Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 5

message: Let's be consistent, okay?
Fascism (United States) just got redirected to Neo-fascism.
If my proposed title change doesn't work for people, and apparently it doesn't, is there any meaningful reason we should not similarly and permanently redirect to Neofascism and religion? BYT 13:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did Fascism (United States) get redirect to Neofascism? Who made that decision? Babajobu 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea. Just saw it this morning. BYT 14:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case in point

message: :::It's getting a little bit like nailing Jello to a wall here, Baba.
:::* Me: What's next? Islamic fatwas mandating the rape and murder of handicapped people? Listen. An article title that is a) a travesty of logic and b) demeans the faith system of 1 billion people is unnacceptable, hence Islamofascism or any variation on it is unacceptable.
:::* You: Nope. Not if the phrase is notable. If Islamic fatwas mandating the rape and murder of handicapped people became a popular catch-phrase, then that would have to get turned into an article. But take heart -- if a similar catch-phrase condemning Irish people were to become notable, that would get turned into an article.
:::* Me: Yeah, right. There's notable, and then there's notable.
:::* You: What do you mean?
:::* Me: I think we've got systemic bias here that keeps certain deeply offensive article titles from becoming full articles, and supports the creation of others, and I think this is an example of that.
:::* You: No it's not.
:::* Me: You say that with such confidence.
:::* You: That's because I am confident. There is absolutely no title you could come up with that shouldn't get turned into an article if it describes a notable phrase.
:::* Me: You mean that?
:::* You: Absolutely. There is absolutely no title you could come up with that shouldn't get turned into an article if it describes a notable phrase.
:::* Me: I have my doubts.
:::* You: Well, you shouldn't. Let's repeat this conversation in various forms over the next three months. 
:::* Me: Okay. 
:::* You: There is absolutely no title you could come up with that shouldn't get turned into an article if it describes a notable phrase. (You repeat this until you collapse and have to be taken to the hospital.)
:::* Me: I disagree. (I repeat this until I too collapse and have to be taken to the hospital.)
:::* You: How fortunate that we have both returned from the hospital.
:::* Me: Yes, that exchange was pointless and physically debilitating. Hey, I figured out a way for us to figure out whether you're right about that notability thing!
:::* You: Excellent! Perhaps we could stop having the same conversation over and over again and avoid future hospitalization!
:::* Me: Indeed! You're saying any notable phrase deserves an article, right, even if it offends people grievously and describes a condition contrary to fact?
:::* You: Yep. Absolutely.
:::* Me: You realize that's not my position, but your position, right?
:::* You: Yep.
:::* Me: Okay. I've found a perfect parallel phrase. 
::::* It describes a politically charged claim that slanders the practitioners of a global faith system, just like this one does. 
::::* It's instantly offensive, just like this one is.
::::* It was recently used by a head of state, just like Islamofascism. 
::::* By that reasoning, it's clearly notable. 
::::* I personally wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, just like I wouldn't start an article called Islamofascism in a million years. 
::::* But I'm not the one who is saying that ANY notable phrase deserves an article -- you are. So let's do an experiment. Why don't you go write a couple of paragraphs and start the first draft of this article?
:::* You: What's the phrase?
:::* Me: "Holocaust myth."
(Pause)
:::* You: You know, actually, I think the real issue here is your pathology. I'm going to e-mail you in a couple of minutes, and I think we should discuss off-line how you got to where you got on this issue, how you feel about yourself, and what possible motivations may be in play here. 
:::* Me: No, thanks.
-- BYT 12:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I appreciate your dramatic recounting of our dialogue. I think it's accurate except on three points. (1) when you offered "Holocaust myth" as your bazillionth "what about this one?", I said that yes, that is notable. I tried to emphasize my yes by choosing an even less notable, more offensive slur on the Holocaust (Holohoax), and saying that that term could support an article. You've chosen to interpret my switching to another term as my own personal shock & awe in the face of the "Holocaust myth" wikinuke. So let me give you a Molly Bloom-like answer to your query: yes yes, yes it could, yes yes "Holocaust myth" yes could yes be an article yes. Second point: I've never said any of these terms must have an article, only that they can have an article. Some notable terms/concepts redirect to more general articles rather than standalone ones, just as Islamofascism presumably could were the appropriate "general" article out there. In the last vote people didn't think neofascism and religion was capable of holding all the contents of the Islamofascism. (3) I absolutely didn't describe you as having any kind of pathology. Asking for someone to explain a frame of mind or point of view that is different from one's own is not an insult. Babajobu 14:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And actually, since you've brought up the Irish thing a couple times, it is only fair for me to come clean that though I have lived in Ireland for some time, I am neither an Irish citizen nor of Irish ancestry. If I have a group, I suppose it would be secular rootless cosmopolitan ethnomongrels. Secular rootless cosmopolitan ethnomongrels are hideous trash might be my analogue to Islamofascism. As for systemic bias, I've acknowledged to you before that Wikipedia has systemic bias in that not all notable topics are covered, and that Wikipedia instead is weighted toward those topics that appeal to the interests of Wikipedians. And being an English-language enyclopedia on the internet inevitably produces a particular usergroup and all sorts of consequent imbalances. I imagine that the Mandarin Chinese and Arabic-language Wikipedias, for example, have rather different imbalances. As for writing up a stub on the "Holocaust myth", one difficulty there is that I would have to write up a lengthy enough article that it would warrant separation from Holocaust denial. So you're asking me to write a full article on a term in which I have little interest in order to demonstrate a point (though it is a perfectly legitimate point, and not one that would be covered by WP:Point, IMO).  Let me think about it. If I can find a couple sources that describe the origins and evolution of the term, perhaps I'll give the article a crack. And if I do, I honestly have every expectation that it would be kept. Babajobu 15:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And quite fair. IMO, what's under discussion is one of these imbalances that is best redressed by merging and redirecting the article. Obviously you disagree, though. So if we are going to approach these "nuclear" articles under the theory that anything, yes, anything, can/should show up as an article once a certain notability threshold is passed, I'd appreciate a little help on how this parallel case would or should play out. Every single meaningful criterion you've cited, I believe, would connect to both articles. BYT 15:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jell-o]]

