Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 2

Islamist VfD didn't work so they gutted it?

And apparently they continue to do so - BrandonYusufToropov being just one example of those who stand guard removing ANY substantive edits on the matter. Factually, the term IS used to describe Islamic regimes which ignore human rights, oppress their people, and generally behave in a Fascist manner. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Hezbollah are great examples. ElKabong

• Yes, that is the correct motorcycle. Klonimus 08:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

In case you missed the discussion, the identification of those regimes with the actual political-science term Fascist has been a matter of some dispute hereabouts recently. Whether you like the regimes or not is not the issue. As for "generally behaving in a Fascist manner ..." -- this tone, which you've imparted to the article, may be perceived as reckless and less than objective. BrandonYusufToropov 15:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

No, didn't miss the discussion, but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that the term itself is used often in connection with those nations/organizations. ElKabong

Yes, Syria is an Islamic regime, you have officially proven you don't know anything about what you're talking about.Yuber 15:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Syria an Islamic regime? In what way? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. Syria has probably the most secular regime in the Middle East, due to the regime being controlled by a slightly heretical sect of Islam that is a minority in Syria.Yuber 17:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Would other editors pls review ElKabong's changes

Please discuss and/or pick the version that seems least POV.... thanks BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the one that I last edited; the intervening edits either reverted my attempt to make the summary read better, or added back in a lot of PoV stuff. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

My so-called "changes" were the reversion of losers like you GUTTING THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. If you have SUBSTANTIVE changes to make, fine, but don't wholesale delete things because you're mad your attempted VfD failed. ElKabong

Re: "Losers like you." Your work today is not biased or in any way a personal attack? Just checking. BrandonYusufToropov 15:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to define our terms, to a professional editor a "substantive edit" is a technical term which refers to changes to the structure and/or content of a document. This might include changing headings and heading levels, changing the point of view, revising conclusions, questioning the writer's facts or assumptions and generally adding and removing content. In short, removing large chunks of nonsense would very much qualify as a "substantive edit".--Lee Hunter 17:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

How many reverts of the page is that for ElKabong?

I have lost count. BrandonYusufToropov 15:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care. How many is it for you, for that matter? A concerted campaign to gut an article is VANDALISM and so the three-reversions rule does not apply.ElKabong

Two. I'm disengaging from this discussion for a while in the hope that you will regain your composure. See you later. BrandonYusufToropov 16:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

ElKabong broke the 3RR, and has been blocked for twenty-four hours. Yuber is up to three reverts. The "vandalism" defence doesn't hold in this case on either side, and I'm not playing favourites. If ElKabong comes back and starts the same behaviour, you should ask for page protection rather than simply reverting his edits (I'd normally say that you should reason with him, but the exchanges above demonstrate that that's not really a practicable option). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page. This revert war is unseemly, and since one participant is happy to use multiple IPs to override 3RR blockage, I don't see much choice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You should instead revert it to the state it was in before the whole thing started - before Grace Note vandalized the page in the first place.KaintheScion

Is "Islamofascism" a conspiracy theory?

Since the term seems rather dubious to me I am wonder if it could accurately be labeled a "conspiracy theory"? As a separate question, why does the article only mention the "epithet" version of the term, I would have thought this article would be about politics or allegations of fascism. If this article's scope is only definining usages of the term itself then shouldn't it be transwikified to wikitionary? zen master T 01:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why not. BrandonYusufToropov 02:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not know if it can be labeled a theory, but I am still worried about the uses of this word. I do not know who uses it now, though mainly I just see blogs and news reports (Nov-Dec 2001). I will try to check in the word usage and see if it is still used. But, as for the transwiki, I do not know if it can be done. Zscout370 (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The word is in use all over the place. Not that it matters; with the topic locked and neutered, Wikipedia is worse than useless in this regard. And all to placate a swarm of POV-pushers who were angry that they lost a VfD vote and decided that if they couldn't eliminate it entirely, they'd make the article useless. The saddest part is that the Admins went along with it - though that's not surprising since the first Admin to abuse his authority in here, Mel Etitis, is one of the main "contributors" to the discussion and has proven he has no objectivity at all on the matter. KaintheScion

So says a user that just registered today, and already has knowledge of the history of the vote and the topic over the past few weeks. I'm not saying that you're a sockpuppet, Kainthescion, but your comment seems strange for a newcomer.Yuber 03:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you've never heard of a "lurker" before, Yuber. Or maybe you're just incredibly biased on this topic. Whoops! A quick look through your talk page reveals that you're INCREDIBLY biased and shouldn't be let within 1000 feet of this topic. KaintheScion

Comments about someone vandalizing my userpage, comments about having a link on an article, and comments about me categorizing Irgun as a zionist terrorist organization reveal me to be incredibly biased? Well, you're a strange lurker, you seem to have lurked this discussion and series of articles for a long time with no contribution.Yuber 04:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on that one. I do not know much about this topic myself, but I know I am walking into a battle that has been ever raging. I do not know what else I can bring into the article, since I mainly got dragged into this page (and others that deal with Arab topics) due to vandalism. I just mainly want to know if a link to this article from a page called Islamist Terrorism would be considered OK or POV pushing (as some users have told me). Zscout370 (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Such a link would be a tool for instilling POV and would be totally inappropriate. BrandonYusufToropov 11:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say that a link to this page from the Islamist Terrorism page would be completely OK; they ARE related topics, even if this one has been shredded to bits by those who are mad that they couldn't get it completely deleted. Maybe THAT can get sorted out sometime soon. The old page actually had valuable information on it, while the vandalized one that's been locked in by an Admin on a power trip is almost worse than useless. KaintheScion

It isn't a conspiracy theory since it isn't a theory; it's an epithet that some editors here have turned into an original research "theory." El_C 03:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's neither a theory NOR an epithet, but a real term, admittedly recently coined, used to describe a very real political agenda. KaintheScion

It isn't a term unless it can be shown that the critical scholarship considers it to be one, rather than an epithet used to describe (and I won't comment on their description) a phenomenon (the fascistic tendency in Islam) depicted through (or within) more objetctively-phrased terms, concepts, constructs, etc. (theories, models, etc.). Until if and/or when this is demonstrated, my above statement stands-o. El_C 04:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: it's not a "term" until some ivory-tower egghead puts it into a paper and gets it printed in a scholarly journal or into some book off the printing press? You're certifiably bonkers if that's your justification for claiming the term doesn't exist.KaintheScion

Don't troll, and don't play with semantics. El_C 04:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again, KaintheScion, can you describe this fascistic agenda that is Islamofascism? I wouldn't recommend taking a dictionary.com definition and twisting it around as ObsidianOrder did.Yuber 04:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's a polical agenda why doesn't the article discuss politics at all really? Is "Islamofascism" anything in addition to being an "epithet"? Seems like this "epithet" describes an allegedly "fascist" political theory? Is Wikipedia really in the business of having articles on epithets like this? I bet the fuck article is more informative. zen master T 04:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

An epithet is: a defamatory or abusive word or phrase; "sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me" or a descriptive word or phrase [1]. To me, I do not know if Islamofacism is a word. This is a posting I have read about this word (phrase seems to be the keyword on Google). As mentioned earlier, it is not used by our government, but mainly by political pundits (O'Reilly, Limbaugh). I have no clue on how to make it POV, since most of the sites I am finding now that deal with this issue are stinking blogs. Zscout370 (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

By your definition there, the terms liberal and neoconservative are both epithets. But they are also real terms. What is disgusting is not the fact that this page has entries on the word's use as an epithet, but that there are actually people here deliberately trying to ensure that this page does NOT discuss the rest of the term, its meaning, how and why it is used, and what it really represents. What is DOUBLY disgusting is the fact that they've gotten away with this abuse courtesy of admins who are actively trying to enforce precisely that POV.KaintheScion

