Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 4

message: The backlog at WP:RM goes back to 15 November, and most admins are reulctant to close votes which are still active, like this one.  It is possible to ask for the vote to be closed, either by approaching an admin (be careful how you go about this to avoid the impression of cherry picking an admin who is likely to favour your side: very bad, and admins don't like to be used this way), or by asking on the WP:RM talk page.  Personally, I'm happy to wait.  This isn't urgent. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, as long as it's standard procedure. So these sorts of move votes can go on indefinitely? Babajobu 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns on how many admins are interested in closing the discussions.  The backlog on WP:AfDs is much shorter than on RMs.  It could be another week before the discussion is closed: if it's still open on Friday, I'll pester someone to close it. --- Charles Stewart 20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Backlog

message: Chaosfeary, I have to go against you on this latest revert dispute with Brandon. I agree with you on a lot of things, but it's not okay to insert comments like that without providing sources. Imagine if Brandon just did a brain-dump into the article, adding whatever content he thought was accurate and relevant. You wouldn't like it, and you would be right not to like it. We need to demonstrate that whatever content we add is backed up by reasonably mainstream sources, otherwise this article will turn in to an endless revert/edit war between people who prefer their own interpretation of the term to the other side's. Babajobu 12:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, removing it now (if not already gone). Sorry. I think it's pretty NPOV though - All it does is explain why most groups, even those sharing views that would traditionally be seen as "fascist" do not label themselves as fascist because of the negative images/history associated with facist groups/governments. That's basically what I mean. --Chaosfeary 12:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thanks. The thing is that it suggests that the groups are publicly denying their fascist nature in order to avoid the pejorative power of the word "fascist". I think it's more likely that it would never even occur to these groups that they are "fascist", because they don't think in terms of that kind of western poli sci category. But regardless, what I'm saying is that what I think or you think or Brandon thinks can't be presented in the article as fact. When we're dealing with such a hotly disputed topic I think we need to not merely cite sources to affirm a given comment as "fact", but actually just cite sources and attribute particular views to them. Say, "Chaosfeary, a columnist for National Review Online, has argued that "Islamofascist" groups disingenuously deny their fascist nature because they hope to avoid being associated with the Nazi movement." Or something like that. Because no one can disagree with a comment like that, even if you despise NRO and the term "Islamofascism", you have to agree that Chaosfeary does indeed argue that. Anyway, you know all this already, I don't know why I've just spent so much time spelling it out. Babajobu 12:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources!

message: Interestingly, Juan Cole, who is quoted in this article as criticising use of the term Islamofascist, is not beyond using the 'F' word himself, at least as applied to Likud and Zionist Revisionism
:"*A group of Israeli rabbis has issued a call for the Sharon government to cease its policy of cavalierly allowing the killing innocent civilians in the Occupied Territories in the course of its military operations against radical groups. They say such actions are inconsistent with the essence of the Jewish religion. Too right! Judaism has given us so much that is noble in ethical religion, and what the Likud is doing is an insult to that long and glorious tradition. Likud's real roots lie not in the Bible but in Zionist Revisionism of the Jabotinsky sort, which is frankly a kind of fascism."--FRS 15:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, can anyone find a cite for the claim in Juan Cole that he won the "Legion of Iran" award in 2003?  This 'fact' was introduced to the article on October 9 by an anon IP , and the text reached its present state on October 11.   A Swarthmore PR  dated October 18 has, word-for-word, the exact statement as the WP article: "He received the Legion of Iran, the highest official honor for a foreigner, during a visit to Iran in 2003."  There's nothing in Cole's c.v. or on his website to support the claim. It sounds like a subtle defamation to me, taking into account that a lot of Cole's critics would not exactly consider this "honor," well, honorable.  --FRS 18:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juan Cole and the 'F' word 

message: Moved comment from entry:
:The Guardian attributes the term to an article by Muslim scholar Khalid Duran in the Washington Times, where he used it to describe the push by some Islamist clerics to "impose religious orthodoxy on the state and the citizenry" . 
:It was likely not the Washington Times that carried this piece, if it was indeed published, since LexisNexis carries no story appearing in that paper between 1981 and 9/11 in which either "islamofascism" or "islamo-fascism" appear.
Can someone verify a cite?--Cberlet 21:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed this before.  I carried out the LexisNexis check.  I'm pretty sure the author of the Guardian article screwed this up: and it's rather bad of the Guardian not to check this.  Khalid Duran may have used the term before 9/11, but if so, it was almost certainly elsewhere. --- Charles Stewart 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Guardian's ascription