message: You might want to take a look here for the section on Islamofascism: Fact or Fiction
::Excellent idea. I've stated one side of this debate and look forward to the discussion. BYT 12:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason this issue keeps coming up is specifically because some editors don't want this word to exist, and want to limit people's access to it. It's a form of censorship. I'm happy to see a section on Islamofascism in neofascism and religion. But why does that mean it can't have its own article? I think its obvious that it shouldhave its own article, and I think the reason some people are resisting the idea is because they hate the word and the people who use it, which is not a reason to bury the term. IronDuke 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to follow this through -- is it censorship that Holocaust myth doesn't have its own article, or is that fact rather a reflection of the fact that the wikicommunity has decided that the term is simply better addressed within Holocaust denial? (Full disclosure -- I personally wouldn't want anything to do with creating an article called Holocaust myth, just as I wouldn't want anything to do with creating an article called Islamofascism.) BYT 19:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding is that Holocaust myth redirects to Holocaust denial only because no one has yet written an article for Holocaust myth, rather than because the community has decided that it would be a bad idea to have such an article. I'm afraid that the push for redirect is looking like it may pursue the same old arguments that it got it pwned in the last AfDs. Babajobu 19:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was also my understanding. - FrancisTyers 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Options are to either a) redirect to Neofascism and religion, where the vast majority of the article has already been merged by me, or b) leave as is. BYT 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the article deserves to exist, as long as it has (term) in its title.  I think that you shouldn't me merging the vast majority of the content there, as it creates redundancies in an article that seems two have survived two votes for deletion.  Instead, give a short summary of this term on that page, and use  or .  It could be wrongly taken as trans-article edit warring if you intentionally create redundancy.  Just my two cents, as a third party.--Urthogie 20:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I hardly support trying to "bury" a term, I'm not opposed to an article that addresses it, and I don't hate words or people.  However, using the term as the article's main title is, I believe, POV.  The word is a piece of rhetoric and implies a crude comparison. As you say BYT, I would prefer see the term in a broader context. That said, I would rather avoid any appearance of censorship than defend this point - let the reader make up their own mind and let the editor inform them of the facts.  I support efforts to remove "Islamofacism" as the title, be it a merge or a replacement title, but I will not oppose "Islamofascism (term)" as the title. --Vector4F 02:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked to comment here. I previously supported the article existing as Islamofascism (term). However, I now feel it's too much of a POV magnet, which has made it difficult to create a good, stable version. Because of that, I now support a merger with Neofascism and religion. The editors there have done a great job explaining the term in context, and should be applauded for their efforts. (I think the editors here have done a great job too, not least by sticking with it through all the conflict.) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would argue that the reason the article has been the subject of so many editorial disputes is that certain editors refuse to allow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Why should Wikipedia be unbiased? to be implemented. We should state all the POVs on this topic and make a decent and useful article instead of sweeping it under the rug. An example are the pictures I posted below, some would argue that this is POV , but this is a reality that exists, the pictures do not lie. Should we not ask ourselves if there a topic here or is this a just figment of our imagination? It does no good to argue that this history does not exist or that it should be erased because it is not politically correct to broach the subject. These are facts and those facts should be presented regardless of the the editorial lobby that might object--CltFn 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a lot to be said for presenting things in context. I support redirecting to Neofascism and religion. Tom Harrison Talk 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Response to Brandon's comment above) I don't think it's "best" to address "Holocaust myth" at Holocaust denial. "Best" would be for Wikipedia to have a lengthy, comprehensive article on every conceivable notable topic. However, in practice, when the content that exists on a particular topic is not abundant enough or distinctive enough from that which exists under a more general heading to require a standalone article, then the given article should be a redirect to the more general topic. That is presently the case for "Holocaust myth", and (IMO) is now the case for "Islamofascism". It was once the case for strap-on dildo, which redirected to dildo; however, someone came along and wrote a good article on strap-on dildo that was too lengthy to include in dildo, and so it now has its own article. The same could happen in future for both "Holocaust myth" and "Islamofascism". I'm willing to support redirect at the moment, but I'm not going to sit here and agree that "hey, we've come to our senses and realized this article is in poor taste." At least in my case, that's nonsense, for reasons I've been explaining for two months on this talkpage. The only reason why I support a redirect at this time is that the content from this article has now genuinely been integrated into the neofascism and religion article, rather than simply having it "disappeared". A concern that the topic is best treated under a less provocative title has nothing to do with it at all. Babajobu 04:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Typically detailed articles are subbed out, and a summary provided in the main article.  Anyway, I thought this issue had already been solved, once it was made clear that many articles existed on terms people find offensive (e.g. Nigger, Kike, Raghead, Redneck, White cracker, Queer, faggot, Kraut, Chav. etc.). Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate

message: ... if people think the additional context provided by the surrounding material at Neofascism and religion is trumped by whatever advantage there is in having this stand alone, then they should hold out for a separate article.
Personally, I think there is so little popular understanding of what actually constitutes fascism or neo-fascism that the explanation of the term's use benefits by appearing on that page. BYT 02:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I hardly support trying to "bury" a term, I'm not opposed to an article that addresses it, and I don't hate words or people.  However, using the term as the article's main title is, I believe, POV.  The word is a piece of rhetoric and implies a crude comparison. As you say BYT, I would prefer see the term in a broader context. That said, I would rather avoid any appearance of censorship than defend this point - let the reader make up their own mind and let the editor inform them of the facts.  I support efforts to remove "Islamofacism" as the title, be it a merge or a replacement title, but I will not oppose "Islamofascism (term)" as the title. --Vector4F 02:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked to comment here. I previously supported the article existing as Islamofascism (term). However, I now feel it's too much of a POV magnet, which has made it difficult to create a good, stable version. Because of that, I now support a merger with Neofascism and religion. The editors there have done a great job explaining the term in context, and should be applauded for their efforts. (I think the editors here have done a great job too, not least by sticking with it through all the conflict.) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would argue that the reason the article has been the subject of so many editorial disputes is that certain editors refuse to allow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Why should Wikipedia be unbiased? to be implemented. We should state all the POVs on this topic and make a decent and useful article instead of sweeping it under the rug. An example are the pictures I posted below, some would argue that this is POV , but this is a reality that exists, the pictures do not lie. Should we not ask ourselves if there a topic here or is this a just figment of our imagination? It does no good to argue that this history does not exist or that it should be erased because it is not politically correct to broach the subject. These are facts and those facts should be presented regardless of the the editorial lobby that might object--CltFn 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a lot to be said for presenting things in context. I support redirecting to Neofascism and religion. Tom Harrison Talk 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Response to Brandon's comment above) I don't think it's "best" to address "Holocaust myth" at Holocaust denial. "Best" would be for Wikipedia to have a lengthy, comprehensive article on every conceivable notable topic. However, in practice, when the content that exists on a particular topic is not abundant enough or distinctive enough from that which exists under a more general heading to require a standalone article, then the given article should be a redirect to the more general topic. That is presently the case for "Holocaust myth", and (IMO) is now the case for "Islamofascism". It was once the case for strap-on dildo, which redirected to dildo; however, someone came along and wrote a good article on strap-on dildo that was too lengthy to include in dildo, and so it now has its own article. The same could happen in future for both "Holocaust myth" and "Islamofascism". I'm willing to support redirect at the moment, but I'm not going to sit here and agree that "hey, we've come to our senses and realized this article is in poor taste." At least in my case, that's nonsense, for reasons I've been explaining for two months on this talkpage. The only reason why I support a redirect at this time is that the content from this article has now genuinely been integrated into the neofascism and religion article, rather than simply having it "disappeared". A concern that the topic is best treated under a less provocative title has nothing to do with it at all. Babajobu 04:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Typically detailed articles are subbed out, and a summary provided in the main article.  Anyway, I thought this issue had already been solved, once it was made clear that many articles existed on terms people find offensive (e.g. Nigger, Kike, Raghead, Redneck, White cracker, Queer, faggot, Kraut, Chav. etc.). Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultimately...

