Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 13 2005 and May 6 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Islamofascism/Archive02. Thank you. Lee Hunter 15:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

message: Needs to be done:
# The list of claimants to have coined this term needs to be rationalised.  My user page User:Chalst/islamofascism may be useful to others;
# Weaselly terms like However, the goal of an integration of Arab (particularly Saudi) oil riches and theocracy, could be interpreted as a form of fascism. need to be rewritten.
I've not really got a high enough interest level to do this task well. --- Charles Stewart 18:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made plenty of contributions to this material and related material.  Check my edits.  And criticism is contribution, when it is constructive. --- Charles Stewart 21:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been guilty of it on occasion, and there are defences for using it: check out my summary at Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms#Minimise weasel terms.  Could be interpreted is, according to the wikipedia term of art, a  weasel phrase: does anybody so interpret this?  Is the fact of such interpretations encyclopedic?   It's not false, nor is it POV, but it is vague and fassl short of best editing practice.  I was highlighting one example of a few such sentences in the article to bring attention to the problem. --- Charles Stewart 22:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 1930s-1940s relations of islamist movements with fascists during WWII will have to be a subtopic in this article. 
*:Image:Himmler to Mufti telegram 1943.png November 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." Was Heinrich Himmler right about everything he ever said? Or only when it serves our agenda?
Klonimus 20:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna fill out that section with more information about the mufti, and how he injected alot of respect/sympathy for nazi'ism into "mainstream" Islamism. Quite a bit of the Pan Arabism of the 1950s-1960s was inspired by Nazi'ism. With the goal of creating a United greater Arabia free from Jews. As well; Islam + Fascism =Islamofascism. Though I might add that not everyone is comfortable with that equation. BTW: I appreciate your putting up Judeofascism on VfD.
Klonimus 07:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's not relevant. During WWII fascists were overwhelmingly Christian. At one point, before the war, some were even Jewish. Showing a picture of a handful of Muslims in Nazi uniform without a great deal of explanation is highly misleading. Just slapping these things on a page outside of any meaningful background and context is hardly illuminating.  --Lee Hunter 13:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The meeting of Islamists and fascists during WWII 

message: # Origion of the term Islamofascism
** Post 9/11 popularity
# Description of what people mean or implay when they use the term
** Use as a pejoratvie epithet.
*** Use by neoconservatives and warbloggers
** Similarities and difference between Islamism and Fascism.
** Islamism as a totalitarian ideology
** Motivating ideology for islamist terrorism.
# Anti-democratic tendancy's in Islamist influence governments.
** Saudi Arabia
** Taliban Afghanistan
** Northern Nigeria
** Proposed World Caliphate
# Islamofascism and Racism
** Anti-semitism
** Darfur Genocide
** Slavery in Sudan/Saudi Arabia
** Meetings of Grand Mufti with Nazi's
===The proposal above is original research===
By virtue of using an epithet to chart a history of the fascistic tendency in 20th Century Islam. Was this ever attempted —in such a way— before? El_C 08:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Outline 

message: By virtue of using an epithet to chart a history of the fascistic tendency in 20th Century Islam. Was this ever attempted —in such a way— before? El_C 08:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The proposal above is original research

message: This is just like "Nigger". The "Nigger" article talks about the word. It is not a catalog of bad things that black people have done. Likewise, "Islamofascist" should discuss the term and should not be a catalog of bad things that Muslims have done.
If you want to write about Islamic extremism, there are other subjects for that. Mirror Vax 11:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's about the concept.  This isn't a philological work, but an encyclopædia.  If it were just about the word, ir would belong in Wiktionary. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no concept "Islamofascism". The term is not used in a serious academic context, as far as I know. There is a lot that can be said about a term besides its definition. Again, see "Nigger" for an example. Mirror Vax 12:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that there's no genuine concept (read what I said above).  This article, however, is not about the word.  perhaps you mean that it should be about the word.  My view, however, is that the article shouldn't be here. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  I disagree, Islamofascism is a real concept. It's a form of political islam with totalitarian goals and methods. Klonimus 13:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a slur. Much can be said about Islamic extremism, but this is not the place. Mirror Vax 14:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: "Nigger" is a real concept to Ku Klux Klan members too. --Islamist 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a term used by them. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, when a term is used it has a concept associated with it. Words have no meaning apart from the concepts they represent. --Islamist 15:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Many words have uses despite expressing no concept (e.g., prepositions, articles, placeholders), just as language can be used to perform many tasks other than making statements (e.g., illocutions, perlocutions).  Insults often fall into one or other of these categories. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 17:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't have your shawarma both ways. Either Islamofascism is a merely a pejorative word, in which case merge it, or it is a fairly notable concept with 62.5 Kgoogles that deserves a worthy encyclopedia article. Klonimus 16:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The subject is the WORD, not Islam 