You can aim for a better straw man — not all words that, in that specific sense, are (sometime) employed as epithets, are limited to that use alone. El_C 04:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Technically, this can be called a political epihet. From the main article on political epithets: "Many political epithets are obtained by joining an otherwise neutral description of a political movement or group with a pejorative term questioning the groups's sanity or motives, or associating the group with hated political movements or leaders of the past." It qualifies as that since a word that is a neutral description of a group (Islam, the religion) is combined with a word that is questioning the groups motives and the term is associated with groups past that are hated (fascism, the political idiology of Hiter and Mussolini). Though all we have is basic quotes on when the term is used, but we should give more background detail into the word, such as, who started it, where it was first published, if this word is used now and mention on why this word is offensive to the Muslim population. Zscout370 (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Slippery slope. We tried that. The article quickly turned into a food fight. "Intelligent people believe X about the topic, whereas idiots, on the other hand, believe Y." BrandonYusufToropov 11:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it was just fine up until your VfD attempt failed and you, Grace Note, and Yuber started systematically removing all content of value from the article.KaintheScion

You seem to know an awful lot about this conflict, Kain. How is that? I mean, you're a brand new user, right? BrandonYusufToropov 17:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

When page is unprotected...

Can someone add the {cleanup} header to this article, in my opinion it needs it badly. Also, I think the {disputed} header is more appropriate than the {npov} header as there is a dispute over whether excluding definitions of this term that aren't "epithet" related is the right thing to do. {TotallyDisputed} could work too but first and foremost the factual accuracy of this article is disputed (since facts are systematically being excluded). zen master T 21:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that it's in need of cleanup as such. It's perfectly readable. There are no facts being excluded. The proponents of the original research into Islamofascism as a concept have been asked to source their contentions and have provided nothing. Grace Note 23:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Grace Note is the user who touched this whole thing off by vandalizing the article in the first place. REFERENCE. His/her contribution to any discussion of this topic ought to be deemed worse than meaningless.KaintheScion

• All he did there was revert to the last version by Jayjg, maybe you should go harass him.Yuber^(talk) 23:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• BULLSHIT, Yuber, and you're really one to talk. From the headers of the edits:

Revision as of 04:08, 3 May 2005

Fredwlerr (Talk | contribs)

restore last good version

Revision as of 04:12, 3 May 2005

Grace Note (Talk | contribs)

rv to Jayjg

Grace Note wasn't "restoring" anything; he/she was engaging in vandalism. Go read the rules: wholesale content deletion, without a consensus on the Discussion page (and there isn't one) is vandalismKaintheScion

You seem to know a lot about the "rules" for a new editor. It's only a pity you didn't read the rules on civility. Grace Note 00:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This KaintheScion guy is starting to sound more and more like an LGFer. He edits the Islamofascism and Rachel Corrie articles on a regular basis and keeps calling people Islamists. But I'll assume good faith :).00:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Yuber^(talk)

My problem with this word, and based on talks with a few users on the Islamist Terrorism is that there is no key definition of this word. People use fascist all of the time to describe activity that is being restricted or a situation is being tightly controled and enforced. As stated above, it is a political epithet since it combines a term that is associated with past evils and with a term that is normally used to describe a group. I do not disagree that this term is used, but mainly, as I also said, the term is being used in blogs. So what we (the people here) should decide is what to include in here. The "defintion" of this term is fine, though we should give a small background on it (who first said it, when it was first said, where it was said, where it is used now, different spellings, why the term was even coined). The quotes can be kept, since it is showing the users on how the term is used. Zscout370 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

No one has any problem with properly sourced material along those lines, given that the article survived VfD. What is problematic is unsourced speculation about a nonexistent political movement. There's no dispute that it is used, and I suppose there's some case for suggesting that it's notable that rightwingers abuse their enemies by calling them fascists (when they are not accusing them of being communists, of course), although I tend to agree with those who believe that that discussion belongs on a page about "fascist" as an epithet. The article you are suggesting would still not be about "Islamofascism", which doesn't exist, but about the use of the word "islamofascism" to label a wide variety of Muslims. Grace Note 01:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

However, will blogs be consdiered properly sourced material? Zscout370 (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

They are only sources for what they themselves have said. Grace Note 02:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I see too much logic on what is commented by all of you above, with a single exception -that of KaintheScion because of the fact that he/she is still not being clear about his/her identity. People who started this article are the same who call people with whom they disagree Islamists. I still remember Klominus claiming a win over Islamists (0-4). I still remember another one saying do not let islamists hijack WP, etc... These are hate messages and are a proof that you can call your opponent anything you want!. This shows that those people got an agenda behind! There is no islamists no x-ists, there are only WPdians.

I still believe that this term exists along with Christian fascism and American fascism. I still believe that it is an epithet (being myself who added the link to LeeHunter article called Fascist (epithet) on top of the article). And I still believe that all those me-you-fascism articles SHOULD be included together in LeeHunter article.

Between, I would not have an objection citing Hitchens in the article as being the one who coined and invented this term. Cheers and respect from Svest 01:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Hitchens didn't coin it. This is part of the problem. It suits the agenda of the POV pushers to suggest that Hitchens might have coined it and that it represents something cogent, but he did not. At first, he simply called the 9/11 terrorists "fascists". Grace Note 02:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The Hitchen's claim is what I see in the blogs. From doing a Google search, some people claim Michael Savage coined it. Plus, the idea Svest gave is not a bad idea at all. Zscout370 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I had a look at the first article of Hitchens after 9/11 arguing against Husseini and Chomsky. You are right GraceNote; he coined nothing. However, if someone else coined it than why not mention it. Again, I do believe that it is an epithet and future readers would believe so, whatever we include abour who coined it or not.

For me, that is not the story. My point is that, -as explained loudly here as well as in Americofascim and Islamic fascism, I am against hypocrisy of some WPians. They apply their POV which is based on Anti-muslim agendas. They think that this is a podium for their hate comments; no wonder they created another one called Islamic fascism and voted an extreme delete for both articles they feel bothered with. If they can't agree this is an epithet than there would no concensus about this article.

For me, the ideal scenario for this article would be to merge it with other x-fascisms into Fascist (epithet) of LeeHunter. If not, than the referal on top of this article to the epithet article SHOULD REMAIN and than there would be no big deal saying that the term is used mainly in blogs by X people and that it was coined by Y. Cheers and respect from Svest 03:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Oh look, here goes Yuber trying the usual tactic - try to associate your opponent with someone you don't like. And then a bunch of POV pushers show up going "hate speech, hate speech." This looks either like an LGF or Indymedia board now. The fact that a user named "Fayssal" is trying to hide this by signing as "Svest" is just icing on the cake. Fayssal, you obviously have a POV you're trying to push here rather than being interested in seeing a vandalized article put right.KaintheScion

Look my friend. I am not hiding anything since you know everything. There is no magic about that I suppose. I didn't kill Caligula. I've been signing as Svest since my first day or if we can put it straight, since the day you got to know me. I think my only POV is about other people's POV. They are swearing that Islamofascim exists and not American fascism. If you are familiar with all the discussions we have had, than you would understand what I am not icing on the cake.

