Talk:Islamic fascism

message: Header says it all. What makes these manifestations of fascism specifically Islamic, as opposed to ordinary fascism? Can anyone explain this in 100 words or less, preferably in the article's introduction? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what makes it "Islamic"? 

message: I've removed this again.  First, its caption is extremely debatable (the identification of various Islamic groups as 'fascist' hasn't been justified).  Secondly, it's not doing anything important in the article; its only purpose seems to be to turn the reader's stomach — presumably in order to stir her emotions against supposedly evil Muslims.  Thirdly, have you considered the feelings of the friends or family of the victim, should they come across this? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Yuber; the image appears to be there either to pander to those sick individuals who wish that there really were snuff films, or to Islamophobes of one form or another.  There is no good reason given for the claim that al Qaeda is fascist, and even if there were, the picture doesn't illustrate that fact (any more than  a phot of bin Laden having his dinner), and even if it were, we don't need this sort of sensationalist stuff in Wikipedia.  I notice that Walkingeagles didn't respond to what I said above, but only repeated his own reasons; that's not the way discussion is carried out. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I've removed this from the article:
----
:Overtures to al Qaeda by U.S. white supremacists
:In 23 April 2005, CNN reported that while fascist groups such as Aryan Nation were seeking ties with Islamists such as Osama bin Laden for assistance in areas such as finance and organization, the FBI had found no sign of ties between the two. In an interview with CNN, August Kreis the leader of Aryan Nation praised al Qaeda, saying:
You say they're terrorists, I say they're freedom fighters. And I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our peoples' heart, in the Aryan race, that they have for their father, who they call Allah. I don't believe that they were the ones that attacked us," Kreis said. "And even if they did, even if you say they did, I don't care!
:Kreis explained that the common cause he has with al Qaeda is that they have common enemies, namely Jews and the government of the United States. He gave a public message to al Qaeda: "The message is, the cells are out here and they are already in place, they might not be cells of Islamic people, but they are here and they are ready to fight". al Qaeda's response, if any, remains unknown. 
:During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had an alliance with Adolf Hitler. Following the war, many Nazis found asylum in Egypt, Syria, South America, and the United States.
 
:The CNN's investigative reporter Henry Schuster also explained another connection:
Three years ago, I met a Swiss Islamic convert named Ahmed Huber, who began his life as a devotee of Adolf Hitler and moved on to praising former Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who led that nation's Islamic revolution and vigorously opposed U.S. policies.
Huber wanted to forge a fresh alliance between Islamic radicals and neo-Nazis in Europe and the United States. And he cannot be simply dismissed as a crackpot: Huber served on the board of directors of a Swiss bank and holding company that President Bush accused of helping fund al Qaeda.
----
It's clearly not appropriate.  The main text isn't about what Islamic people or groups think, but about what white supremacists say about them; the only relevant part is wholly in the form of a quotation, and concerns one person who's claimed to be a Muslim and a fascist.
I've also removed a couple of other unsubstantiated claims, reorganised the text to flow more smoothly, and corrected a number of internal links.  Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: The vfd discussion gained no consensus on 08:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: vfd discussion

message: Does anyone have a clue how to make the redirects work properly? I presume we need to archive the pages first? Three pages are in play Islamic fascism, Islamofascism, and Christian fascism. Plus, one page is protected.--Cberlet 13:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop right there, there is NOT a consensus. EnviroknotEnviroknot 21:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's on your mind? BrandonYusufToropov 01:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Next steps?

message: There seems to be some overlap between this page and Islamofascism. My suggestion is that Islamofascism is redirected to this page and maybe given its own section here.  
I also think there is too much information above the contents box - this area should be for a minor descriptor of the page's focus and the rest should be put below. Infact a lot of what is mentioned above the box is indeed mentioned below. 
I think there are far too many examples of use in public discourse and all of these are regarding islamofascism and in this respect they mirror the page Islamofascism. Steve-g 09:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Observations 