message: Firebug, your edit summary which reads I agree that Wahhabism sucks, but we can't just present these allegations as fact in a NPOV encyclopedia.) is stylistically not one that I find acceptable for an edit summary, no matter how reactionary and oppressive I find Wahhabism to be. El_C 12:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put that in there because I know if I just said the statements were NPOV, some people would accuse me of denying the truth of Wahhabism or some such thing. My point is that, even though I personally think some of these descriptions have a great deal of accuracy to them, I feel that all sides of the issue need to be presented in a neutral manner without inflammatory language for NPOV to be satisfied. If we can describe what the Wahhabis believe in their own words, we don't need terms like "wild intolerance for any dissent", which I feel are unencyclopedic. Instead, quote specific statements by prominent Wahhabi extremists like Mullah Mohammed Omar. Firebug 17:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As should be obvious, I found the descriptions highly ignorant, greatly oversimplified, biased and propagandist, and sophomoric. I do not think the author is qualified to write on an issue with such an (utterly) dismal knowledge of its key components. El_C 22:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow, the description of Wahhbism and Salafism was just out there. Even Fox News would know better. I'm shocked. El_C 12:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wahhabism

message: If you understand the concept of Orientalism, you understand the prejudice and bigotry behind those who promote the term "Islamofascism". --Islamist 13:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the prejudice and bigotry behind those who promote the epithet Judeofascism (as a term) . . . El_C 14:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that's why I call for equal treatment for the two terms. Either both deleted, both directed to List of political epithets, or both with equivalently written articles. What we see on Wikipedia is imbalanced treatment reflecting the prevalent anti-Islamic biases of many users. --Islamist 15:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Islamofascism should be redirected to List of political epithets, and that Judeofascism should be deleted because it simply isn't in widespread enough use. But if both of them remain, I'm thinking about creating an article on Christofascism, which has 303 Google hits, and is often heard in the left-leaning blogosphere. Why not have an article for all three of the major Abrahamic religions with "-fascism" attached as a suffix? Or would that be WP:POINT? Firebug 17:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget ChristoNazi. Mirror Vax 17:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientalism is an important related term 

message: I await with some glee our article on "Islamo yo' mother she fat ism". We need only have a Chris Hitchens article and we're away! Grace Note 13:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamofattism 

message: Nazis were not Christian. Pagan is a fairer description but it's not especially relevant here.  I prefer "subjugated or destroyed".  I'd like to see a source for "Political commentators ..." too.  "comparing their religion" is a massive misstatement of the positions of both sides, while "comparison of Islamic extremism" is fair.  "leaders throughout the Arab world" is not accurate since there were some on both sides, but perhaps "a number of ..."?  Finally, MEMRI is not "Israeli" (unless you have a shred of evidence) and in any case nobody has ever caught them doing a bad translation, they are generally a good source.  ObsidianOrder 23:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuber/Porphyria revert war opinion 