We are not here to attack eachother. I gave facts that people are attacking others personally as this is documented. I don't care if someone is a new or an old user as long as she/he is welcomed and free to change accounts and participate in a civilized and responsible way. The thing is that I rarely enter in those kind of discussions. I try to stick to the subject that it is the article. But since you insist in knowing about my feedback than I'd tell you that I don't care who you are but I may care about what you say and contribute. People are concerned about you because you are new and you know a lot of things and if someone looks at your contributions he may question your agenda (Saudi Arabia, Edward Said and this article). If you are not happy with what I am saying, please let me know and explain better your concerns. Cheers and respect from Svest 06:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

From what I notice here is that everything is boiling down to is attacks against users, not the issues of this page. The next section below us is a good start on how to tackle the various issues of this article, but the personal attacks are getting us nowhere. If you guys have some really serious issues between each other, then I would suggest try to get some outside help on Wikipedia, like an abritation/intervention. Until then, let's focus on what the topic at hand: trying to make this article NPOV as much as possible. Zscout370 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, Liberal is not a political epithet, but a neoconservative is. The word, shorthand version is neocon, described as "Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state." Zscout370 (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Lists of undisputed, disputed and rejected information

Here's an experiment which hopefully will clarify what, if anything, could be added to this article without sparking a revert war. To this end I've created three subheads here: undisputed, disputed and rejected. If there's some factual, sourced information that you think can be added to the article without argument put it in the "undisputed" section. If there's something that should be in the article but there is controversy over how it should be worded or whether there should be some qualification, put it in disputed. If it's something that you think is flat out unacceptable and which you personally would automatically revert, put it in "rejected". You can also demote information, for example from undisputed to disputed or even to rejected, but please don't move anything back up. In other words, if someone says they're going to dispute it then it belongs in the "disputed" section etc The object here is not to argue whether anything is particularly right or wrong, just to see get a feel for how we could move forward with an unlocked article.

Undisputed

• the word is a neologism
• it is used mainly by right wing commentators (columnists and bloggers) in the US.
• the word is used as an epithet

Disputed

• Whether or not the term is solely an epithet.
• Information into the actual definition and use of the term link
  • Please, be gentle signing your entries and comments. An anonymous or a registered user, just sign please! Cheers from Svest 19:58, May 10, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ™}

I note that the supplied link is to a writer who apparently believes that Islam is incompatible with democracy and that any system that is not democratic is fascist. This is an extraordinary viewpoint and would be rejected by at least myself and probably others. --Lee Hunter 20:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Faithfreedom.org is heavilly anti-Arab. The host of the website claim Muhammad is a pedophile, murderer and other things. Zscout370 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Having sex with a nine year old girl is consistant with being a pedophile. Klonimus 03:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The purest kind of horseshit. First of all, that information is highly disputed (I mean we're talking about an event that supposedly took place in the privacy of someone's bedroom 1400 years ago and even her date of birth, according to that article, could be anywhere from 605 to 613). Even a hundred years ago the Age of Consent was as young as ten in some places. To try and apply 21st century Western standards where the life expectancy is now 70+ to somebody who lived 14 centuries ago when an old man was someone who live past 35, to apply the term pedophile to someone who married within the laws and norms of the time, well its just beneath contempt. Pure hate speech. You should be ashamed. --Lee Hunter 04:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

But there does seem to be plenty of evidence from Islamic sources that Muhammad did indeed have sex with a nine year old girl. Saying that Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl is not as I understand it "hate speech", although I am open to change my mind on this issue if you can present convincing evidence that saying that Mohammed had sex with a nine year old girl, with evidence to support that assertion as factual is hate speech.

There is no "proof" of hate speech. It's always subject to interpretation (in some jurisdictions by the courts). For example, to a Nazi, Goebbels's words are harmless, to others it's hate speech. There is no 'evidence' as such, except for the words themselves. I've already addressed your "evidence" in my previous comment. --Lee Hunter 16:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Also note that Richard II of England married an 8 year old [2]. Was he a "pedophile" (which means someone who has a taste or preference for young girls) we cannot say. What we do know, is that up until very recently marriages in Europe and the Middle East were mostly arranged by the family. Calling a 13th century person a "pedophile" because they married, or were ordered to marry, a young girl is just silliness. But not too surprising given the level of this debate. --Lee Hunter 18:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Richard II is another debate, and a different situation. Mohammed's marriages were not "arranged by the family" or such bullshit: look through his list of wives.

1. - Khadija Bibi, married for money. After her death he had at least 11 more wives in 14 years.
2. - Safiyah - Killed her tribe, beheaded her father in front of her, took her to bed, and the next morning called it a "marriage."
3. - Maria the Copt - concubine taken from Egypt; was the reason Mohammed threw out his own decree that men with multiple wives should keep to a strict rotation for the sake of fairness.
4. - Zainab - before Mohammed married her, was the wife of his adopted son. Isn't that nice?

At the very least, Mohammed was a lecher. At worst, there are numerous other things one could glean from the sheer number of women he went through, especially since it so conveniently was "reserved for him alone" (sounds like a David Koresh thing there, or how innumerable other cult leaders routinely amass harems). Whether you consider FaithFreedom.org to be anti-Arab or not, the EVIDENCE is irrefutable.Elkabong

Not refutable? According to your own source (the WP article you cited earlier), Aisha was, in fact, an arranged marriage. Also see Muhammad's marriages --Lee Hunter 18:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Richard II was probably a pedophile also. However, Richard did not go running around in the desert telling people he was god's messenger, and that god said it was ok for him to bang a nine year old girl. Richard II limited himself to being the king of the england. 129.10.245.80 20:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

As it is, my understanding of the facts is that there is plenty of evidence from Islamic sources that Muhammad as an adult did indeed have sex with a nine year old girl, and that to me is prima facie evidence of pedophilia. Perhaps Lee you could give us an example of non pedophilic sex between an adult and a nine year old? Klonimus 15:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

{{subst:User:Mirv/sign}} would take up too much room. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you're engaging in "shooting the messenger." Whether or not YOU claim the site is "anti-Arab", the fact remains that the site is one of those that uses the term, and that the article clearly shows that the term is not merely an epithet.

Second, your attack on the "claims" of the group is suspect, because each of those views of Mohammed can be (and is) borne up by Koranic quotations. That is a subject of controversy that has no bearing on the other part of this discussion.

Third, while Wikipedia is NPOV, there is a prior requirement that material in an encyclopedia needs to be FACTUAL. Sins of omission are just as POV as sins of untruthfulness or sins of poor wording. Therefore, I will INSIST that this material MUST be included, otherwise the article is INCOMPLETE. ElKabong

Again -- you appear to have a deep, impassioned familiarity with this debate. How is this possible? Aren't you a brand-new user? Why didn't you want to answer me the last time I asked you this? BrandonYusufToropov 19:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Looking up the page, it appears you asked KaintheScion this question and not me. As for me, the situation isn't hard to understand: all it takes is a little time reading back through the discussion page and the page's previous revisions to see your edits and those of your friends for what they are: a transparent POV-pushing attempt to kill through content vandalism an article you couldn't kill by VfD. What appears to be the larger problem is that those who voted in the VfD assumed good faith and didn't keep an eye on you afterwards. ElKabong

Ah yes. KaintheScion. Another impassioned proponent. My mistake. How long have you been following this debate, anyway? And why doesn't any information show up on your user page? BrandonYusufToropov 20:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I (as well as a dozen of people in this discussion) insist that this material should not be included. ElKabong, following your logic, you would be accepting that people would start American Fascism and bring materials of a kind of Faithfreedom.org? There are plenty of them online. So you want to bring all internet garbage into WP just because you insist? We all agree that the term is an epithet intended to put down one's opponent. For everyone there is an opponent, and for everyone there is a fascist somewhere! No garbage in WP please. No government, no institution; be it academic or political, recognizes Islamofascism. Cheers and respect from Svest 19:52, May 10, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

Fayssal, if I could imagine for one minute that an article started by YOU on "American Fascism" would be properly factual and NPOV, including the bona-fides of the sources and the multiple sides of any argument made rather than just "oh it's just an epithet", I'd say to go ahead. But it's obvious from the comments of you and BYT that that would never happen, just like you are determined to make sure that this article remains gutted of factual information and as POV-biased as possible. ElKabong