message: --CltFn 03:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To demonstrate that Islamofascism is a reality , despite all the scholarly arguments that it does not. And please do not edit other editors talk page inserts .--CltFn 04:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamism + Fascism = Islamofascism 

message: The big picture is a joke in my view, do you really belive they are doing a Nazi salutation? 
In the start, i supported this article. I am a Muslim and belive the term to be bull****, but i bought the argument that it should get its own article due to notability. But i have changed my mind. I see constantly how this pages proponents have used their best to remove and dampen critical views of this word. They keept the definition of the word according to its proponets, but deleted and ambigued the definition of it by its critics. They also demanded the "judeofascism (term)" did not deserve its own article. Enough. If "judeofascism (term)" is not ok, then neither is this. I vote to merge this. i dont want to see this page anymore. --Striver 05:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Striver, I think the issue in that case was that while "Islamofascism" has thousands upon thousands of mentions in mainstream sources, "Judeofascism" has one mention. That's why one is notable and the other is not. However, I agree with you that in the above pic the Hamas guys are unlikely to be doing a Nazi salute. Babajobu 05:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So striver , what are they doing then,  in that picture? As far as your point , I agree to some degree, we should be presenting all POVs to be fair. If there is a topic called Judeofascism ( though that would be a stretch in my opinion)  , then that should be presented as well. But the wrong of not presenting another parallel page should not be used to erase this page, instead the other page should be reviewed and developed according to Wikpedia editorial policy.--CltFn 05:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Striver, I'd urge you to reconsider. Most controversial articles of Wikipedia have editors who insist on making POV edits, and this page is no exception. I'm concerned that there is a hidden agenda by some who advocate redirecting this page, that they desire to see the whole concept "go away." I don't think this is right for an encyclopedia, do you? PS: I also doubt there's a Nazi salute going on there... can anyone they're doing? I'm quite curious. IronDuke 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  CltFn, IronDuke, straight-armed salutes have been used by lots of non-fascist groups throughout history. In the U.S. people did a straight-armed salute to the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1930s, when they changed to "hand on the heart" because straight-arm had became associated with Naziism. Westerners have stopped doing the straight-armed salute since it became associated with the Nazis, so it looks crazy to us, but it's conceivable that non-Westerners don't associate it with the Nazis, the same way many of them don't associate the swastika with the Nazis. Babajobu 05:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We most definitely need a good article to cure us the general misinformation that is being exhibited on this topic.--CltFn 05:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree that this article is full of misinformation or that people have "constantly" been working to "remove criticism of the term from the article". Most of what we have in the article is directly attributed to mainstream sources, and the lengthy section on criticism of the term has remained there essentially untouched for over a month. So I'm not sure what Striver is responding to, exactly. Babajobu 05:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree on that point Babajobu , there has been so much information about islamofascism buried out of sight that people can still go asking what kind of salute that was. If we had a decent article on the subject then that question would be answered. We are losing sight of the forest for the trees --CltFn 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure many editors would have no objection to new information.  Perhaps you could recommend a source? --Vector4F 07:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove this