message: I'm confused. It's been pretty well established that they were good friends and probably egged each other on in their mutal desire to kill jews. Not many people got a personal tour of Auschwitz from Himmler, and left alive. So IMHO the opinions of Himmler on the natural friendship between Nazi's and Islamists is very relavent to this article. 
Haj Husaini is responsible for the introduction of nazi sympathy into Islamist and Palestinian movements. He is an important figure in the history of Islamofascism.
Klonimus 03:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Klonimus, I really didn't think you could sink any lower in your POV-warrior stance after your absurdly non-NPOV entry on Wahhabism. It is very unfortunate, and shameful, for you to title a subsection as Why does the warm friendship of the Grand Mufti and Himmler make Mel Ettis so uncomfortable. Mel has done more than the vast majority of editors to combat against Nazi propaganda in the eneyclopedia; the irony is uncomfortably thick here. El_C 00:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mention of the Grand Mufti annoys critics of the term Islamofascism and makes them uncomfortable, since it shows the deep relationship between islamists and fascists. I'm sorry that it annoys you and makes you uncomfortable. But it is very important to an article on Islamofascism Klonimus 12:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have some nerve. El_C 13:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Nor am I, obviously. Deaf ears though, Mel, this editor isn't interested in collaborative intellectual discourse. We'll see where his obstructions and personal attacks will take him. El_C 02:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The warm friendship of the Grand Mufti and Himmler 

message: []
Changed 
" However some secular Muslims such as Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali feel that Islamism represents a a threat to the ideals of western democracies in the 21st century equal to that of fascism in the 20th century."
to
" Muslim apostates such as Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali feel that Islam represents a a threat to the ideals of western democracies in the 21st century."
The new language (Yuber) is less informative, since it removes the reference to fascism, and somewhat judgemental and snarky. I'm inclined to think that calling Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as secular muslims is somewhat less judgemental than calling them apostates. But, I could be wrong. 
Klonimus 03:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yuber, it is not a neutral term and you know that. It is naturaly pejorative from the perspective their original religion. And you also know that too. Both Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali  consider Islamism to have strong totalitarian tendancies, just like fascism. Both of them consider it to a be a very real threat to western democracy, just like fascism. And I know you know that too, because otherwise you wouldn't have changed the text. Klonimus 03:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see how "apostate" is a POV term, but I'll change it to "ex-muslims" if you want to be so stubborn.  Your connections between fascism and islam are weak at best, and they still don't show how Ibn Warraq and Ali have said specifically in the past that "Islamism represents a a threat to the ideals of western democracies in the 21st century equal to that of fascism in the 20th century."  Also, please don't try to make assumptions on why or why not I change the text, wiki-psychology is very pointless especially when you don't know anything about me. Yuber 04:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yuber, your a smart guy, I try to treat you like a smart guy that you are. "...islamism represents a a threat to the ideals of western democracies in the 21st century equal to that of fascism in the 20th century." Is whats called stylish writing, it's part of a long sentance. It makes the whole paragraph more readable.
If you read Ayaan's writings, and Ibn Warraq's books, you know that they both feel that Islamism is a threat to western democracies and their ideals. Thats common knowledge to anyone who has read those books. This is an encyclopedia, not a Ph.D thesis. Every line does not have to footnoted. An encyclopedia is a readable restatement of what is common knowledge to experts in each subject, rendered in an NPOV manner for the general reader. Klonimus 07:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: (Wikipedia:Cite sources).  If a specific claim is disputed, then surely a page number or, better, a quotation shouldn't be so hard to provide?  This isn't an encyclopædia, it's a Discussion page, and you're dealing with other editors, not with readers.  Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judgemental language. 

message: I'm a bit perplexed by this section. Other than the Sobran quote I contributed, it's just a list of names with no context at all. In other words, no links (other than to wp articles which don't discuss "islamofascism") and no indication of what, if anything, they have to say about the subject. I've never seen something like this in WP. I propose deleting the whole section unless someone can provide more context to justify its existence. --Lee Hunter 23:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I look at it a little closer, the same goes for the think tank section and most of the links. For example, the Pipes article doesn't use the word "islamofascism" or even "fascism" so why is it there? Simply because he criticises Islamists? I don't get it.  --Lee Hunter 23:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and Pipes himself, bigot though he is, apparently does not use the word "Islamofascism".  —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Well I've cut it down at least as far as the list of people who have gone on record discussing "islamofascism" or "islamic fascism". I've also removed links to anything that didn't address the topic. --Lee Hunter 03:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Academics and commentators on Islamofascism