The Internet is full of gay-bashers, Moslem-bashers, US-bashers, Jew-bashers, white supremacists, black supremacists and a million other howling voices. And they all have their rambling rationales and manifestos for hating whoever it is they hate. I suppose we can note that these sites exists and that they use certain words to describe their enemies (nigger, kike, running dog of capitalism etc. etc.) but we do a disservice to the reader if we present pure frothing hate speech as if were somehow mainstream academic discourse. --Lee Hunter 20:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Then quotes and usage by true Academics like Daniel Pipes should be put in, shouldn't they? It is no worse than an article on Israel having quotes by Edward Said. Once again, stop moving this to "Rejected", because as long as the article claims that the term Islamofascism is "only" an epithet, it is factually incorrect.ElKabong

Daniel Pipes is very controversial and accused of the same of what Lee is talking about. Pipes and his POV associated some notable academic profeSsors from Columbia, Harvard and Berkeley with Suicide bombers, just because they are against Israeli occupation! [3] Can we trust Pipes? He is accusing everyone who is being against Israeli occupation. No wonder why he can love a term like islamofascism. The entry of his article in WP states that He is widely criticised as an Islamophobe. Read this again: In August 2003, news leaked of Pipes' imminent appointment to the U.S. government-sponsored U.S. Institute of Peace. Soon afterwards, a broad array of Arab-American, American Muslim, and other groups, vehemently denounced the appointment, claiming that Pipes was a racist, anti-Islamic extremist. Several Democratic senators, including Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), expressed opposition to the nomination and delayed a committee vote on it, though President Bush bypassed the Senate and proceeded with a recess appointment. This incident was the latest in the series of confrontations Pipes has had with various U.S-based Islamic groups, especially the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR maintains that Pipes is an anti-Islamic bigot, while Pipes in turn charges that CAIR is an apologist for Islamist terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas (see external links). Pipes is also controversial in academia, where his neoconservative positions — especially his strong support for Israel and his argument that Islamism is a threat to the West — conflicts with the views of some Middle East scholars, such as John Esposito, who describes Islamist movements as political forces leading to democratic progress. Pipes was also criticized by Edward Said, a critic of Orientalist scholarship. He got an agenda, period! Svest 21:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

Daniel Pipes is a pretty darn credible and well cited individual. Edward Said is a silly academic fraud like Ward Churchill (See the Commentary Article by Efraim Karsh showing how Edward Said has made up many things about his past). Klonimus 03:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

He's got an agenda? So do you, obviously, or you wouldn't be using a POV-laden term such as "Israeli Occupation" (remember, there wouldn't even BE Palestinian "refugees" had Egypt, Syria, and Jordan not held onto the land they overran in the 1948 war, or if they had signed the offered nonagression pact with Israel). And of course those who are denouncing him have an agenda as well. The article would be better served by covering BOTH sides of the argument rather than leaving tremendous amounts of information out. The article that's locked in right now is a travesty, a one-sided POV joke. ElKabong

Deja vu all over again department: Exactly how long have you been following this debate, anyway, ElKabong? And why doesn't any information show up on your user page? Is it my imagination, or are you avoiding these questions? BrandonYusufToropov 21:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

No, POV-pusher, I'm deliberately ignoring you because your MO is to sit around and hunt for ways to make ad hominem attacks, and you're not worth dealing with. ElKabong

My agenda rhymes with what LeeHunter commented above. This is not a place for hate speech. I don't care about Israel or Egypt or Syria or Jordan or Palestine! I care about that Islamofascism is an epithet. Pipes can call whatever he wants as whoever can call him whatever they want. Pipes and his opponents can't go teach what they preach in universities or apply what they say in a government policy. It is a POV. This is what we comment here. There are thousands of people accusing in newspapers and books others for being the evil. Do we have to give them a room here? Svest 21:24, May 10, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

But the article is here, and you POV-pushers are giving space only to the POV of opponents of the term. And it survived a VfD. Leaving it with the claim that the term is purely an epithet is POV, and that needs to be remedied. ElKabong

Dear friend, I will not comment your judgements about me and us. I will just say again that nothing's got to be remedied. There are more people who are against the term than people who are with. Hitchens, Pipes and others cannot be compared with the quantity of others who are against. That's why you think what you think above. Svest 21:40, May 10, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

I'm no friend of yours, Fayssal, so knock that nonsense off, you POV-pushing jerk. Likewise your backhanded claims about what I "think." As long as only one side of the debate on the term is represented in the article, it's not properly NPOV. ElKabong

ERROR! FILE NOT FOUND! ^{Wiki me up ™}

Everyone, let's all take a chill pill and let's find out what is going on. Fact: Islamofascism is not used by mainstream media (CNN, AP, Reuters). Some people who have used this term can be deemed "radical left wing." The word is also mostly used by bloggers now.

As for the political epihet stuff, my stance that this term can be considered it, based on sources I have cited before, mainly the Wikipedia article on political epihets. But here is the thing that I notice: take out the quotes and pretty much the article will be nothing more than the same information at political epihets. I know this page has survived a VFD before, but I seriously think if this debate will gut the page, why not just put this page to sleep and redirect it to political epihets. Zscout370 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Zscout, if it were only a political epithet that might work. But it's a political epithet in the same manner that the words "liberal" and "neoconservative" are political epithets; each also represents a very real concept and ideology that deserves its own entry. Just not a gutted-to-uselessness-by-POV-pushing-morons one. KaintheScion

You write "But it's a political epithet in the same manner that the words "liberal" and "neoconservative" are political epithets". Surely you're not serious? Where do I begin? First of all, "liberal", "neoconservative" and "fascist" are not primarily epithets. They are simply long-established terms in political science for universally recognized political stances. It's true that in the minds of people who don't like liberals the word "liberal" is a cuss word but real liberals don't mind being described as "liberal" any more than neoconservatives mind being called "conservative" or astronauts mind being called "astronauts". Your supposed "Islamowhatever" on the other hand, is only used by a couple of columnists and a whole raft of obscure, self-appointed, and sometimes anonymous Internet pundits to envelope anything-we-don't-like-about-Moslems. That's how I see it, but then I am, as you put it, just another POV-pushing-moron

Here is, for the umpteth time, the definition of a Political Epithet, from the Wikipedia article: "Many political epithets are obtained by joining an otherwise neutral description of a political movement or group with a pejorative term questioning the groups's sanity or motives, or associating the group with hated political movements or leaders of the past." Islamofascism (or Islamofascist) is an example of this, since a neutral description of a group (those who follow the religion of Islam) with a pejorative term questioning the group's sanity or motives (fascism, mainly to question Islam's "motives." Though the defintion of a political epithet does not include on who has to use what, but I just think with my case I stated, this can be proven it is a political epithet. Now, what else do I have to do to prove my point? Zscout370 (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Really the burden of proof is on the person who uses the word and that proof is dead simple. If A) there are truly a significant number of islamofasicts and B) it's not a pejorative term, then the proof is to find people who proudly declare themselves to be "islamofascists" or perhaps to point to organizations like the "Islamofascist Society of America". Would all the islamofascists out there please raise your hand? --Lee Hunter 13:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh please, LeeHunter. That's like claiming China isn't a Communist nation because they claim their official name is the "People's Republic of China." ElKabong

ElKabong -- you seem to have a deep familiarity with the kinds of conflicts that come up on these talk pages. Yet apparently you are a brand-new user. Why is there no information attached to your username? Oh, that's right. I've asked you these questions multiple times, and you've refused, each time, to answer them. Good thing you're not a sockpuppet or anything.BrandonYusufToropov 16:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. If anything, China is an excellent example of what I'm saying. To some people in the United States "communist" is a dirty word, but not to someone who is truly a communist. Nobody inside or outside China would deny that the government is based on a communist system (although rapidly shifting to some other model) and the Chinese themselves would not view the word "communist" as pejorative. This is in very sharp contrast to "Islamofascism". So I repeat my challenge: Show me the Moslems who identify themselves as Islamofascist. --Lee Hunter 16:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Counter: IF the Chinese were indeed not embarassed by the name "Communist", they would have labeled their nation the "Communist Nation of China" or somesuch. But they don't. Every communist nation tries to dress their national title up in some other word; "People's Republic", "Democratic People's Republic", etc. The behavior of Islamofascist governments (such as Iran) is no different - and yes, I consider Iran to be an Islamofascist government, because their MO is classic Fascist with the only exception that rather than enforcing Atheism, they enforce Islam as the state religion. The behavior of Islamofascist movements which believe they can force Islamic rule and Shari'a law onto other nations, likewise.ElKabong

