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like you to note also that two of the "delete" votes are from users who have not yet registered, that the discussion continued a long time down the page, changing in tone as it went, and that the current version is quite different from the version nominated for deletion ([1]). All of these things are normally taken into account when evaluating a vfd discussion. It's never decided on sheer number of votes. moink 10:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes — looking at what I said I can see that it might have sounded like an insinuation of bad faith, but it wasn't meant to. I'm sure that you didn't merely count votes. My suspicion is that many of those voting "merge" or "redirect" would have voted "delete" if they'd realised that they'd be counted as voting "keep" (I often forget myself). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I do believe in moink good faith. However, she may have not known that there is already another mirror article called Islamofascism. Having two articles about a single thing is redundant. We cannot have for instance Islamic art and Islamic art history (in fact they are redirected and constitue one article). This is what some of the comments in the vfd were talking about when voted for merge or redirect. Svest 11:07, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I do know that article exists; that's why people voted for merge and redirect. I would have done the redirect myself but I will not do the merge part, as that requires knowledge of the subject matter. I will emphasize again that you are free to change this article to a redirect whenever you choose. moink 11:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

A good answer. We will try to discuss that. Cheers and respect from Svest 11:15, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

This is now the main article

The Islamofascism article is almost empty of any content now. Probably that article should redirect here now. 66.94.94.154 12:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree — especially as (despite the claims maed in the VfDs) it now seems to be admitted that the two terms have the same meaning. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If we agree about the above, than Islamofascism should be deleted and merged with this one?! Svest 15:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I agree that Islamic fascism and Islamofascism should be merged (and queries redirected) but this article is a mess and needs to be outlined and edited down to essentials before the merge. Mrdthree 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Pigs in flight

Redirected from pigfly.

Pigs in flight is a phenomenon cited by Christopher Hitchens. It is therefore a valid topic for an article in WP.

Hitchens was recently quoted in the Oceania Times as acknowleding that neither "pigs" nor "flight," in their technical "you, know, old-style-dictionary meanings," accurately described the phenomenon he had in mind, but insisted that "there is this thing, and I wasn't sure what to call it, and I realized I kind of liked calling it pigs in flight."

According to Hitchens, pigs in flight refers to the practice of drunken men throwing dwarves as tavern entertainment. "The activity itself has certainly become one of our cultural reference points," he insisted in a recent interview, "and the plain fact is that since I started using the term pigs in flight to describe dwarf-tossing, other people have laughed a couple of times, clearly an indication of wide acceptance of the term."

A controversial epithet

Opponents of the term pigs in flight (or its associated epithet pigfly) apparently are hung up on words actually carrying discernable meanings, though this approach has been designated as thoughtcrime in certain sections of Oceania. Some even claim the terms in question are offensive, but those individuals are under investigation.

An anonymous fan of Hitchens offered this response from the blogosphere: "Look, Hitchens said it. And he didn't just, like, say it. He said it more than once. That's what people aren't considering in their brains. And you know what? He also wrote about it. Hitchens did, I mean, with like a computer and everything. Again, he did this more than once. Plus a pig is a mammal. Are you saying a dwarf isn't a mammal? And plus, like, when you fly, you leave the ground, right? Are you saying someone who throws a dwarf doesn't make that dwarf leave the ground? Christopher Hitchens says that's flying, so that's what it is."

That the term is regarded by certain Muslims and other unpersons as not only offensive and inaccurate, but self-contradictory, is a point with which we need not concern ourselves here.

History had already been rewritten, but fragments of the literature of the past survived here and there, imperfectly censored, and so long as one retained one's knowledge of Oldspeak it was possible to read them. In the future such fragments, even if they chanced to survive, would be unintelligible and untranslatable. It was impossible to translate any passage of Oldspeak into Newspeak unless it either referred to some technical process or some very simple everyday action, or was already orthodox(goodthinkful would be the Newspeak expression) in tendency. -- George Orwell, The Principles of Newspeak

So, if I understand the point of the analogy, if a word or phrase is deemed wrong, inflammitory, or offensive, (forget, for now, who is doing the deeming) it should not be listed as it is Orwellian Newspeak? User:BrandonYusufToropov, I have never understood that argument. As if denial of the word itself will somehow erase the thoughts and idology that espouse it. Eliminating documentation from here will not stop the neo-cons, politicans and the American media from using the term, and will eliminate a forum for an objective critique of it. 66.94.94.154 19:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, Anonymous. Just want to be sure I understand your position.

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of commentators in the Arab world who make a habit of referring vaguely, and ominously, to a Global Zionist Conspiracy to control the global media.

Me personally, I think that's sloppy thinking, and I think there's no evidence of such a conspiracy. That means, to my way of thinking, that the verbal shorthand these commentators use describes a condition contrary to fact. (By the way: that's what I'm taking exception to primarily about Islamofascism and its cousins -- by "Islam" proponents of this phrase do not actually mean "the doctrines of the Qur'an," and by "fascism" they do not actually mean "the system of corporatism practiced by Musollini and Hitler." They mean, as another editor so eloquently put it, something closer to "Yo mama she fat." As an insult, it's offensive, of course, but let's table that for the moment.)

I'm not saying that the terminology "Global Zionist Conspiracy" doesn't exist, or that people should be forbidden from maintaining that there's a global Zionist conspiracy, even though I disagree with that assertion. I'm saying you shouldn't write (allegedly factual) encyclopedia articles about delusional partisan beliefs, and that doing so smacks of phrases like "Wise and Fearless Leader". No matter how much someone may like or agree with that phrase, "Wise and Fearless Leader," I hope you would conclude that it is inappropriate as a title for an article about George W. Bush.

But under your reasoning, we should in fact have an entry for Global Zionist Conspiracy," right? Because people somewhere are in fact using it?