message: What a severe misrepresentation of something that wasn't all that meaningful to begin with. From the top:
:CNN reported on 23 April 2005 of fascist groups such as Aryan Nation seeking ties with Islamofascists such as Osama bin Laden for assistance in areas such as finance and organization.
. . .based on a common dislike of Jews and of the U.S. government. Much like the Mufti's alliance with the Nazis: enemy of my enemy, and so on. No further ideological connections were demonstrated. One might as well speak of IslamoAlbanianNationalism, based on al-Qaeda's loose financial and organizational ties with the KLA. 
Posted under the rather misleading section title "Growing ties between Aryan Nation and Islamofascists" was the following:
:In an interview with CNN, August Kreis the leader of Aryan Nation praised his fellow fascists in al Qaeda saying "You say they're terrorists, I say they're freedom fighters. And I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our peoples' heart, in the Aryan race, that they have for their father, who they call Allah. I don't believe that they were the ones that attacked us," Kreis said. "And even if they did, even if you say they did, I don't care!"
:Kreis explained the common cause he has al Qaeda is that they have common enemies, namely Jews and the government of the United States. He gave a public message to al Qaeda that "The message is, the cells are out here and they are already in place, they might not be cells of Islamic people, but they are here and they are ready to fight."
Left out was the report that the FBI found no evidence that al-Qaeda wanted anything to do with Aryan Nations. Left out, but conspicuous by its absence, is the lack of any connection beyond the perceived common enemies of the two groups—one which, it should be said, al-Qaeda's inner leadership has given no sign of endorsing.
:During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had an alliance with Adolf Hitler.
This is discussed above; I won't rehash it here.
:Following the war, many Nazis found asylum in Egypt and Syria. 
And wasn't Martin Bormann repeatedly spotted in South America, and hey, didn't the U.S. government import some Nazis of its own? How very misleading. 
:Three years ago, I met a Swiss Islamic convert named Ahmed Huber, who began his life as a devotee of Adolf Hitler and moved on to praising former Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who led that nation's Islamic revolution and vigorously opposed U.S. policies.
A devotee of Adolf Hitler in his youth. Details are left out. Was he an unenthusiastic Hitler Youth, like the present Pope? Or was he a raving fanatical devotee? Does he still hold any Nazi beliefs? Have his Nazi beliefs, if he still holds them, had any influence on any Islamic organizations? 
:Huber wanted to forge a fresh alliance between Islamic radicals and neo-Nazis in Europe and the United States. And he cannot be simply dismissed as a crackpot: Huber served on the board of directors of a Swiss bank and holding company that President Bush accused of helping fund al Qaeda.
Perhaps he cannot be dismissed as a crackpot, but can he be dismissed as unsuccessful? The article reports that the FBI found no evidence of any such alliance in the United States. Did anyone in al-Qaeda listen to him? All these questions left unanswered. 
—Charles P. (Mirv) 05:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aryan Nation material 

message: Using a photo of people in Nazi uniforms at the head of a page about modern Muslims is not just misleading. It's POV pushing of the worst kind. It implies that modern "jihadists" are in some way connected with WWII fascists, which they are not. It implies that they self-identify as fascists, just as the WWII guys did, which they absolutely do not. "Fascist" is a playground insult, the kind of thing Chris Hitchens specialises in. It's a pity WP has dignified this nonsense with an article but truly sad that editors are working to spread the hatred. There is no such thing as "Islamofascism". Al Qaeda has no connection with fascist groups. They could not be less "fascist", so opposed to statism and state mechanisms are they.Grace Note 13:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SS photo 

message: Porphria's latest edit summary, and accompanying deletions ("Saudi Princes are the majority shareholder of these corporations, Iranian Oil wealth is also significantly corporate, state controlled, and therefore fascistic") is so far from being remotely accurate that I couldn't let it pass. All state control is by definition fascistic?  Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: His new update referred to shares held in some unspecified "corporations". Which corporations exactly? Aramco is wholly government-owned. Private companies are private the same way they are in the west. Glad to see it's been reverted again. --Lee Hunter 14:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert 