So the Chinese named their country the "People's Republic" because they were just too embarrassed to call themselves "The Communist Republic of China"? Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor. I give up on this conversation. I guess it's true what they say about the American education system. --Lee Hunter 17:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can find me ONE communist nation that actually has the word "Communist" in their title, I'll concede your point. Otherwise I'll remain of the opinion that you're a flaming moron. ElKabong

So far you've made the astonishing claim that Chinese communists were embarrassed to call themselves "communist" (I'm still chuckling over that one), that Iran is a "classic fascist" state, and that the phrase "Israeli occupation" is a POV term. I'm actually rather pleased that you think I'm a flaming moron. I'd be worried if you thought otherwise. --Lee Hunter 18:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree about Lee comments on the American education system. Everything is relative. Zach is a good example of being well educated.

Elkabong, does the USA got a "democratic" title on its name? The Democratic Republic of Congo, yes. Is the Republican Party not democratic? Is the Democratic Party is not republican? Please see what I replied below about parties. Communism is not a sin neither it is an evil as you were taught. The evil is the lack of comprehension and knowledge. You were born in a village were everything that doesn't rhyme with the American model is evil. Communism failed because it was more a theory than a practical stuff, not because you knocked it out. Everything is relative, there's evil everywhere and there are angles everywhere. Your claim that China doesn't use the term Communist in its name because it is shamefull is a kind of a joke. You can't say that kind of jokes even in a high school, let alone Wikipedia. Svest 17:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

Well commented Lee. Hi again ElKabong. People's Republic of China is ruled by The Chinese Communist Party. Il Duce's party was called The National Fascist Party. The führer changed the name of the German Workers' Party to the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP), usually known as the Nazi party. In the Muslim world, there is no such party or organization using the term fascist. In other words, the Muslim nation (if really there is a nation existing) are just muslims and Islamist terrorists are just terrorists. Please, let's go forward and not waste eachother's time about that. Cheers and respect from Svest 16:30, May 11, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

I mainly wanted to end this with my post: Disputed-Whether or not the term is "solely" an epithet. What else do I need to do is make this item not disputed. Zscout370 (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zach. I think the item is no more disputed. You, Lee, Brandon, GraceNote, Yuber, jpgordon, Mel Etitis, Stancel, Charles Stewart, El_C, Firebug and me all agree that it is an epithet. On the other hand, Zenmaster(I respect his comments and contributions), Klominus (who usually comes to just leave us a line of irony, KaintheScion (no comment) and ElKabong (giving us arguments like even Syria fits into this article) do not agree. Does that mean that 12 people are POV pushers? I fear the answer in no. Please let's move forward. Cheers and respect Svest 17:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

No, the issue is not whether it is an epithet, but whether it is SOLELY an epithet. 12 POV-pushing vandals does not mean a consensus. ElKabong

Do you argue even about SOLELY? Please Zach, remove SOLELY. Keep it PLAIN epithet. Svest 17:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

Presenting it as only an epithet is inaccurate. ElKabong

For the time being, it is just an epithet. When G.W.Bush starts saying it is not solely an epithet and that is something else, we will follow. Svest 18:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Svest on this one: we will not hear President Bush or anyone connected to him or the mainstream media use this word, since everyone from the ADL to the ACLU will jump up and down, kick, scream and do everything to make sure the epithet is never uttered by them. So it is pretty certain it will remain an epithet at best, insult at worst. Zscout370 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, if 12 to 3 (or 2) is not a consensus, then I do not know what is. Zscout370 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

There was a pretty strong concensus against Galileo Galilei too. But yet the earth still revolves and still remains blighted with islamofascism Klonimus 20:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

We told her/him that Islamofascism is not taught in any university. We told her/him that it is not used by any academy or institutional organization. She/He agrees that is is used mainly in blogs(more blogs accusing Bush being a fascist than Islam being fascist). Tell us Islam is bad, the rest is good. If Islam's ever been fascist/bad/evil/satanas, then why only today we try to use the term Islamofascism? We explained to her/him that Syria got nothing to do with political Islam, as well as Hizbollah is not governing any country. We joked a bit about her/his claims about Communist China (next time we will may be dealing with an example of Cuba, and the list is long). We tried very hard to forgive her/his accusations that we all are POV pushers. We managed to avoid accusing her/him of being a sockpuppet (I don't care if this is right or wrong). But trying to beat us with an argument that 12/4 or 12/11 is no consensus is a fascist move itself! I decide this is over from my side. Svest 19:29, May 11, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

Just for the record, I would also dispute (vehemently) that it is an epithet. If you claim 12/4 consensus you guys are dreaming, you've been so combative that a lot of people left this article until it quiets down (me included). That in no way means I agree. Go look through the archived talk if you want. ObsidianOrder

I think if anyone has been combative it's Mr Kabong and Mr. Scion. Here are a selection of my favorite quotes:

... My so-called "changes" were the reversion of losers like you GUTTING THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE elkabong ... And all to placate a swarm of POV-pushers who were angry that they lost a VfD vote Kainthescion ... The old page actually had valuable information on it, while the vandalized one that's been locked in by an Admin on a power trip is almost worse than useless. KaintheScion ... You're certifiably bonkers if that's your justification for claiming the term doesn't exist. KaintheScion ... And then a bunch of POV pushers show up going "hate speech, hate speech." This looks either like an LGF or Indymedia board now. The fact that a user named "Fayssal" is trying to hide this by signing as "Svest" is just icing on the cake. Kainthescion ... I'm no friend of yours, Fayssal, so knock that nonsense off, you POV-pushing jerk. elkabong ... Just not a gutted-to-uselessness-by-POV-pushing-morons one. KaintheScion ... If you can find me ONE communist nation that actually has the word "Communist" in their title, I'll concede your point. Otherwise I'll remain of the opinion that you're a flaming moron. ElKabong

I'm beginning to strongly suspect that EK and KtS are actually the same person. Judging from their language they were at least born in the same trailer park. And I find it fascinating that their erudite contributions to WP both began on May 6 of this year. [4][5]--Lee Hunter 01:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Somewhere along the line I accused one of them of writing what the "other one" had written, and waited to see what would happen. (Don't ask me when, I've lost track -- it was probably on this page but who knows.)

• The response came back along roughly the following lines: "Having gone back and looked at the page, I have determined you are talking about a remark X made. I, however, am Y." Not, mind you, "What the *^%^%# are you talking about?" But rather, a guy eager to prove he was not the other guy, and barely able to contain his satisfaction in having trumped me by proving that I had gotten a name wrong. BrandonYusufToropov 03:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Rejected

Information that one or more editors would insist on removing:

• The Orwell quote about "fascism": this is purely prejudicial POV and has no relevance to the article.

First, it's a quotation from a well-known and respected writer; to claim that it's PoV is irrelevant — read Wikipedia policy. Secondly, to what is it prejudicial? If you actually mean "prejudiced", what is your justification for claiming that Orwell prejudged the matter rather than examining the evidence and then reasoning from it? Thirdly, how can a statement about the use of the term "fascism" be irrelevant to an article on a use of the term "fascism"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• The Orwell quote properly belongs in a discussion on the term Fascist (epithet), not in an article on the term Islamofascism. Likewise, the quote on Islamofascism re: Michael Medved properly belongs in THIS article and not in an article on the term Fascist as an epithet. Speaking of which, I'm going to correct that right now. ElKabong

Are you saying that "Islamofascism" isn't a use of the tem "fascism"? Presumambly not; therefore how can the Orwell quotation not be relevant here? There's no rule that says that no passage may be quoted in more than one article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• relevance of contacts or communications between fascists/nazis and various Moslems.