message: :::Works for me, just ensure in your proposition that its move protected!--Urthogie 22:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should indicate that I originally intended that both "Islamofascism" and "Islamofascism (term)" both redirect to the second article, with the content of this article mostly being merged there.  I don't really see what benefit the change brings if this is not done. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 14:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Postscript Let's go with the proposal as BYT and Urthogie have it.  We can talk about merging what remains of this article once we have the two articles for people to judge. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 15:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The current proposal

message: :::* My error, sorry, Charles. I misunderstood you. 
:::* The way I see it, the benefit of a condensation of Islamofascism (term) -- which is what we have put forward -- would be that it would lower the temperature level somewhat, addressing some of the concerns of people who feel that it is a mistake to "bury" an article about this term. 
:::* In this article, we would dutifully acknowledge that the word exists, AS A PEJORATIVE, and reference the main article, Political epithets about Islamic movements.  (I was hoping you would help to draft a first pass on this.)
:::* On the other hand -- the nonexistent political doctrine of "Islamofascism," which no human being has ever adopted, but which figures, for better or worse, in many contemporary discussions of politicized Islam, should, I agree, redirect to Political epithets about Islamic movements. This article would, I think, need a "See also" referencing Islamic authoritarianism
:::I think Improv's point -- that it is appropriate to have an article addressing the use of the term "Nigger", but not appropriate to use the article as a starting point for a discussion along the lines of "prominent Niggers include..." -- is a worthy guideline here. BYT 16:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even by the widest stretch of the definitions, political Islam is always Islamist.--Urthogie 14:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree: I would only apply the term Islamist to political movements that followed the colonial withdrawal from the Middle East and North Africa.  Political Islam is much broader than that. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: User Geminon is probably a sockpuppet, as their first and only edits(at the time of this writing) was today on this page.  I'm submitting a request for checkuser.--Urthogie 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've examined the CheckUser evidence.  At this time I see no evidence of prohibited sockpuppetry. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, good that I checked though.  Geminon, could you explain why this was your first page on your first day?--Urthogie 12:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually read what he wrote below? P.S. and before anyone says anything: yes, I do have another username; no, I am not going to use it anywhere near this article (thus I am complying with WP:SOCK policy). This account has admitted to being a sock and operating within the policy outlined in WP:SOCK. - FrancisTyers 12:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I've focused much more on this section, and only briefly read the below one.  I'll read more carefully in the future, sorry bout that.--Urthogie 12:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Kelly, thank you.  I don't mind explaining - the last time I touched an issue this controversial, someone started following me and reverting all my edits from anon ip addresses.  Not fun.  I've been watching this article from a distance for a while now, but I realized the only thing that kept me from taking a more active role was the potential fallout.  So... enter Geminon. Geminon 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Just want to re-emphasize here -- Islamofascism (term) would still exist, just in an abbreviated form. I'm assuming it would look something like Kike looks now. BYT 11:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good!  Add that to the proposal specifically, so people know.--Urthogie 12:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Nigger is a lot word to be honest.  Because nigger has a history, as a word, while islamofacism is just an idea.  Anyways, thanks for support...--Urthogie 14:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the term "lot word" means. I should note though that while islamofacism may be "just an idea", it is also a compound word, both parts of which also have a history. Further, there's a difference between using the word Fascism descriptively (describing a particular philosophy and political movement) and using it vaguely/primarily for it's connotation. I think people who understand the Fascist political movement would find the use of fascism in this sense to be questionable. We should document if/where people use the term, but for our choice of terms on the encyclopedia, we can do better. --Improv 15:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: unsigned
*Support - This article is nothing but a POV-pushing attempt to make articles that contain criticism of Islam. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment I hope I understand the proposal correctly, but is this page JUST going to be a disambig page?  I have no problem with there being a disambig page, but the term (or pejorative) "islamofascism" is very unique and needs its own page. Keep in mind this term was used by the President of the United States!!!  BlueGoose 21:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Benefits of doing it this way