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

message: OK folks. Back to Wikipedia policy.  This page is a redirect.  Add material to Neofascism and religion#Islam or Islamofascism or any of the several other appropriate pages. This page was redirected after a lengthy and contentious debate. Don't stir up tropuble and insert POV material here. Add material to other pages and seek to build consensus with other editors. Thanks.--Cberlet 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to policy, you don't own either page. If you want something to change you're free to discuss it here, and not ignore what others think. No unilateral decrees please. I see no reason to follow an old decision, that didn't solve anything, wasn't very much OK with policies and guidelines, and (not surprisingly) had practical problems when putting it in practice. --Francis Schonken 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: This page and several others were the subject of lengthy and heated debates, numerous attempts to delete the pages, POV wars, numerous attempts to rename the pages, etc. These discussions are therefore on a number of pages going back over a year. Most recently there has been a discussion on Islamofascism, although even that page has had several names. Almost all of the text on the Islamic Fascism page that was recently revived already had been moved to either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. The very outdated and redundant page was simply switched back on by deleting the redirect. Therefore almost the entire page was redundant. There was no serious attempt to engage editors in a discussion on either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. There was no substantative discussion over several weeks--I waited to see if there was a serious dicussion. There was not. POV page forks are a violation of Wiki policy.  Any editor can do what I did.  I have no intention of trying to suppress claims about Islam and fascism, and in fact have written scholarly articles where I argue some forms of militant Islam are indeed forms of theocratic or clerical fascism. At the same time, I was just quoted in Newsweek saying that the term "Islamofascism" creeps me out.  Over time, the two pages Islamofascism (on the term) and Neofascism and religion (on the contemporary debate), along with a few pages that mention the Grand Mufti and the Phalangists, have been the best way to keep this topic from turning, once again, into an endless POV war.--Cberlet 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think if you have successfully integrated this information into islamofascism and miscellaneous neofascisms the case should be made. This may mean outlining this article and then showing that the items have been successfully incorporated into the two related articles. After that I would agree any resistance to deleting this page is unreasonable. Mrdthree 18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply comparing the pages reveals that most of the material on this page already exists on the other pages(with the exception of some recent links and cites which may be useful on one of the other pages).  If I were to delete all the redundant material on this page, there would be little else left.  As it is, this page is clearly a POV fork, and thus it violates basic Wiki policy. Dozens of other editors concerned with this topic work out their differences and reach compromises on the other pages Islamofascism and Neofascism and religion. If after a discussion on Islamofascism editors want to merge or rename that page or create a new one with this name, that will be the decision that consensus arrives at. Posting the merger notice in the way that it was posted was not a useful way to start a dialog on this issue.--Cberlet 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic Fascism page

message: As I mentioned above, there had been some practical problems with having only Islamofascism and Neofascism and religion (or Neofascism and religion#Islam). Some people apparently use the terms "Islamofascism" and "Islamic Fascism" interchangeably. Most notably President Bush. Some Wikipedians found it inappropriate to have quotes containing "Islamic Fascism" on the Islamofascism page. There is no proof (except maybe some original research) that president Bush intended neofascism when he said "fascism". --Francis Schonken 07:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page Islamic Fascism was one of several that became magnets for POV wars and, bigotry against Muslims, or, alternatively, attempts to sanitize serious scholarly discussions of potential elements of neofascism in certain Islamic movements. The current compromise was arrived at through a long discussion involving dozens of editors.  The current page,  Islamic Fascism, is little more than text that was already moved to Islamofascism and Neofascism and religion months ago. By combining the serious discussions of neofascism and several religions--Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Paganism--on the page Neofascism and religion, we were able to cool out the POV wars to a great extent, and put the discussion in a larger context. I oppose a merger. There is almost nothing to merge. The text was sent to other pages months ago. At best, this should be a discussion about renaming one of the otehr pages, or creating a new page. It makes no logical sense for an editor to claim they know the intent of President Bush to use the term "fascism" rather than "neofascism." There is no basis for that claim. The material on Bush and Rumsfeld talking about Islam and neofascism, or comparing certain Islamic movements to the German Nazis, can easily be added to Neofascism and religion#Islam). This page should be a redirect, or perhaps a disambiguation page. There are no practical problems.--Cberlet 02:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I oppose to doing this by vote. I'd rather like to see issues (like the Practical problems mentioned above) addressed. Unless that is done, a vote is void of actual meaning. --Francis Schonken 06:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was a redirect, and when it was restored as an entry, it created a POV fork, because almost all the text had already been moved to Islamofascism and Neofascism and religion months ago. This page should be restored to a redirect.--Cberlet 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As said above, a first practical problem was when in the last few months (that is after the previous Wikipedia article arrangement discussion) Bush started to use the terms Islamofascism/Islamofascist and Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist (apparently!) interchangeable, and that after that, wikipedians objected that anything referring to Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist would be included in the Islamofascism article, because the article was supposed to be about Islamofascism *exclusively* (and not about Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist ). Merging Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist parlance in a "neofascist" article (Bush didn't use "neo-") would have been as incompatible according to the same logic. And would have been completely POV-forking, while obviously this use of Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist is *often* interchangeable with the use of Islamofascism/Islamofascist by the same (prominent) persons. --Francis Schonken 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the collaborative method would have been to propose a name change, rather than restoring an outdated page with redundant text. People whose suggestions are rejected by consensus on another page are not supposed to create POV forks.--Cberlet 21:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Discussion