message: I think a summary or synopsis of the criticsm section is appropriate and warranted in the intro, presumably one editor disagrees with my interpretation, what do others think? zen master T 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necesarily object to a (longer) summary of the criticism section (we have already the statement that the appropriateness of the term is "hotly disputed.")  The reason I deleted "Critics view the term as Rhetorical device, propaganda and as profoundly insulting to Muslims" is that academics have criticized the term as historically inaccurate while Silvio Berlusconi has criticized it as unfair to "real" (Italian) fascists.  On the article as it exists presently, and as far as I know, the only notable critics expressing the view that it is "profoundly insulting to Muslims," are themselves rather extremist (one being "skeptical" of the HolocaustTalk:Islamofascism/Archive03#Joe_Sobran, and the other using the 'F' word himself to describe a present-day Israeli political party).  --FRS 21:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of critical view is intro appropriate 

message: What happened to Berlusconi's criticism of the term? Why was that removed? And the "See also" section is degenerated into a monstrosity. What in heaven's name does a lengthy succession of links to different forms of terrorism have to do with this article? Babajobu 17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed because his comment had nothing to do with this particular article. He was talking about Saddam Hussein (i.e. the leader of a secular state) not about Islam or Islamofascism. --Lee Hunter 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lee, I'll look at the citation and if I got it wrong then obviously I won't reinsert it. But you also reverted back to the interminable list of 32 marginally relevant see also links. Is there a reason for that? Are you really attached to every one of those links? Babajobu 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I didn't realize I did that. Sorry. I actually tried to remove  them myself once before but was reverted. --Lee Hunter 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, the Berlusconi quote definitely refers to Saddam Hussein rather than "Islamofascism", my mistake. Looks like I was going on a summary provided on one of the archived versions of this talk page; I should have taken the time to examine the source myself. Babajobu 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, at least some of the "see also" links should be retained as relevant parallel examples of political rhetoric and historically inaccurate metaphors that have found a place, fbow, in modern lexicon.--FRS 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  FRS, but aren't you really just talking about political epithets that have been incorporated into mainstream political talk? Isn't the link to List of political epithets enough? But if you want to add some, go ahead...I just think we should try to keep the list from growing into a deep archaeological layer of rhetorical one-upsmanships. "Link to propaganda! Link to terrorism involving Muslims! Link to propaganda! Link to terrorism involving Muslims!" And so on. Babajobu 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Berlusconi and See Also

message: [material concerning dispute between  and  moved to User:OceanSplash/Islamofascism in Wikipedia. This talk page is for discussion of the article Islamofascism (term); it is not the place to post lengthy details of user disputes whose connection to the article is dubious and tangential at best. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamofascism in Wikipedia

message: What was the logic behind this move? BYT 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Inasmuch as a) no one is willing to answer this (including the person who moved the page) and b) the "Move" side did not attain 60%, I have moved this back. BYT 12:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was and is no consensus to move this page to [[Islamofascism]] 

message: SlimVirgin asked me to look into this issue as an uninvolved party and offer my opinion.  Without getting in to the specific merits of whether or not I personally think the page "should" have been renamed, I think this is a case of biting the oldies.  Page moves are typically doable by anyone, and the 60% guideline on WP:RM is phrased somewhat loosely.  The whole point is that if you end up on WP:RM, the move is controversial.  The stakes are, frankly, low here — the substance of the article is unchanged — and getting worked up over a few percent one way or the other seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees.  It seems wrong to me that we should give an admin less discretion in deciding how to close a page move discussion than we do when closing an article deletion discussion.
I think Marudubshinki should be encouraged to close out the discussion however he thinks appropriate, and editors should be encouraged to redirect their energy into improving the article and making sure it stays properly focused, rather than fretting over the semiotics of whether or not a parenthesized word appears in the article title.
Hope this helps.  Looking forward to the hate mail.
Regards, Nandesuka 23:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as it goes, the above is fair enough, but it misses the point as to why I, at least, am bothered by M's closing: his remarks in 'defence' of his move on his talk page suggested that he did not see why his closure of the discussion should not reflect his personal views on the move, as opposed to trying to find the outcome that best fits the discussion.  I regard this as unadminlike. --- Charles Stewart 02:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page move - my opinion