message: *Support--Urthogie 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even by the widest stretch of the definitions, political Islam is always Islamist.--Urthogie 14:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree: I would only apply the term Islamist to political movements that followed the colonial withdrawal from the Middle East and North Africa.  Political Islam is much broader than that. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: User Geminon is probably a sockpuppet, as their first and only edits(at the time of this writing) was today on this page.  I'm submitting a request for checkuser.--Urthogie 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've examined the CheckUser evidence.  At this time I see no evidence of prohibited sockpuppetry. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, good that I checked though.  Geminon, could you explain why this was your first page on your first day?--Urthogie 12:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually read what he wrote below? P.S. and before anyone says anything: yes, I do have another username; no, I am not going to use it anywhere near this article (thus I am complying with WP:SOCK policy). This account has admitted to being a sock and operating within the policy outlined in WP:SOCK. - FrancisTyers 12:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I've focused much more on this section, and only briefly read the below one.  I'll read more carefully in the future, sorry bout that.--Urthogie 12:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Kelly, thank you.  I don't mind explaining - the last time I touched an issue this controversial, someone started following me and reverting all my edits from anon ip addresses.  Not fun.  I've been watching this article from a distance for a while now, but I realized the only thing that kept me from taking a more active role was the potential fallout.  So... enter Geminon. Geminon 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Just want to re-emphasize here -- Islamofascism (term) would still exist, just in an abbreviated form. I'm assuming it would look something like Kike looks now. BYT 11:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good!  Add that to the proposal specifically, so people know.--Urthogie 12:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Nigger is a lot word to be honest.  Because nigger has a history, as a word, while islamofacism is just an idea.  Anyways, thanks for support...--Urthogie 14:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the term "lot word" means. I should note though that while islamofacism may be "just an idea", it is also a compound word, both parts of which also have a history. Further, there's a difference between using the word Fascism descriptively (describing a particular philosophy and political movement) and using it vaguely/primarily for it's connotation. I think people who understand the Fascist political movement would find the use of fascism in this sense to be questionable. We should document if/where people use the term, but for our choice of terms on the encyclopedia, we can do better. --Improv 15:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: unsigned
*Support - This article is nothing but a POV-pushing attempt to make articles that contain criticism of Islam. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment I hope I understand the proposal correctly, but is this page JUST going to be a disambig page?  I have no problem with there being a disambig page, but the term (or pejorative) "islamofascism" is very unique and needs its own page. Keep in mind this term was used by the President of the United States!!!  BlueGoose 21:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus for Charles's suggestion with Urthogie's modification

message: "In the past century, no Islamic movement has ever installed a fascist government."
Except for Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc. Granted the debate is about the appropriate definition of "fascism", BUT if the term applies, the above line needs to be deleted for POV reasons...
:Define fascism.  Then explain how these governments are fascist.  Have fun trying. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 21:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say What?? 

message: I haven't read the entire debate yet (I've read most of it), but I find it abominable that people are actually considering deleting a term that was used several times on the floor of the United States House of Representatives by Republicans in the debate of Jack Murtha's proposal!!! (or more accurately the debate of Duncan Hunter's proposal :) ).  I believe this article should be NPOV, namely that it should be considered an epithet used rightly or wrongly.  However, to delete this article would mean that we would have to delete the chickenhawk article and other similar articles just to stay consistent.  BlueGoose 18:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting the article hasn't been on the table for a long time. What is being proposed is a more appropriate disambiguation page. - FrancisTyers 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship and Historic Revisionism on Wikipedia 

message: Is the page ready for unprotection? It has been a month. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection? 

message: As per my comments here:
[] Also took out sentences relating to the history of fascism as not being especially relevant. IronDuke 15:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving info 

message: Forgot to sign in, not a sockpuppet, last edit was made by me. Allegedly is weasel-wording. Actually the version I have is a little weasel-wordy, but it's a compromise at any rate. IronDuke 20:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oops

message: This article is a mess. Is there a tag that could be used to replace all those "citation neededs?" This isn't even worth reading at this point.... Kyaa the Catlord 08:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holy crap