This has been consistently removed from the article by a number of editors.

Change that to "This has been consistently removed from the article by a number of editors who are uncomfortable with contacts or communications between fascists/nazis and various Moslems." Klonimus 03:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)]

This is, of course, nonsense, and offends against Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's also 100% accurate, you just don't like being exposed for what you are. ElKabong

Sadly I have to agree with ElKabong on this one. Let's see what Heinrich Himmler has to say on the connection between Nazi's and Islamists.: Klonimus 04:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between ( Nazi )Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory.

Signed: Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler"

• information that tries to provide a justification or rationale for the term or ...
  • Question, to whoever posted the letter from Himmler, can you show me a source (or two) of where it was published. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Grand Mufti of Jerusalem", Amin al-Husayni meets with Adolf Hitler (1941)

• Image:Himmler to Mufti telegram 1943.pngNovember 2, 1943 Himmler's telegram to Mufti: "In the recognition of this enemy (the world Jewry) and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world."Klonimus 06:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • • Zach, whatever it was said about the Big Mufti, He never was a legal representant of Palestinian people. Please read this:

When the local electoral college of pious Muslims voted for a moderate and learned leader and placed at the bottom of their list Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a young man in his twenties, given to fanaticism and hatred of the Jews, the Governor was initially content and confirmed the appointment. However, at this point the Hajj’s powerful family, backed by right-wing extremists, launched a fierce campaign of denigration against the electoral college, accusing its members of treacherously conspiring with the Jews to appoint one of their own party.

Sir Herbert, who was himself Jewish, sought the counsel of E. T. Richmond, who acted as adviser on Muslim Affairs, and who was an extreme anti-Zionist. Richmond persuaded Sheikh Hisam al-Din, the man who had already been confirmed in the post, to stand down. He then convinced Samuel that the best way to restore order was to concede to the agitators by letting the Hajj become Grand Mufti. This was in spite of the fact that the Hajj had already been imprisoned by the British in 1920 for his role in fomenting vicious anti-Jewish riots.

The British themselves were thus responsible for turning an electoral process upside-down in order to install an extremist Palestinian leader. This abuse of power would have fateful consequences not only for the future of Israel but also for ordinary Palestinians who were now subjected to a leader they had not chosen but for whose ill-judged actions they would, in the years to come, repeatedly be held responsible... -richard webster, [6] New Statesman, November 29,2002.

On the other hand, do we think that Arabs would have believed in the Nazis' agenda? I know that Arabs believe that Nazis were Anti-semitic and Arabs consider themselves Semetic people! Cheers and respect - - Svest 09:07, May 13, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I seriously doubt that any Arabs used any form of the term "anti-Semitism" to refer to the Nazi hatred of Jews. But what term did they use, I wonder? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The term they use is that Hitler is a criminal. There are reasons why Sephardic Jews, Arab Christians and Muslims don't use the term Anti-semitism. First, it is because the term is zionist; they would say that Hitler was anti-semitic as opposite to be Aryan. This explains why most Arabs have believed that Hitler makes no difference between Jews and Arabs. Second, for Arab muslims, they don't use it because they believe Islam is a multi-racial belief and not only dedicated for a selected group of people.

• • The term "anti-semitism" is ZIONIST? That's insane. A term coined by a hater of Jews to describe the hatred of Jews is Zionist? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Jpgordon, it is not a term coined by a hater of Jews. It is a term coined by Moritz Steinschneider, with all my respect to his work. Cheers and respect from Svest 18:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}
      • I suggest then that you go edit the Anti-Semitism article to reflect this; there, it says Wilhelm Marr coined the German word Antisemitismus in 1879. You'll get some interesting debate there. I do agree, of course, that Hitler in the long run made no distinction between Jews and Arabs. I don't quite understand the relevance of the rest of your answer to my question. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Jpgordon, if I read this Anti-Semitism#Etymology_and_usage, than I'd have nothing to edit there. Everything is correct. Regarding the rest of my answer, all I was trying to say is that combatting Hitler was the task of Arabs as well. And when I said I know that Arabs believe that Nazis were Anti-semitic and Arabs consider themselves Semetic people above, I meant just the same. Cheers and respect Svest 19:33, May 14, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

In Morocco, Jews were involved, still they are, in political life:

• The Moroccan Jews in Israel are one of the most influential of any immigrant group in Israel's political life. Moroccan Jews were always part of Moroccan political life and this tendency was transferred to their life in Israel. (source: www.sephardicstudies.org [7]). How come than Arab Muslims there would support Nazis against their compatriots?!

Some Arab countries were invloved with the Allies against Nazi Germany:

• Moroccan soldiers (known as Goums) [8] as well as Algerians and Tunisians under the French commandment [9]. War veterans in those countries are still getting pensions paid from France and not Germany.
• Of particular importance are Hitler's draft of the Munich agreement, containing his notations as well as Neville Chamberlain's; the first message alerting armed forces of the attack on Pearl Harbor; Patton's letter to the Sultan of Morocco announcing the American landings and threatening destruction; Montgomery's address to the troops before El Alamein; Patton's annotated map for the invasion of Sicily; the complete plans for the D-Day invasion in Normandy; and MacArthur's draft of the Japanese surrender terms. (Source: Museum of WWII [10])
• The headquarters of the North-African Allied Forced (under the commandment of D.Eisenhower) was in Algiers at the formely known St. George Hotel.
• Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gaule meeting to ask Germany, Italy and Japan to surrender in 1943 (Stalin was invited but couldn't participate) was held in Casablanca, Morocco and not in the White House as many believe (due to the Spanish translation of the word or due to the lack of knowledge) [11], [12].
• Arabs believe that Hitler would have done the same with them, as he did to Jews.

Unfortunaltly, some people only emphasize on disputed claims and lack deep knowledge of the history of relationships between Muslims and Jews. Where in this planet Jews have lived in peace if not where Sephardics have lived? Jews were persecuted from Europe and were welcomed in Muslim North Africa. Jews have lived in Yemen and Iraq for 2 milleniums in peace. Some WPians indeed claim there is only Islamofascim and never has been any other belief's fascism! I have a big question for these people: Medieval Europe persecuted (including Jews and Muslims, Hebrews and Arabs) and burned people alive (christians and many others) and concentrated all religious, societal and political matters under the Church (medieval Spain, France and Italy, etc...). How come you vote with no single reason against the existance of other articles. I am here to defend common sense and good faith, not to defend any belief as myself I am not believing in any religion or race. Therefore, if we apply the same logic, than the comment of Toropov below would make sense. What about this [13], this [14], this [15], this [16], etc... We have to apply a single standard if we truly are Wikipedians. If there are facts, there are and if there are none, there are none.

At the end, I invite anyone concerned in this discussion of rejected section, to read this link [17]. Cheers and respect from Svest 17:26, May 14, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Your summary of 2,000 years of Jewish-Arab relations is highly one-sided; it ignores persistent persecutions in many places, including Yemen and Iraq. I'd get into it more, but that would be even further off-topic, and in any event there's no point, as this Talk: page isn't about writing a NPOV article, it's about suppressing one because a VfD failed. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Noble words. Just confirming -- the principle is to reject one-sidedness on this page and elsewhere, yes?

• So for instance, one wouldn't encourage editors to use the word "Islamofascism" in the body of an article that has nothing whatsoever to do with fascism, right?