Hey, you got it! Exactly! The fact that people allege that Global Zionist Conspiracy exists, propagandize about it, and commit violent acts based on the idea means that the use must in fact be documented or else we are engaing in a Salinist sanitation of history. If we remove all refrence to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion from our history because it is a fraud, in a misguided attempt to "fight" anti-semitisim and wrong-headedness, we willingly blind ourselves to an odious philosophy— and philosophies like that only grow well in the dark 66.94.94.154 13:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

PS-- you inspired me to add an entry for Global Zionist Conspiracy (Oh, and sign your comments, would you?) 66.94.94.154 13:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This, then, 66.94.94.154, would be a point on which you and I disagree. There are a lot of people who feel as you do. I certainly respect your point of view. I do have some questions for you, though.

• In our new article on the Global Zionist Conspiracy, we are going to make clear to the reader that the contention that Jews are conspiring to control world media outlets is a fraudulent one, yes, 66.94.94.154?

• You mentioned The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 66.94.94.154. That article, too, we will, as good editors, compose in such a way as to make it clear to the reader that the document is fraudulent, yes?

• With me so far, 66.94.94.154? Now -- how about Islamofascism? Or its cousin, Pigs in Flight-- sorry, Islamic Fascism. Are we going to point out cearly and without ambiguity that that's a fantasy, too?

• Does it matter, 66.94.94.154, that actual fascists in the Mideast are the sworn enemies of Islamist parties?

• Supposing your viewpoint on this article's status to be the majority (and I think it is), doesn't the fact that fascists and Islamists oppose each other in the real world merit reference in, say, paragraph one, sentence one -- where similar disclaimers about the authenticity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion appear in, for instance, The Columbia Encyclopedia? Or does fascist mean whatever neocons want it to mean at any given moment, even if their meaning conflicts with reality?

• The big problem hereabouts, 66.94.94.154, has been certain people insisting that, because Hitchens has defined a movement, it therefore exists in, you know, the real world. On Hitchens' terms, and more or less as he described it. If he said Muslims were inherently Marxist, would that be "controversial" or "disputed by those who oppose the term"? Or would it be, um, horse-puckey? If the neocons like it, though ... it's apparently a trend to watch.

• Final questions for you, 66.94.94.154: If I were to declare in some blog that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was in fact the result of an actual meeting of power-hungry Jews (it wasn't), would you thereupon revise the opening of the WP articlee on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article to accommodate my (extremist, delusional) viewpoint? Would you describe the finding that the Protocols were composed by the Russian secret police as "controversial"? Would facts matter in that article? Do they matter in this one? BrandonYusufToropov 13:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You mix a lot of different arguments into this, the two primary ones being:

1. the validity of the article's existance
2. the factual basis for the article's content
3. the article is not NPOV

1) There is a consensus here, both versions survived VfD: The article(s) should exist. 2) AFAIK there is no current factual distpue on the current content of either. In fact the Islamic Fascism article makes most of the points you're complaining about: ie. it's a neocon neologisim that has nothing to do with 1930s Italian politics or the ideologies that derived from them. 3) You have a point about prior versions of the article but I do not believe it applies to the current form. Arguing against the article based on past bias or potential future bias is a good way to shut down the whole wikipedia. Saswann 15:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. Current opening paragraph states:

Islamic fascism (also:Islamo-fascist) is a term adopted by journalist Christopher Hitchens intended to refer to a small number of Islamist extremists, including terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. The term has gained wide currency in the United States, particularly among neo-conservatives. Since the term is both pejorative and coined by critics of militant Islamist groups, there are no self-identified Islamic fascists.

The paragraph does not reference the following facts:

• Fascism is a political ideology combining state and corporate power, and embracing corporatism. (It's not merely totalitarianism -- Stalin was not a fascist leader.)
• There is today no Muslim state pursuing such an ideology.
• Islamists and fascists are both present in the contemporary Middle East, and they are bitter enemies.

The fact is that people who try to make these points get shouted down whenever we try to introduce these facts into the opening sentences of the article where they belong -- this seems to me to be part of the problem here. (Please recall that Columbia and WP both make "fraudulent" an important part of the opening sentence of Protocols of the Elders of Zion.)

Better idea still: redirect to a page about neofascism in various religious movements, not just the one the neocons are frothing at the mouth about this week, and then apply a real-word standard to the poli-sci terms used there. BrandonYusufToropov 16:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is a lot of material to cram into the first sentance of an article. And I might note that the article (Islamic fascism) does make the latter two points. The first one is properly part of Fascism. I think (trying to believe the best of everyone) shouting down is due more to the fact that it is very hard to make a NPOV edit on something you are passionate about. Also, while your last point may be well-meaning, it will never work in an encyclopeda that documents real-world usage; (see Talk:anarcho-capitalism) Saswann 16:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Again -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent document. We are correct to say so up front. The notion that Islamists and fascists are on the same side (or even remotely compatible) is fraudulent, whether or not it suits Hitchens or any other ideological ax-grinder to say so. We should state as much in the opening sentence, or redirect to a discussion of neo-fascist movements in contemporary religious movements. BrandonYusufToropov 16:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

So, if I gather correctly, your issue boils down to the fact that the point that this is used solely as a epithet, and that point is not made strongly enough in the lead paragraph? Saswann 17:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a suggestion - if it's an epithet, why not suggest the proper and acceptable terminology? I note that that hasn't been done in the article itself. And I have no suggestion on an alternate acceptable term - that's how I got to this page in the first place. Netdance 04:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Propose redirect