message: I removed this bit about Iran and Saudi Arabia: "the ideology of totalitarian theocracy allegedly espoused by these govenments"  There's no need to give it such a convoluted spin. Everyone agrees (I believe) that both countries are theocracies. However, since fascism has never been particularly associated with religion and, if anything, fascists are known for being antagonistic to various religions, calling those countries "theocracies" hardly proves your point. I left in "totalitarian" because it is relevant to the definition of fascism. Of course, sooner or later we'll have to address that other "totalitarian theocracy" - the Vatican. :) --Lee Hunter 01:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Theocracy 

message: "Supporters of the term contend that the fusion of oil wealth within governments that are arguably totalitarian is consistent with the definition of fascism."
Who? Who says that? I'd like to call them a fool to their faces. What definition of fascism? Which states are you arguing are "totalitarian"? Whoever does say this clearly doesn't understand how Iranian politics works. I suggest they are pointed in the direction of an article about it. Or Saudi politics. Absolute monarchy, maybe. Totalitarian state, no way. "Totalitarian" does not mean "some repression" or "some rights lacking". Those who argue that these states are "totalitarian" are simply throwing another epithet at them. So their "contention" is that their epithet is justified because they throw another epithet at the states in quesion.
If you must push this nonsense, please cite sources and make it someone else's nonsense. That's if you can find any. Rightwing bloggers who need tying down by 3pm don't count. Grace Note 02:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran (but not Saudi Arabia) is mentioned in the WP article on totalitarianism although as a disputed usage. Since "totalitarian" is another one of those words that is often interpreted quite loosely, it's not that unreasonable to say that they are "arguably totalitarian". --Lee Hunter 11:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are precisely not reputable sources. Don't you know that anyone can write anything ;-)? Yes, Lee, you can say they're "arguably totalitarian" if all you mean by it is that some joker is willing to argue that they're totalitarian. You could also say they are arguably from Mars, or arguably David Icke.Grace Note 23:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument from me about "arguably". It's just a limp way of reaching some kind of compromise with people who are adamant that an article contain certain 'facts' that must be true because they saw it on Fox News. What really bugs me more than "arguably" are the instances of "some people insist that ..." or "supporters of the term say that ... " which is secret WP code for "Me and my two drinking buddies think that ... " --Lee Hunter 00:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that totally. I say that if it's not sourced to a specific "supporter of the term" it should be removed. If you cut this article down to everything that is a/ obviously true (such as that it's an epithet used by antiMuslims) and b/ anything that is directly sourced, I'd support that and help prevent its being reverted to anyone's original research. Grace Note 02:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. It's Klonimus' own idea of what "Islamofascism" might mean based on his own reading. But the sources must exist. He insists Islamofascism exists as a concept. It must be in the general discourse, even if not yet in the academic one. Surely Klonimus isn't relying on a few bloggers who use the term to cover any and all activist Muslims, ranging from Hamas (socialist if anything) to Wahhabists (closer in spirit to Calvin than Gentile)! Why, that would make this entire article a fraud... Grace Note 02:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about sources 

message: Note that we are talking about what people who use the term Islamofascism mean, not what we think it does mean, should mean or should not mean. 
"Propose the existence of an eternal violent conflict" means that the conflict exists right now, not that it is bound to happen in the future as Yusuf's edit implies. The Koran/Hadith propose that there is always a conflict between Muslims and infidels.
* Sura 8.38:  Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do. (Infidels have been warned, the muslims will fight them unless they convert)
* Sura 9.5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (I.e attack the Infidels by any means at your disposal.)
* Sura 9.29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews] , until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (All non muslims must pay an extra tax)
[USC Interlinear Koran]
Klonimus 20:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eternal vs Inevitable. 