• And one wouldn't cite as resources links to a disputed page like this one in order to instill POV to a page like Islamist terrorism, right? BrandonYusufToropov 20:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hold it! Whether editors like the pictures or not is immaterial. Whether editors like the Nazi contact references or not is immaterial. Whether Klonimus can prove the historicity of the meeting is immaterial. The material in question has been repeatedly removed 'because it has nothing to do with Islam

I could post as many pictures of a Pope with Hitler as I wanted. It still wouldn't mean the discussion about Popes and Nazis iwas germane to an analysis of what Catholicism is. BrandonYusufToropov 09:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

My favorite Klonimus quote of all time

K writes, above:

There was a pretty strong concensus against Galileo Galilei too. But yet the earth still revolves and still remains blighted with islamofascism Klonimus 20:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Klonimus has now convinced himself he is Galileo, and those of us who insist on the word fascism actually, you know, meaning something consistent, are somehow cast as the Catholic Church circa 1600.

• Stay tuned for Klonimus convincing himself he is Napoleon, which I have a feeling is the follow-up to this particular mini-series. BrandonYusufToropov 13:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This was an inappropriate remark, and I apologize for making it, Klonimus.BrandonYusufToropov 23:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Yusuf, I'm going to make this very explict. Islamofascism is a term used to describe certain types of totaltarian Islamism felt by the terms originators to possses negative aspects similar to fascist political movements. The word was created by combing the prefix Islamo with fascism. This probably occured sometime after Christopher Hitchens used the phrase "Islamic Fascism" which was then combined into "Islamofascism"; probably somewhere in the blogosphere.

English is a dynamic and growing language, so it is not surprising that as new concepts and events enter the human experience, new words are created to describe them. Such words naturally do not have meanings consistant with their precident words, otherwise they wouldn't need to be invented. No one, not even myself, is claiming that the term describes a concept with a 1:1 relationship to fascism or the economic theories of fascism

So stop atttacking your strawman by complaining about Islamofascism not being directly related to fascism. And instead focus on what concepts and idea's the word and its users are trying to express. Klonimus 20:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus, what is expressed above got nothing to do with what you defined on May 3rd Excerpts from your definition below:!

• Islamofascism Term used to describe totalitarian Islamism. (Survivied VfD)
• Islamic fascism Term used to describe actual muslim fascists. I.e Bosnian SS Units, Grand Mufti, etc. Klonimus 05:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you try to make that clear to us? Cheers and respect Svest 23:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

I'm going to assume good faith, and that you arent trolling me. Islamofascism == word used to describe totalitarian Islamism. Islamic fascism Term used to describe fascists who are also muslim . Different words to describe different Idea's. Klonimus 06:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"Such words ... do not have meanings consistant with their precident words" Sounds like we're in complete agreement. Surely you won't object if we make this explicit in the article? In other words, that we inform the reader that "Islamofascism" does not have anything to do with either Islam or fascism. Rather it speaks more to the world view of the people who invented the term. --Lee Hunter 21:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course I object, Don't twist my words to suit your purposes. Islamofascism definition has something to do with Islamism and fascism, its used to describe some types of islamist political movements that are thought to have elements in common with fascist political movments Klonimus 06:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The key part of your definition (at least to me) is this "that are thought to have elements". Thought by whom? Obviously not by the supposed "islamofascists" themselves but by a small clique of mostly right-wing, US-based bloggers, a couple of hyperventilating paid-to-be-provocative columnists and perhaps one widely-reviled academic. In other words, it is just a political epithet. Not a particularly important one, at that. --Lee Hunter 13:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well that's what the article said or was converging to say before all the edit waring started: This is a term used in the blogosphere, and when people in the blogosphere use this term, this is what they are trying to say. Somehow that all got side tracked to the question of "Is Islamofascism related to a very narrow academic definition of fascism" and a whole lot of people substituted reverting for constructive editing. Hence the current impasse. Klonimus 05:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Victor Davis Hanson has also used the term Islamofascism several times. And Daniel Pipes is only hated in the world of cultural studies, since he has exposed it for being quagmire of identity politics, political correctness, and anti-Americanism. Once you leave chomsky land, no one in academia hates him and many respect him.

Going a little bit beyond all that, the idea of islamofascism exisiting as a distinct concept, is quite common in US political class and will very soon be very common in the rest of the world (I.e Netherlands, Australia, and Thailand).

And here are some citations from Academia. So Islamofascism is gaining traction. This is just a quick peek from using the very incomplete google scholar.

• "Religious Fundamentalism and Political Extremism" L Weinberg, A Pedahzur. Nova Religio 2004 8:2, 106-109
• "The West and Its Antagonists: Culture, Globalization, and the War on Terrorism" C. Dale Walton. Comparative Strategy 2004 23:3, 303 -312
• "Civilisation as Paradigm: An Inquiry into the Hermeneutics of Conflict" M D Gismondi. Geopolitics 2004 9:2, 402 - 425

Citations are not meaningful without seeing the context. For example, you could also cite Juan Cole, but the only reason he mentions the word is to point out that it's an example of bigoted misuse of the language by people who know nothing about fascism and nothing about Islam. You claim that it is "common in US political class". I'm not sure what you mean by "US political class" but I have yet to hear it from a single politician. And yes Victor Hanson also thinks the war in Iraq was a wonderful idea and a rip roaring success. Lovely. As to whether the word will "soon by very common in the rest of the world" that's irrelevant to WP. Nice that you have a crystal ball, but it's not something you can base an article on. --Lee Hunter 11:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. --Kenyon 22:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong?Yuber^(talk) 23:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

What is Wrong thing, Kenyon? Sounds like we're in complete agreement or the opposite? Svest 23:05, May 15, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

FayssalF, at some point this sort of feigned ignorance is going to annoy people. Klonimus 06:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The part that's wrong is "Islamofascism" has nothing to do with either Islam or fascism. That's obvious. But this whole discussion is pointless, I probably wouldn't come to Wikipedia to find out about Islamofascism anyway. Wikipedia is most excellent for its wealth of real, concrete information. Good luck with this mess. Unwatching. --Kenyon 21:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Redirecting to Islamic fascism

Sectioned this off for a discussion on making this a redirect to Islamic fascism. From existing comments, those that accept this article should exist, seem to believe in redirecting it. Anyone disagree? 66.94.94.154 13:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Redirect This

Islamic fascism actually documents usage of the term, given the abscence of content, this should redirect there. 66.94.94.154 15:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The articles Islamic fascism and Islamofascism

Both of these articles are about the same kind of political epithet. Therefore, I propose that either this article be redirected to Islamic fascism or Islamic fascism be redirected to this article. Revolución 00:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me although I would suggest that Islamofascism should redirect to Islamic fascism, since it is a neologism whereas Islamic Fascism is at least two recognizable words.. --Lee Hunter 01:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. One way or another, combine them. --BDD 01:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Lee Hunter's reasoning and proposal. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  ElKabong agrees. (personal attack removed) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Read your edit again, Mel Etitis. ElKabong agreed, contingent on you and your fellows' not making the Islamic Fascism page an incomplete mockery of its former self like you did to this page. Your making that edit shows quite clearly that you are not interested in a consensus but rather pushing a POV.