I have created an overview page Neofascism_and_religion and am proposing that this page be redirected to this larger and more detailed article. --Cberlet 14:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. BrandonYusufToropov 15:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree: I might point out that by re-directing to an article called Neofascism_and_religion you are implicitly making the case for what seems to be the primariy objection to this article, i.e. you imply that what the American neocons refer to as Islamic fascism is actually a Fascist/Neofascist political movement. It will also make it less clear about the usage of the term and its issues since any disclaimers, most importantly the fact that it is a derogitory epithet and not some global political movement, have to be buried within the body of a huge article-- which people searching for Islamic fascism/Islamofascist may not bother to read all the way through. IMHO, it is much more sensible having a short pithy article stating; "This is a slur, this is where it came from, this is how it is used." Saswann 16:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying Fascist means something specific, and (as far as I can tell) Neofascist can mean a whole lot of things to a whole lot of different people. That seems more in line with what the neocons are saying, and with the level of precision to be found within their argument. I do agree, though that a two-sentence article explaining that Islamic fascism is a made-up insult would be better than what we have now. BrandonYusufToropov 16:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's the problem. There are serious scholars of fascism who write that some specific forms of Islamic totalitarianism are neofascist. It's not just a slur. There are also a lot of Islamaphobic bigots and pro-intervention political activists who use terms like Islamofascism without any scholarly intent or content. This usage is often a slur. I am proposing moving the discussion to a broader page where this can be explored in the context of looking at both usages. Folks can't just deny that there are serious scholars who write about Islamic neofsacism; and folks can't just ignore the popular use of the term by people like Hitchens. Would you rather keep arguing on this page forever, or redirect to a larger article that looks at both the scholarly and political usages of such terms in the context of several religious traditions?--Cberlet 17:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That's probably the best idea we've had in weeks. BrandonYusufToropov 17:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My issue is not that per-se. I just think that a redirect is not going to address the same problems we're talking about. It is nearly inevitable that such a broad article will become unwiledly, and eventually break out sub-categories into thier own articles—, such as Islamic fascism— puting eveyone back where we started. I don't have any problems with a Neofascism_and_religion article, but it doesn't really address the core issues with the Islamic fascism article, it just moves them. Saswann 17:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Which issues, specifically, do you mean when you write, "a redirect is not going to address the same problems we're talking about"? BrandonYusufToropov 18:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

1. The move changes nothing about the POV of the material
2. The move changes nothing about the facts contained in the material
3. The move will not render anyone less passonate about it, or limit any edit wars, etc. etc.

The argument is about content. You cannot change the issues over existing content simply by surrounding it with more content-- That might address sins of omission, and context, but is seems to me that these aren't the primary issues. Saswann 18:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have my own thoughts on 1), 2), and 3), above, but I'd like to hear what other people think about your list. BrandonYusufToropov 18:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think CBerlet is on the mark here. I think it will help (1) to get this out of the context of a particular religion and (2) to discuss the inappropriate use of epithets like this and (3) to discuss the several cases where adherents of various religions -- Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, possibly others -- have, at times, adopted ideologies that blend neo-fascism and religious sectarianism. Fascists in the Muslim world tend to be relatively secular, but there is a better chance of getting that clear in a more broadly contextualized article than in one like this, which is an almost guaranteed perpetual battleground. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:57, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am sensitive to the fact that the idea of Islamic Fascism can be used in a bigoted way, but by moving to a page that talks about several religions, the issue can be put in greater context, and can lessen the focus on a single religious tradition. --Cberlet 21:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add support for a redirect. The Neofascism and religion page is, IMHO, a good example of a wiki page on a potentially controversial topic, in that it leaves the reader with many options for further investigation, and provides contextual imformation to examine the issue as it may apply to various religions. It also provides a good grounding via the opening discussion about the nature of fascism itself. Thanks illWill 23:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I would as well like to add support for a redirect, perhaps we can get this whole thing settled once and for all (been going on for over a month now).Yuber^(talk) 23:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Great to see blue skies again. Everybody is agreeing about the redirection. Redirect has been my option since the birth of the me-u-fascim articles. We even tried to merge them in a single article Fascist (epithet) that User:LeeHunter created. The problem is that everytime we felt that we were almost achieving a consensus, some literally just-yesterday-new account-users would come up with an objection as if she/he's been participating in this discussions since the beginning. This is not against the rules but surely against the ethics. Since the discussions begun, everytime that just-yesterday-new account-users felt losing ground, she/he'd leave and would be replaced with another on the spot. We've come up to solutions a couple of times but we experienced the sudden ressurection and arrival of NAUs with a veto to the deal. I believe this is time to decide this for once. Now, we have to decide if it is possible to avoid redundancy by merging Fascist (epithet) with Neofascism and religion. Cheers and respect -- Svest 01:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I hope to help rewrite Fascist (epithet) to avoid redundancy and add some text. It really is a problem that goes beyond religion. We can move the Orwell quote back in there, and provide several cross-links in the Neofascism and religion page.

I might point out that Neofascism and religion is an inherently different category than Fascist (epithet) the latter is properly concerned solely with the term used as a political slur against any group (ie, not particularly a religious group), whereas Neofascism and religion might cover religious groups who are acually fascist in philosophy (some fringe white power groups come to mind), so if the content is to move, it might be better as a disambiguation page pointing in both directions. Saswann 23:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Saswann. Cheers -- Svest 23:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

This makes a good point. I would be willing to discuss it further if anyone else has input.--Cberlet 01:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Disagree This has been gone over multiple times. Islamofascism was the target of an apparently successful defacement campaign following a failed Vote for Deletion, and appears now slated by less-than-unanimous consent (given Mel Etitis' misrepresentation of at least one user's comments) to be merged into Islamic Fascism. To then merge Islamic Fascism away is beyond ridiculous. It goes against the objection of the editor Mel Etitis misrepresented as well, which was that the merge was fine provided the content of Islamic Fascism was not then defaced. There are also the objections of Klonimus at the talk page for Islamofascism to consider]]. Enviroknot 21:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Next steps?