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

message: Comment: Francis, since I gather this is your proposal to merge rather than merely redirect, can you summarize what material is here that you feel merits merging? - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As said above, a first practical problem was when in the last few months (that is after the previous Wikipedia article arrangement discussion) Bush started to use the terms Islamofascism/Islamofascist and Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist (apparently!) interchangeable, and that after that, wikipedians objected that anything referring to Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist would be included in the Islamofascism article, because the article was supposed to be about Islamofascism *exclusively* (and not about Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist ). Merging Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist parlance in a "neofascist" article (Bush didn't use "neo-") would have been as incompatible according to the same logic. And would have been completely POV-forking, while obviously this use of Islamic fascism/Islamic fascist is *often* interchangeable with the use of Islamofascism/Islamofascist by the same (prominent) persons. --Francis Schonken 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the collaborative method would have been to propose a name change, rather than restoring an outdated page with redundant text. People whose suggestions are rejected by consensus on another page are not supposed to create POV forks.--Cberlet 21:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Content of the Islamic fascism page proposed by SlimVirgin ( -  - ):
----
*Neofascism and religion#Islam
*Islamofascism
----
I object to this because of the simple rules of Wikipedia:Disambiguation:"[...] disambiguations are paths leading to different topic pages that share essentially the same term in their title." (my bolding)
* "different topic pages" is not fulfilled, while the topic discussed (ie, meaning & use of terminology that links "Islam" and "fascism") is twice the same.
* "share essentially the same term in their title" is not fulfilled while one of the pages has "neofascism" in its title, which is inappropriate naming for the discussion of Islamic fascism. At least it is original research when the sources used for discussing the "Islamic fascism" topic show no use of the "neofascism" terminology.
Basicly (for a concrete example), when a user reads or hears "Islamic fascism"/"Islamic fascist" in a communication of pres. Bush, and s/he types such expression in the Wikipedia search field, and presses "Go", this user is left with a choice, that s/he can't resolve without knowing in advance what is on the so-called "disambiguated" pages. This is not how disambiguation is supposed to work.
Further, after reading these so-called "disambiguated" pages it becomes all too apparent that there is POV forking involved: one of the pages suggests that "Islamofascism" and "Islamic fascism" are not synonyms. If that user happens to have taken the other choice from the so-called disambiguation page, s/he'll learn that Bush uses these terms interchangeably. Sorry, as it is now, this is a most elementary example of POV forking. --Francis Schonken 07:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the conversion of this page into a disambiguation page as suggested by SlimVirgin. This sends the issues back to the pages where most editors are working collaboratively, and resolves the need for a mediation, and so I now withdraw that proposal.--Cberlet 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation proposed by SlimVirgin 

message: :@Cberlet:
:Please stop engaging in vandalism. In the #Only two out of seven people commenting on this page since August support this to be a disambiguation page section above I gave the argumentation. You refuse to respond to the argumentation. Is there any other reason for your refusal to reply to the argumentation than that you have no reply to it?
:So, please stop your vandalism, and try to be a little bit more constructive. There was no "vote" over this becoming a dab page. Even if there were a vote (which would not be a good idea), the result of any vote can be dismissed when it results in a breach of core content policies, like WP:NPOV. The result of the merger "vote" is until now undecisive: four people participated in the vote thus far, only two rejected the merger. It was nowhere agreed how, and after which time period, votes of the merger vote would be counted: for which there should have been at least a week's time of negotiation prior to the vote to agree about such conditions.
:Your behaviour is disruption. I tried to see your behaviour in any other way possible besides that you were disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. But no other interpretation is possible: the point you try to make is that you are always right, and you try to support that point by non-existing poll results. The method you use to illustrate this point is vandalism (repeatedly removing article content). --Francis Schonken 06:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After a failed merger vote, the regular procedure would have been to restore this page as a simple redirect, in this case to Islamofascism.  Two editors decided that it would be better (and a compromise with you) to make this page a disambiguation page instead. Rather than accepting this graciously, you have simply refused to understand that your merger suggestion failed for lack of a consensus. I understand that this makes you angry, but your campaign has become tiresome, which is why I have sought Administrator intervention.--Cberlet 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop engaging in vandalism

message: "Islamic facism" should be changed to "Islamic fascism" in the title.  Peter O. (Talk) 21:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --   Netsnipe  ►  15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor spelling edit