The above comment was made by El Kabong, he has made the same reverts El Kabong has and has commented upon the same articles.Yuber^(talk) 00:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

See: Talk:Islamic fascism This boxed section duplicates discussion on Talk:Islamic fascism#Pigs in flight, please place future comments re: these sections there Saswann 17:51, 24 May 2005 (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 Disagreement User:ElKabong left a personal attack (now removed; see Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks), the gist of which was that he disagrees with the aptness of the above analogy. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (It's worth pointing out that anyone is at liberty to remove personal attacks. You should be sure that that's all that you're doing, so try to leave the actual substance of the message intact (read the material linked to above). Personal attacks aren't permitted, and they're the only reason that editors are permitted to interfere with another editor's comments on a Talk page (except for archiving). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)) 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 19:17, 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 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 the term? BrandonYusufToropov 20:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 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 66.94.94.154 13:07, 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 13:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC) You mix a lot of different arguments into this, the two primary ones being: the validity of the article's existance the factual basis for the article's content 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 16:07, 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 16:23, 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 16:35, 24 May 2005 (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 15:00, 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 16:09, 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)

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. Frankly, my personal view is that "Islamofascist" is the most abused of these terms, because most of the 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 19:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Disagree Islamofascism as a word and a concept exisits. Klonimus 01:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Support. Klonimus' objection misses the point, and misunderstands the nature of redirects (most redirects are genuine words and concepts). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree "Islamofascism" is just a slang term that refers to the supposed "Islamic fascism". I can't see the point of having two articles on the same subject. --Lee Hunter 11:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. Stereotek 15:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Disagree - Not only did this article previously survive a VfD, but Klonimus' point is valid. The campaigns to deface this article, leaving it in its current state, indicate to me that it and Islamic Fascism should definitely not be merged into an "umbrella" article. EnviroknotEnviroknot 21:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

1) VFD vote is somewhat relevant but its never the last word on an article. WP is constantly evolving and changing. 2) Nothing has been "defaced". A number of experienced and credible WP editors had a hand in reshaping the article. As happens with many many articles, a lot of stuff was removed (to the dismay of the folks who put it in) but it was all either unsupported or supported mostly by hate sites and fringe groups. That's not defacing. That's called "editing". 3) What's the big deal about merger? It's the same topic, for heaven's sake! Islamofascism, Islamic fascists, fascism in Islam, isfamaliciousism, miscialismofascia. It's the same dumb propaganda concept. The same words. If there's a difference between Islamofascism and Islamic Fascism it is only in the slightest of nuances. Do we need separate articles for "German Nazism" and "Nazism in Germany"? What exactly is your objection? --Lee Hunter 02:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree Also, please disregard EnviroKnot's vote. He is the sockpuppet of ElKabong and an RFAR is up for him here [18]Yuber^(talk) 02:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Your constant accusations that anyone you do not like is a sock puppet, are getting old. Enviroknot 03:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I and 6 other editors have "accused" you of being a sock puppet. You don't exactly have much support here.Yuber^(talk) 03:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

You, and 6 of your cronies, you mean. Or you're one of theirs. I don't much care, I have yet to see you operate in good faith. Enviroknot

Agree (with qualifications) From the brief glance at the Neofascism and religion article it seems to do a decent job. I like your references. Some of the other stuff is good, could used editing and expanding, but then again what couldn't. Regarding the topic of this article, the proposed redirect it does a 500% better job than this article does after it was 90% deleted. Ideally I would like to see this article restored to its original form and then improved, as I had proposed. But if that is not possible, then a redirect would result in a better situation. Perhaps after the Neofascism and religion has grown, it will be split again and Islamofascism would be one of the pieces. ObsidianOrder 09:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait, you want to redirect it so you can split it off again? That wouldn't be the point of redirecting.Yuber^(talk) 01:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This article being part of Neofascism and religion would gain more context. The point is that it will gain more encyclopedic identity than serving for political reasons as it is the case here. Cheers and respect -- Svest 20:33, May 28, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Agreed. A step in the right direction. -- Viajero | Talk 14:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The NPOV solution; the answer to the madness and bigotry. El_C 08:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please post additional comments on this redirect proposal at: Talk:Islamic fascism

Bold edit

Since this was locked, I re-wiki'd every actual article that pointed here to point to Islamofacism instead. Saswann 13:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll unprotect and redirect the article to Neofascism and religion#Islam as well. --Michael Snow 21:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I seem to have been reverted on the basis of a couple users saying "Extreme disagree" above. Leaving aside the sockpuppet concerns, the users on that side have not articulated any real argument against a merge and redirect solution.

One comment says that it's a word and the concept exists. That may be and yet not warrant a separate article. The concept is acknowledged and discussed in the article to which we propose to redirect.

The other comment simply claims that surviving VfD, and the existence of a "campaign to deface" this article, is proof that it should not be merged. Neither of these proves anything of the sort. Rather, an argument against merging should demonstrate why the topic cannot be adequately covered within Neofascism and religion, and that it would be covered in a more neutral fashion as a separate article. If such an argument is not forthcoming, I will redirect again. --Michael Snow 02:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you dump this into that article, then you are either going to dilute it to the point of meaninglessness (where it will not cover the topic in question on THIS page) or you are going to have to create such a large subsection for it that it might as well get split off. That's the point that was made by ObsidianOrder; IF the article had not been subjected to a vandalism campaign by a number of editors, this would not even be up for discussion. Their constant revert warring has been what has kept the article in its abysmal state, nothing else. Rather than see it merged, I'd rather see it made into a proper article.Enviroknot 04:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The material from this page has already been incorporated into Neofascism and religion, and by redirecting the contentious nature of the editing has been lessened. It is now part of a proper article. Please do not stir up another edit/revert war over this.--Cberlet 09:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please ignore each and every character/syllable/word typed by Enviroknot, as he/she is a sockpuppet for the abusive, inflammatory KaintheScion, arbitration against whom is currently in process, and here is the evidence. BrandonYusufToropov 15:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't entirely ignore Enviroknot unless he gets banned from this article by the Arbitration Committee. In the meantime, his arguments haven't shown that merging and redirecting is not currently the best solution. We're dealing with a disagreement over content, not vandalism. A significant problem with the content is that much of it does not comply with the neutral point of view policy, which is why it has regularly been removed.

There is no question that Neofascism and religion covers this topic; the term "Islamofascism" is specifically discussed and multiple sources quoted. If Enviroknot or anyone else can add sufficient neutral material that the subsection on Islamofascism is too large for the article, they are welcome to do so. We can revisit the question of splitting the article off at that point; right now, there are too many doubts about whether it will be presented neutrally as a stand-alone topic. --Michael Snow 16:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. (But it's okay if I ignore Enviroknot on my own time, right?) BrandonYusufToropov 17:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article is already redirected

My message is directed to anon editors. Guys, I just want to remind everybody that this infamous article is already redirected to Neofascism and religion. Please respect that fact. Cheers and respect. -- Svest 19:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Enviroknot/KaintheScion/ElKabong/all his anon ips won't respect that fact. Expect this page to continue to be vandalized. However, his edits only stay for less than a minute before being reverted, so it's not really a problem.Yuber^(talk) 19:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with it, nor am I going to revert it. Yuber, kindly grow up. Your constantly tilting at windmills is evidence that you are unhinged, and I am quite tired of being the target.Enviroknot 00:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article has been redirected after lengthy discussion

Do not vandalize this page by reversing redirect!--Cberlet 01:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not going to matter to Enviroknot and his sockpuppets.Yuber^(talk) 01:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article was redirected after strategic blocks by Islamist admins.

See? Like i said.Yuber^(talk) 01:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article on new page is more sensitive and respectful to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity while probing serious criticisms. Less bigotry, more scholarship.--Cberlet 02:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to redirect. . .

Can we change this to redirect to Neofascism and religion#Islam rather than just Neofascism and religion? It would seem to be appropriate given what someone searching for the term would actually be looking for. Saswann 16:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but redirects can't go to specific sections. Only links can.Yuber^(talk) 16:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I take it that this is policy, and not a technical limitation Saswann 15:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, it's a technical limitation. Try it somewhere.Yuber^(talk) 16:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this page should be redirected to islamism, as islamofascism does not refer to islam as a religion, but to islamism as a political system.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to Restore

Given that President Bush explicitly made refernce to the term "Neofacism" in his latest speech on the War Against Terror, it seems illogical to have a redirect here merely to assuage the sensabilities of the politically correct. 10/11/05

The Power of Nightmares

The article on the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" is in need of a section on criticism. I invite all who have seen it, particular those of a neo-conservative leaning, to visit and contribute. (The documentary is widely available for download on filesharing networks) Seabhcán 28 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)