Does anyone have a clue how to make the redirects work properly? I presume we need to archive the pages first? Three pages are in play Islamic fascism, Islamofascism, and Christian fascism. Plus, one page is protected.--Cberlet 13:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop right there, there is NOT a consensus. EnviroknotEnviroknot 21:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

What's on your mind? BrandonYusufToropov 01:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Some Observations

There seems to be some overlap between this page and Islamofascism. My suggestion is that Islamofascism is redirected to this page and maybe given its own section here.

I also think there is too much information above the contents box - this area should be for a minor descriptor of the page's focus and the rest should be put below. Infact a lot of what is mentioned above the box is indeed mentioned below.

I think there are far too many examples of use in public discourse and all of these are regarding islamofascism and in this respect they mirror the page Islamofascism. Steve-g 09:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) everbody knows what is happening in abughraib prisons in the way of bible(as bush said every night he talked with god and god had given him an mission) and torah lover man.so interesting also these islamofacists are standing on patrol sea.nobody in here is telling the truth about this term which is first used by an evangelic president whose teachers are jews.very interesting.hf

I don't think that Islamofascism should be redirected to Islamic fascism, since I think that this article is dubious and inflammatory, and Islamofascism is a particularly significant neologism with a great deal of current resonance. I would merge the other way after this article has undergone substantial editing, possibly, but certainly not merge anything into this article. Richardjames444 18:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A Small Number?!

A small number of groups? (line 1) That sounds incredibly wrong. - Anon 8/14/06

LewRockwell.com

A LewRockwell.com article about this insult, calling it a Big Lie [2] --Striver 10:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

OK folks. Back to Wikipedia policy. This page is a redirect. Add material to Neofascism and religion#Islam or Islamofascism or any of the several other appropriate pages. This page was redirected after a lengthy and contentious debate. Don't stir up tropuble and insert POV material here. Add material to other pages and seek to build consensus with other editors. Thanks.--Cberlet 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to policy, you don't own either page. If you want something to change you're free to discuss it here, and not ignore what others think. No unilateral decrees please. I see no reason to follow an old decision, that didn't solve anything, wasn't very much OK with policies and guidelines, and (not surprisingly) had practical problems when putting it in practice. --Francis Schonken 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Fascism page

This page and several others were the subject of lengthy and heated debates, numerous attempts to delete the pages, POV wars, numerous attempts to rename the pages, etc. These discussions are therefore on a number of pages going back over a year. Most recently there has been a discussion on Islamofascism, although even that page has had several names. Almost all of the text on the Islamic Fascism page that was recently revived already had been moved to either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. The very outdated and redundant page was simply switched back on by deleting the redirect. Therefore almost the entire page was redundant. There was no serious attempt to engage editors in a discussion on either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. There was no substantative discussion over several weeks--I waited to see if there was a serious dicussion. There was not. POV page forks are a violation of Wiki policy. Any editor can do what I did. I have no intention of trying to suppress claims about Islam and fascism, and in fact have written scholarly articles where I argue some forms of militant Islam are indeed forms of theocratic or clerical fascism. At the same time, I was just quoted in Newsweek saying that the term "Islamofascism" creeps me out. Over time, the two pages Islamofascism (on the term) and Neofascism and religion (on the contemporary debate), along with a few pages that mention the Grand Mufti and the Phalangists, have been the best way to keep this topic from turning, once again, into an endless POV war.--Cberlet 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think if you have successfully integrated this information into islamofascism and miscellaneous neofascisms the case should be made. This may mean outlining this article and then showing that the items have been successfully incorporated into the two related articles. After that I would agree any resistance to deleting this page is unreasonable. Mrdthree 18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply comparing the pages reveals that most of the material on this page already exists on the other pages(with the exception of some recent links and cites which may be useful on one of the other pages). If I were to delete all the redundant material on this page, there would be little else left. As it is, this page is clearly a POV fork, and thus it violates basic Wiki policy. Dozens of other editors concerned with this topic work out their differences and reach compromises on the other pages Islamofascism and Neofascism and religion. If after a discussion on Islamofascism editors want to merge or rename that page or create a new one with this name, that will be the decision that consensus arrives at. Posting the merger notice in the way that it was posted was not a useful way to start a dialog on this issue.--Cberlet 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Practical problems

As I mentioned above, there had been some practical problems with having only Islamofascism and Neofascism and religion (or Neofascism and religion#Islam). Some people apparently use the terms "Islamofascism" and "Islamic Fascism" interchangeably. Most notably President Bush. Some Wikipedians found it inappropriate to have quotes containing "Islamic Fascism" on the Islamofascism page. There is no proof (except maybe some original research) that president Bush intended neofascism when he said "fascism". --Francis Schonken 07:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The page Islamic Fascism was one of several that became magnets for POV wars and, bigotry against Muslims, or, alternatively, attempts to sanitize serious scholarly discussions of potential elements of neofascism in certain Islamic movements. The current compromise was arrived at through a long discussion involving dozens of editors. The current page, Islamic Fascism, is little more than text that was already moved to Islamofascism and Neofascism and religion months ago. By combining the serious discussions of neofascism and several religions--Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Paganism--on the page Neofascism and religion, we were able to cool out the POV wars to a great extent, and put the discussion in a larger context. I oppose a merger. There is almost nothing to merge. The text was sent to other pages months ago. At best, this should be a discussion about renaming one of the otehr pages, or creating a new page. It makes no logical sense for an editor to claim they know the intent of President Bush to use the term "fascism" rather than "neofascism." There is no basis for that claim. The material on Bush and Rumsfeld talking about Islam and neofascism, or comparing certain Islamic movements to the German Nazis, can easily be added to Neofascism and religion#Islam). This page should be a redirect, or perhaps a disambiguation page. There are no practical problems.--Cberlet 02:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that several other editors are having this discussion over at Talk:Islamofascism as was previously requested.--Cberlet 02:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't address the practical problem I mentioned above. Regarding the proposed merger, both "merge" templates (that is the mergeto template at Islamofascism, and the mergefrom template at Islamic fascism) point to the *same* discussion page. So that solves that automatically. --Francis Schonken 08:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