message: This paragraph just doesn't work for me. My notes are in square brackets "It should be noted that [the] above definitions [definitions? what definitions? they are nothing more than a bunch of random statements which are specific to a certain critical view of radical Islam. They don't "define" anything at all and certainly not fascism] are controversial [only controversial in the sense that one or two people on WP insist that they are somehow meaningful], and intended to explicate [?] what is commonly me[a]nt by those who use the terms "Islamofascist" and "Islamofascism". There is much controversy over if the above definition actually describes a type of fascism [arguments between a few wp editors doesn't constitute a controversy. Those bullets don't come within a million miles of any real world definition of fascism], per a generally accepted definition of fascism, or instead describes variants of political islam" --Lee Hunter 20:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with thinking outside the box as long as the article makes clear that that is what is happening.  Instead we have an article on "Islamofascism" where, for some peculiar reason, you don't want to let people know that the information being presented is the result of 'thinking outside the box'. Instead we're  presented with a list of "facts" about Islamists which supposedly explain where the word comes from even though those "facts" don't actually have anything more than the dreamiest link to fascism. That's "thinking outside the box" all right. I don't actually mind that this "out of the box" stuff is there, just so long as it is clear that it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with accepted mainstream knowledge. Otherwise a naive reader will be totally mislead. Why do you have such a problem with that? --Lee Hunter 23:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of fascism 

message: Klonimus, sticking 'inuse' on an article simply to stop people reverting your edits is even less acceptable than reverting an article with the template in place; there was no sign at all that you were in fact engaged in an extensive edit.  The present version, while flawed, is better than the one it replaces, both in terms of accuracy and neutrality and in terms of grammar. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some of the editors arent aware of this, but there is the impression that a small clique of editors is trying to block any attempt at incrimental improvment, and instead attempting to enforce a certain POV (some sort of leftist, easily offended, anti-anti-islamist POV that see's anti-islamic bais under every burqa and refuses to see any good faith in other people.) This is going to chase away everyone except this clique. At some point the editing on this article will become a circle jerk among editors who have openly called for this articles deletion. That is both silly and sad, but guess as Yusuf said, it's inevitable. Klonimus 129.10.104.139 01:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Blocking incremental improvement? What I see happening is that a whole bunch of tangential stuff that didn't have anything to with the topic of "islamofascism" has been removed. To me that was an incremental improvement. A number of relevant quotes have been added. To me that was an incremental improvement. Lots of unsupported musing, pontificating and theorizing by various WP editors has been blocked, removed or modified. To me that is an incremental improvement. Perhaps your problem is that when you take away the POV stuff and add in material from credible sources this concept of "islamofascism" comes into focus. This article has actually improved a great deal over the past week. --Lee Hunter 11:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: ... by supplying specific citations of this term's use. The unattributed "some say"/"others say" stuff is a rather ineffective fig leaf placed over a WP debate. BrandonYusufToropov 08:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand this article ... 

message: If indeed there are to be quotes, they have to be selected in an NPOV fashion. And where's the grandmother of them all, Hitchen's coinage of the term? The Orwell one of course is a general condemnation of the use of the term "fascism"; I'd venture it's the earliest incarnation of a pre-usenet form of Godwin's Law. Regardless, I don't see much point in a series of quotes condemning the term; one should suffice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The Orwell quote is relevant because it talks about how 'fascism' can be applied to nearly anything. Each of the quotes condemning the term makes a different and important point.--Lee Hunter 16:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But since it certainly was not made in the context of Islamofascism, it's in Original Research territory. If a critic of the term has made the link to Orwell, then that critic would be worth quoting. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: By that measure you should include all sorts of quotes about the meaning and use of the word "Islam" here as well, since anyone who is talking about Islam must be talking about its use here too.  Quotes about Islamofascism belong in this article; if someone has said that Islamofascism is an invalid term because fascism is an invalid term, go ahead and quote them.  Orwell certainly never commented on Islamofascism. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: *Which again is why the "Fascism as epithet" solution works so well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It works if you are hellbent on including the Orwell quote. It doesn't work so well if you are trying to build an encyclopedia article about the term or concept of "Islamofascism", including its origins, its meanings, its uses, and its criticisms. Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes, examples 