I oppose to doing this by vote. I'd rather like to see issues (like the Practical problems mentioned above) addressed. Unless that is done, a vote is void of actual meaning. --Francis Schonken 06:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Oppose merger--Cberlet 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This page was a redirect, and when it was restored as an entry, it created a POV fork, because almost all the text had already been moved to Islamofascism and Neofascism and religion months ago. This page should be restored to a redirect.--Cberlet 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- The Islamofascism term has a significant enough history to warrant its own article. (→Netscott) 15:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: Francis, since I gather this is your proposal to merge rather than merely redirect, can you summarize what material is here that you feel merits merging? - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As said above, a first practical problem was when in the last few months (that is after the previous Wikipedia article arrangement discussion) Bush started to use the terms Islamofascism/Islamofascist and Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist (apparently!) interchangeable, and that after that, wikipedians objected that anything referring to Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist would be included in the Islamofascism article, because the article was supposed to be about Islamofascism *exclusively* (and not about Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist ). Merging Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist parlance in a "neofascist" article (Bush didn't use "neo-") would have been as incompatible according to the same logic. And would have been completely POV-forking, while obviously this use of Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist is *often* interchangeable with the use of Islamofascism/Islamofascist by the same (prominent) persons. --Francis Schonken 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Then the collaborative method would have been to propose a name change, rather than restoring an outdated page with redundant text. People whose suggestions are rejected by consensus on another page are not supposed to create POV forks.--Cberlet 21:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

INVENTORY

Heres what hasnt been moved to either the neofascism page or the islamofascism page:

INTRO islamic fascism is a term adopted by journalists including Stephen Schwartz [2] and Christopher Hitchens intended to refer to Islamist extremists, including terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. The term has gained wide currency in the United States, particularly among neo-conservatives. The term is a pejorative coined by critics of militant Islamist groups - there are no self-identified Islamic fascists. The most recent appellation by President Bush describing assorted cells of British Muslims of Pakistani origin in England. Fascism is a particular kind of authoritarian political movement adopted in Italy during the 1930s. On the European axis of left and right wing politics fascism is understood to be an expression of extreme Right-wing politics. Modern usage has tended to extend the definition of the term to refer to any totalitarian worldview regardless of political ideology (see: Fascist (epithet)). In the case of "Islamic fascism" this refers to political movements that either call for, or are believed by their opponents to call for, some authoritarian imposition of Islamic law. This explains how critics associate the term with groups of Islamic fundamentalists like the Taliban which governed Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Robert S. Wistrich has described Islamic fascism as adopting a totalitarian mind-set, a hatred of the West, fanatical extremism, repression of women, loathing of Jews, a firm belief in conspiracy theories, and dreams of global hegemony.[3]

Many dispute the accuracy of the term Islamic "fascism." They point to the fact that political ideologies actually derived from fascism have been violently opposed to Islamism.[citation needed]

On the other hand, Daniel Pipes equates only militant Islamism to fascism. Thus Pipes and most others critics say they refer to a small number of Islamist zealots, including terrorist groups such as al Qaeda.

The use of the term "Islamofascism" is contentious and discussed on the page Islamofascism. For pre-1945 events, see Fascism: Overtures to Muslims and Arab countries.

APPLICATION Islamists do not advocate corporatism, an important component of "classic" fascist governments in Italy and Germany. However, the Islamist idea of Ummah has been compared to the German fascist idea of Volksgemeinschaft. [2]

Historian of fascism, Roger Eatwell, notes that the debate can be traced back to fascism's heyday: "Some made this equation – though in the reverse direction - back in the 1930s. For instance, Carl Jung said of Adolf Hitler in 1939: 'he is like Mohammed. The emotion in Germany is Islamic, warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god.'." [7]

Origins and usage Christopher Hitchens used the term "Islamic fascism" or "theocratic fascism" to describe the fatwa declared on February 14, 1989 by Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses, an event that was pivotal in shaping the attitude toward Islamism of Hitchens and several other prominent journalists on the left.[9] Hitchens also used the term "fascism with an Islamic face" in The Nation[10] after the 9/11 attacks, when the phrase spread to the blogosphere, shortened to "Islamofascism." For Hitchens and ex-Marxist Julie Burchill, who also uses these terms, there is a resonance with phrases like clerical fascism used by Marxists.

The scholar Walter Laqueur has also described Islamism as a new form of clerical fascism.[11]

On October 6, 2005 President George W Bush used the term Islamofascism in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy.[12]

The entire Examples of use in public discourse

Mrdthree 05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a useful exercise, Mrdthree, thanks. Note that the "unique" portions of the page posted by Mrdthree are in fact only a small portion of the exisiting page. It also reveals to me that most of this text that appears to be unique to this page (posted by Mrdthree), especially from the INTRO section, I recognize as originally having been posted on other pages, and was cut by other editors working collaboratively. Thus this page remains essentially a POV fork. The remaining material should be moved to Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion.--Cberlet 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

plus now:

In late 2005, President George W. Bush and other high U.S. government officials began to refer to the idea of "Islamo-fascism" or (slightly later) "Islamic fascism", and suggested that opposing militant Islamic terrorism was similar to opposing the Nazis during World War II. [3]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] This created storm of controversy as supporters and opponents debated these contentions.

Moved from Neofascism and religion while none of the Bush references show the use of "neo"-anything, so doesn't belong in "neofascism and religion" article: moving para to Islamic fascism article.

This is just ridiculous. Adding material to a POV fork violates Wiki policy--Cberlet 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This, in my view, has turned into a POV fork pushed by one editor unable to reach consensus on other pages. That's my opinion but I am willing to test it. This is a major national media issue. Will folks here agree to mediation on this issue?--Cberlet 02:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

sure --Francis Schonken 06:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Francis, you should move your material into Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion, as appropriate, rather than starting a third article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please accept mediation as proposed by cberlet, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid#Administrators admonished: "[...], SlimVirgin, and [...] are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur." --Francis Schonken 07:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't be taking part in any mediation in relation to this so count me out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal below by SlimVirgin, and withdraw my suggestion that we seek mediation. The issue of the POV fork is resolved. The editors on the other pages can debate renaming pages or creating new pages. Proper Wiki procedures will prevail. End of the controversy. --Cberlet 13:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, seems there is no "POV fork pushed by one editor". --Francis Schonken 07:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, if you contend the controversy has ended, that can only mean you fully agree with what I wrote on your talk page some days ago [12] (on which point I haven't seen convincing arguments that would make me change my mind):

You're not enganging in serious discussion either...

...regarding the Islamofascism/Islamic Fascism pages. You're just commandeering, based on "ad antiquam" arguments. There is currently no disheartening debate regarding these pages in the terms you describe. If there ever was, that's history now. As far as I know the protagonists of these previous debates have all ended up in ArbCom cases one way or another, so I don't expect there to be a revival of the old debate style. If you want to join new discussions, feel free (these are all quite polite). The old ones are dead, and I don't think it's good to allow "commandeering" based on them.

Re. "consensus on other pages": at talk:Islamofascism consensus was established regarding "[...] starting an article (using content from there and elsewhere) entitled Islamic fascism [...]". I quoted this prior talk yesterday in Talk:Islamofascism#Merger Discussion (from several sections higher on that page). I've seen no convincing arguments to change that consensus. I haven't seen such discussions here on this talk page, nor on any other talk page. --Francis Schonken 07:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation proposed by SlimVirgin

Content of the Islamic fascism page proposed by SlimVirgin ([13] - [14] - [15]):

---

{{dab}}

• Neofascism and religion#Islam
• Islamofascism

---

I object to this because of the simple rules of Wikipedia:Disambiguation:"[...] disambiguations are paths leading to different topic pages that share essentially the same term in their title." (my bolding)

• "different topic pages" is not fulfilled, while the topic discussed (ie, meaning & use of terminology that links "Islam" and "fascism") is twice the same.
• "share essentially the same term in their title" is not fulfilled while one of the pages has "neofascism" in its title, which is inappropriate naming for the discussion of Islamic fascism. At least it is original research when the sources used for discussing the "Islamic fascism" topic show no use of the "neofascism" terminology.

Basicly (for a concrete example), when a user reads or hears "Islamic fascism"/"Islamic fascist" in a communication of pres. Bush, and s/he types such expression in the Wikipedia search field, and presses "Go", this user is left with a choice, that s/he can't resolve without knowing in advance what is on the so-called "disambiguated" pages. This is not how disambiguation is supposed to work.

Further, after reading these so-called "disambiguated" pages it becomes all too apparent that there is POV forking involved: one of the pages suggests that "Islamofascism" and "Islamic fascism" are not synonyms. If that user happens to have taken the other choice from the so-called disambiguation page, s/he'll learn that Bush uses these terms interchangeably. Sorry, as it is now, this is a most elementary example of POV forking. --Francis Schonken 07:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the conversion of this page into a disambiguation page as suggested by SlimVirgin. This sends the issues back to the pages where most editors are working collaboratively, and resolves the need for a mediation, and so I now withdraw that proposal.--Cberlet 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, didn't see an argument w.r.t. the mentioned problems. --Francis Schonken 07:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a Disambiguation Page

The compromise consensus among those discussing this matter was to make it a disambiguation page. The majority opposed the merger. Please, Francis Schonken, stop reverting this decision and join with other editors on the other pages where this matter is being discussed.--Cberlet 15:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Only two out of seven people commenting on this page since August support this to be a disambiguation page

@Ceberlet:

What compromise? — I see none, not here, nor on the "other pages".

What consensus? — I see none, not here, nor on the "other pages".

Re. "The majority opposed the merger":

• "majority" is not "consensus". "Majority" ruling is even more opposed to finding "compromise"
• Even "majority" has not been established: in the #Merger Discussion above 4 people commented, only two opposed merger. Taking other parts of the page in (contributions to this talk page since August):
  • Steve-g: "My suggestion is that Islamofascism is redirected to this page and maybe given its own section here."
  • Richardjames444: "I would merge the other way after this article has undergone substantial editing, possibly, [...]"
  • Mrdthree also supports *merging* the other way around, as far as I can see (which didn't happen yet).
  • SlimVirgin doesn't seem to oppose "merging" of content the other way around (which of course also pre-supposes the content isn't deleted before it is merged)
  • Cberlet opposes merger
  • Netscott opposes merger in any direction (which is consistent with the prior preferences of this user: keep Islamic fascism as a separate article.)
  • Francis: I have no preferences regarding mergers and the number of pages. Only the problems (one of them being POV forking if "islamofascism" and "islamic fascism" are used interchangeably) need to be solved. Making Islamic fascism a dab page doesn't solve these problems, but only acerbates them with the present content of Islamofascism and Neofascism and religion#Islam.

Still, only two (Cberlet and Netscott) out of seven people who reject merger completely. The 5 other people seem to support merger, with apparently a preference for merging out (at least Richardjames444 and Mrdthree support that option explicitly)

I can't reconcile those who prefer to merge Islamofascism → Islamic fascism (like Steve-g) with those who want to merge everything out of Islamic fascism. And I can't reconcile none of these with those who want Islamofascism and Islamic fascism to be two separate content pages (like Netscott). And I can't reconcile these with the two people who want to make Islamic fascism a dab page. So, by all means this needs more discussion, and more participants in the discussion. The best way to get a civil discussion is by keeping the merge suggestion templates up on the concerned pages.

Anyway, there is a larger majority not to make this a dab page (only Cberlet and SlimVirgin supported this option thus far). Several people (Steve-g, Francis, Mrdthree, Richardjames444, Netscott) opposed deletion of content of the "Islamic fascism" page, at least not before content has been properly merged out, if this merging out is desirable at all (at least Netscott opposes this merging out).

Also, Cberelet, again, you're not giving any assistance for solving the open and clear problems, mentioned above on this page by several people, including myself. --Francis Schonken 08:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am following Wiki policy. You are not. There was no consensus for this page being recreated and no consensus for this page having the contents of Islamofascism merged into it. There were a number of ideas tossed around. Given the lack of consensus, the normal procedure would have been to restore this page to a simple redirect. SlimVirgin proposed a compromise--make this page a disambiguation page. I supported it. It was a reasonable compromise. If you reject it, you are still outvoted 2-1. Please file a notice for editor comments or administrator intervention is you wish to contest this.--Cberlet 15:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re. "I am following Wiki policy. You are not." — I'm well aware of Wikipedia's policies & guidelines, thank you. If you say you're following policy I can't figure out which one. (FYI, "Wiki policy" is not the correct wording, I assume you're talking about "Wikipedia policy"). Now about which one(s) you're pretending to follow:

• You can't seriously mean Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "cannot be superseded (...) by editors' consensus" — Above I pointed to a POV problem. The consensus can only be about how that POV problem is resolved, not about "how to avoid resolving the POV problem" as you propose.
• You can't mean Wikipedia:Consensus (a guideline): "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." — yet you write in the edit summary of your last edit to this page: "It was a reasonable compromise. If you reject it, you are still outvoted 2-1." I'm not "outvoted". Period. Whether your proposal was "reasonable" I don't know. I can only see that you keep ignoring my explanations that your proposal (thus far) implies a POV fork. There's no "compromise", which would have implied you had been able to convince me of something, which you didn't (sidenote: trying to impose a solution, and then weaseling out of mediation or other dispute resolution, is about the least "convincing" one can be regarding the validity of the proposed solution). The consensus mechanism proposed by Wikipedia works otherwise: "the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues". So, I come back to my reasonable argument that more wikipedians should be invited to take part in trying to give a good solution to this issue. Lacking other proposals to trigger this involvement, I'm going to put the "merge" templates (linking to this talk page) back up.
• You can't mean Wikipedia:Straw polls (a guideline): "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." — Sorry, didn't see anything of the sort happening, before your so-called "vote results" of the last month, which I hereby denounce as completely opposed to Wikipedia's guidelines & policies.

It would be good to know which Wikipedia policy you're pretending to follow. I can't see which one(s) you mean. It would be appreciated if you could clarify that point.

I repeat that thus far there was considerable support (5 out of 7 participant in the debate) not to delete content from Islamic fascism, before it was properly merged. Since there is no consensus yet in which direction the merging should take place, both the content (particularily the content that is only on this page), as a temporary template involving an invitation to discuss issues till they are resolved seem indispensable to me.

Deleting content just like that (again, I'm talking about content that has not been merged to any other page), for no other reason than that you don't "like" it, is considered vandalism. That's another policy I don't see how you could advocate you would be following it: Wikipedia:Vandalism, "Removing all or significant parts of articles (...) is a common vandal edit". --Francis Schonken 08:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal

I think it would maybe be possible to resolve the POV issues by turning the Islamic fascism page into a Wikipedia:Summary style article, with two main sections:

• "Before 1945"

  Giving a summary of Fascism#Overtures to Muslims and Arab countries

• "After 1945"

  Giving a summary of the content of Neofascism and religion#Islam (note that there is still an issue to resolve that I've seen thus far no convincing references that neofascism is a terminology that external sources use to describe that, so in that case there's probably still an issue to be resolved regarding the *naming* of the Neofascism and religion article).

On the (very important!) condition that content which is currently only on the Islamic fascism page (see overview of that content above in #INVENTORY) is properly merged out. I'm not saying that "necessarily" all the content summed up in that #INVENTORY section above needs to be preserved, I'm only talking about "properly merging out" that part of that content about which we can agree that it satisfies the core content policies.

As far as I'm concerned a "summary style" format with three sections ("pre 1945", "1945 till end of 20th century", "from end of 20th century") could be considered too, but I fear the 2nd of these proposed sections would maybe be a bit empty. The so-called "genealogies" trying to connect an Islamic thread from pre-1945 fascism to the early 21st century revival of such verbiage seems extremely scant, not supported by reliable sources, and basicly 21st century "re-construction" of an history that never happened (in the 2nd half of the 20th century islamic/arab extremism and terrorism was rather connected with anti-fascist extreme left movements like -in the case of terrorism- Rote Armee Fraction, as far as I know).

Who thinks a 2-section (or possibly 3-section) summary style article as described above a good idea? --Francis Schonken 09:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The merger vote is over

I understand that you are unhappy that the merger was not approved. If you want to join the ongoing discussions at Islamofascism and Neofascism and religion that would be constructive.--Cberlet 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in vandalism

@Cberlet:

Please stop engaging in vandalism. In the #Only two out of seven people commenting on this page since August support this to be a disambiguation page section above I gave the argumentation. You refuse to respond to the argumentation. Is there any other reason for your refusal to reply to the argumentation than that you have no reply to it?

So, please stop your vandalism, and try to be a little bit more constructive. There was no "vote" over this becoming a dab page. Even if there were a vote (which would not be a good idea), the result of any vote can be dismissed when it results in a breach of core content policies, like WP:NPOV. The result of the merger "vote" is until now undecisive: four people participated in the vote thus far, only two rejected the merger. It was nowhere agreed how, and after which time period, votes of the merger vote would be counted: for which there should have been at least a week's time of negotiation prior to the vote to agree about such conditions.

Your behaviour is disruption. I tried to see your behaviour in any other way possible besides that you were disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. But no other interpretation is possible: the point you try to make is that you are always right, and you try to support that point by non-existing poll results. The method you use to illustrate this point is vandalism (repeatedly removing article content). --Francis Schonken 06:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

After a failed merger vote, the regular procedure would have been to restore this page as a simple redirect, in this case to Islamofascism. Two editors decided that it would be better (and a compromise with you) to make this page a disambiguation page instead. Rather than accepting this graciously, you have simply refused to understand that your merger suggestion failed for lack of a consensus. I understand that this makes you angry, but your campaign has become tiresome, which is why I have sought Administrator intervention.--Cberlet 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor spelling edit

"Islamic facism" should be changed to "Islamic fascism" in the title. Peter O. (Talk) 21:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Done --  Netsnipe  ►  15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting to Islamofascism

I've made the page a redirect to Islamofascism. It seems absurb to have two pages with such similar names. "Neofascism and religion Section on Islam" is just more of the same type of material as at Islamofascism, so there no reason anyone would want to go there in preference to Islamofascism. I say just take the reader directly to the material.Kauffner 11:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Do not do this again. Your opinion should be shared on one of the existing content pages and a consensus reached. We have been through this repeatedly. This page was just unprotected to prevent just this type of POV and disruptive edit.--Cberlet 13:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pffft! If I do it "POV and disruptive." If you do it, its NPOV and nondisruptive. Who died and made you boss?Kauffner 18:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the outcome of the lenghty discussion that took place just last month: here--Cberlet 18:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Lenghty discussion, but no conclusion. The page violates WP guidelines on what a disambiguation page should be and its supported by only two people. Disambiguation is to deal with words that mean more than one thing. That's not the way its being used here.Kauffner 19:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And so if you want to change things, follow the proper procedure, and go to Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion and see if you can forge a consensus with other editors. Arbitrarily redirecting the page is not the proper procedure. This page was locked until recently due to the same issue. It was locked as a dismabiguation page.--Cberlet 19:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What a crock! Protection is to prevent vandalism. Its not an endorsement of your editorial vision. What "proper procedure" did you follow? The dab is just your arbitary creation.Kauffner 21:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider the possibility that other editors, including some administrators, feel that any change to this page should be discussed at Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. Consider the possibilty that cooperation and collaborative discussion is better than anger and hostility.--Cberlet 22:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Kauffner that there seems to be no reason at all why this page should be a disambiguation per WP:DAB. Neo-fascism and religion is clearly a super-topic of "Islamic fascism" with a much wider scope. Anything other than a redirect to Islamofascism is a violation of the "principle of least surprise" -- and this statement has nothing to do with any opinion on the topic as such. dab (𒁳) 22:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

<---There are lots of reasons why this page exists, and it is entirely appropriate to ask that you discuss this at Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion which are the pages monitored by other editors who helped work out this compromise. Please edit collaboratively, and avoid personal attacks.--Cberlet 23:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

the only reason for a disambiguation page is "to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term." Nobody typing "Islamic fascism" can be reasonably expected to look for the fascism or the fascism and religion article. The proper redirect traget is Islamofascism. If there is something wrong with that article, you should fix it there instead of obstructing redirection to it. If "Islamofascism" is a problematic term, {{move}} the article to Islam and fascism, Fascism in Islam or similar, I don't care. The entire point is one of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), which for some reason or other you don't seem to want to implement here, for reasons best known to yourself. dab (𒁳) 23:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why you feel the need to be so nasty and combative. All I have asked is that you carry on this discussion on a page where other involved editors are likely to see it. If you take the time to review the highly contentious and disruptive edit wars that have plagued this issue for years here on Wikipedia I think you might better understand why I am making this request. I am not blocking or impeding anything. I am suggesting some modicum of courtesy and some sensitivity to the issue of edit warring that has followed the issue of religion and fascism on Wikipedia. I am simply asking that you edit constructively and collaboratively.--Cberlet 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to be unfriendly or anything, but isn't there some sort of a WP:COI mixup in pointing people to Neo-fascism and religion (one of the terms offered as "disambiguation" on the page here) too? I mean, cberlet, a.k.a. Chip Berlet is a published author on the subject, and has some of his publications mentioned on that page [16] [17] [18].

Chip, I wouldn't push my luck too far. You've been quite unfriendly on previous occasions, for example to me in the discussions above on this page. And in edit summaries, for example, also to others "(...) disruptive POV (...)". Indeed, let's keep this friendly. --Francis Schonken 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

All I have asked is that folks carry on this discussion on a page where other involved editors are likely to see it: Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. It is hardly onerous. There is no WP:COI issue. There is only a simple request to move to a page that allows other editors to take part in a discussion that many of them have spent many hours on--myself included. You can both keep trying to make it personal. I will continue to try to keep it collaborative. You cannot simply ignore the edit history related to these pages. --Cberlet 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)