message: How about merging this into a new article called Fascist (epithet)? There's some bits in the Fascist article, the new (and equally odorous) Christofascism article  etc. It seems more useful and interesting to address the question of how the word "fascism" is used to slur one's enemies than to have an article on each spindly variant (and thereby losing the very useful context of how this pattern has been repeated for the past 60 years or so). --Lee Hunter 19:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these terms all related?  Who says? Anyway, they seem to be about more than just fascism. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they are related. They are all instances of "fascism" applied strictly as an epithet to groups or individuals who don't consider themselves as fascist. "Fascism" is a vague enough term, at least in the public's mind, that, as Orwell says, you can get away with slapping it on anything that moves. I think your point that the articles are "about more than just fascism" is very relevant. The stuff that's "more than fascism" - terrorism, fundamentalism etc - is covered in excruciating depth and detail elsewhere. Tossing it in with the F word, creates the false impression that there is some connection.--Lee Hunter 20:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly.  Anyway, this article has been up for VfD; the results of that process should be honoured. Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. If we ignore the VFD by merging -- and that is really what we would be doing -- we will probably only increase the partisan chaos. I don't like the "keep" outcome, but I think we are bound to work with it somehow now. BrandonYusufToropov 21:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: VFD process is not an issue. Surviving the VFD doesn't mean it shouldn't be merged into another article if that's where it belongs. --Lee Hunter 01:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lee, I agree about the idea. I will support it based on your comments. Cheers from Svest 01:13, May 3, 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up
*I like the Fascism as epithet idea. Start with the Orwell quote and proceed from there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Merge into the list of political epithets was the option.  Here the talk is of merging all fascism articles into one "Fascism as an epithet".Yuber 01:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then, you can propose a new VfD; merge was clearly rejected in the previous Vfd. Jayjg (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we don't actually have Votes for Mergers, Jay. Only about whether to delete or keep. Whether to merge has the force only of a recommendation. If this user wants to be bold, you should perhaps treat his suggestion on its merits and not attempt to defeat it with legalism. I support merging it. This article is an absolute joke. There is nothing to say about "islamofascism" except that some commentators have used it. As I pointed out in the VfD, some people call others other rude names. I won't repeat the names i suggested there, to save the delicate. But we don't write articles about that.Grace Note 14:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have articles on nigger and ZOG. However, these articles aren't a list of bad things that blacks and Jews, respectively, have done. That's my primary objection to the Islamofascism article. I would have the same objection if someone inserted into the ZOG article a long digression about Jewish influence over the US government, included a list of Jewish neoconservatives, bad things Israel has done, and so forth. It's not appropriate to give credence to racist epithets in such a manner. Firebug 03:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: VfDs always include "Merge" as an option, which in this case was used by some voters, and clearly rejected by most.  As for the article, it currently has "nothing to say about "islamofascism" except that some commentators have used it" because most of the substantive content has been deleted, and some irrelevant quote about facism included; see, for example, this edit:.  It's rather disingenuous to gut an article and then claim that it is "an absolute joke". Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, dislike both versions noted by that diff. And I hope it will be merged/redirected as I believe it reflects poorly on Wikipedia. But you already know that's how I feel. El_C 17:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it can't reflect as poorly on Wikipedia as the version that contains 5 quotes, one of which is off-topic, and three of which criticize the term. That version is ridiculous. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, but I believe that equale ridiculousness to the opposite can be shown to exist with other diffs. El_C 22:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It's an odious term so it's hardly surprising that it is easy to find people who say so. I added a few of those quotes - including the one from that creepy Clifford May character who actually likes the term. The previous version which you're so fond of was filled with a whole pile of vague links and references to people who supposedly had something to say about islamofascism, but when I tried to find out what exactly it was they said on the subject there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. Orwell's a bit of a stretch but it does highlight the point that you can call anybody a fascist. It's just a smear. Nothing more. --Lee Hunter 22:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why some editors want to keep an article that only serves to create conflict and dissension. The article was "gutted" because someone removed the original research that made up its bulk and rightly so. I mean, really, "the Mufti was a fascist so Osama is a fascist...", "Saudi Arabia is fascist because women can't drive and the Sauds own the oil..." I do suggest that if Jay doesn't like any of the quotes, he removes them. Of course, if the quote he dislikes is the Orwell one, it's liable to be replaced, because it speaks most eloquently, almost presciently, about the term. Basically, it says, using Orwell's own words, that even, what, 70 years ago, people used "fascist" as a lazy epithet to smear those they didn't like. Grace Note 22:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger