This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 16:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism[edit]

Votes[edit]

Neologism just like Judeofascism. They should be treated equally. --Islamist 01:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article got split out of the list of political epithets because because the section gradually grew in size to the scope of an article. The term islamofascism may have once been an epithet, but over time it has evolved into a word describing the concept of violent totalitiarian islamism. As a notable word/concept it deserves its own comprehensive and NPOV article. If the final decision is to redirect, I urge that it not be protected, because Islamofascism will once again grow big enough and notable enough to be split out, again. Sealing the redirect will prevent tender love and organic growth
The term islamofascism gets 62,500 hits on Google compared to 153 hits for Judeofascism. The ratio is 85,100/73 on Yahoo! Search. Islamofascism has become a fairly common term since 9/11. Klonimus 23:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Example citiations are provided below :

I'd like to clarify my "redirect" vote. It is not a genuine "redirect", it is a keep, but rename. "Islamofascism" should be a redirect to something, I don't know what, perhaps Intolerance in Islam, as it is a subject about which voluminous amounts have been written. My opposition is to using what is really an epithet as the name for an article, especially when it denigrates people by association. I registered this same opinion in the discussion at Arab anti-Semitism. I'm saying keep the content, redirect Islamofascism to a renamed article, one which would ultimately be a better home (or lead article) for most of the content of Islam and anti-Semitism as well. Tomer TALK 11:15, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Far too many people on the Left are inclined to make excuses for Islamic fundamentalism. They accept its misogyny so long as it doesn’t target Western women. They accept its fascism so long as it is anti-American fascism. We now have a Stop the War coalition led by Islamic fascists and Marxist-Leninists, and much of the Left is silent about it. Acknowledging the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism would sully their consciences, which they want to keep clean for the battle against America ... Much of the Stop the War coalition now actually supports a fascist resistance movement and ignores their Iraqi comrades entirely. You have to look back to the Hitler-Stalin pact for a historical parallel. The concept of fascism is being lost. It’s something you hear about on the history channels. But Islamic fascism is still fascism ... Islamofascism has been ripping through the Arab world, often supported by America, and it should be the Left’s worst nightmare. [3] SlimVirgin (talk) 09:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is a term of widespread use, regardless of whether one believes it is valid or not. the tone of the article is NPOV. --Briangotts 16:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an added note, it is intellectually dishonest for Islamist to create a bogus Judeofascism article, solely for the purpose of demanding this article's deletion. Briangotts
Note User:UDoN't!wAn* is an apparent sock puppet, just signed up on 22 Apr 2005. zen master T 00:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What a surprising vote from someone who shows his hatred for the Islamic religion on his userpage. I guess a deletion of a redundant article is Islamists hijacking Wikipedia, some NPOV editor you are.Yuber 04:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All that said, I have just presented a newbie one called Americofascism to Vfd (Btw, I had given before my comment somewhere in this discussion about the fact that Islamofascism would open the door to all kinds of X-rated fascism articles that goes from A to Z like Americofascism). So that is what happened! So we got work to do; let's again vote and argue our POVs regarding the new star. Cheers Svest 06:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Don't place votes in this section

(copied here from Talk:Islamofascism)

You can, of course, create any number of words using the formula: X + Fascist tendencies = Xofascism. How about 'Graecofascism'? 'Sinofascism'? 'Hindofascism'? The trouble is, having created the term, it's also easy to create a concept to go with it, and then to create a history. You don't even need to go outside the facts; there'll always be, in any nationality, race, or religion that's been around for a while examples of people or groups acting badly. The term 'fascism' is being used in such a Usenet/school-debating-society way that that's all you need. Wikipedia isn't here to invent new concepts, nor to parrot whatever nonsense the U.S. neo-cons have come up with as they flail around trying to find reasons to attack other countries. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hinduist, Buddhist, etc. 'fascism' are a frightening reality, involving ...'the most heavenly exctacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimantalism'... [towards] a new high-tech Dark Ages. But I have yet to see the oh' shorthand used in any serious exposition (from within revolutionary currents, at least, where I've seen such concepts elaborated on at some length). E.g. [4] El_C 21:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the article is developed, it's becoming more and more distasteful (and many of the comments made by those who want to keep it betray an ignorance of the issues here, as well as a disturbing emotional tone). We're told, for example, that some Islamic leaders allied with fascists in the second World War, but no mention is made of the fact that the fascists in question were Christians, and the purely pragmatic, non-ideological nature of the contacts is not properly explained. There's in fact no indication that any of the Muslims involved held any sort of fascist belief. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm arguing this in two places – here, and on Talk:Islamofascism – and the result is sometimes a bit disjointed. It seems clear that al-Husseyni was ideologically involved with Nazism (just as some English aristocrats, royals, and politicians were), but any general Arab support for Nazism shouldn't be attributed to so-called Islamofascism.

Here's the logic, folks: I identify a Nazi-sympathizing Muslim. Islam therefore has a fascist dimension. Hmmm. Does the failure of the Catholic Church to vigorously and explicitly oppose Nazi crimes against Jews justify an entry for Catholifacism?

I suppose that what's offensive about this article (and the comments of some people on this page) is that, whereas we talk about Italian fascists, and Spanish fascists, and Greek fascists, etc., rather than Christofascists, when it comes to the Muslim world it's OK to lump all the Islamic countries and groups together. The turning of Judeofascism into a redirect presumably involved a recognition of the same fact in that case; there are of course Jewish fascists (Jews are no more immune to human stupidity and nastiness than any other group), and many people have seen the actions of certain Israeli politicians and parties as having fascist aspects — but it's wrong to use the general, smearing, and to my mind bigoted term 'Judeofascism'. Why on Earth can't the same reasonableness be applied here? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like your reasoning here, but the thing is. If the use of the term was reasonable then it would not belong in List of political epithets. The question for me is weather or not the epiteth merits an article and if such an article can possibly in the current enviornment be NPOV. I think the answer to the first question is yes, this term is used enough that someone will likely look it up here. The second question is what will they find? I voted to re-direct because that seemed the safest waty to make sure they found somethign reasonable. If the article could be keep about the epiteth and NPOV I would have voted to keep. Dalf | Talk 09:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Islamic/Islamo Fascism

For those of us learned in Middle Eastern history, it is clear that fascist-derived ideologies and Islamism have always been violently opposed (see:Hama Massacre). The fascist-derived ideologies in the Middle East such as the Kateab Party, the Baath party, and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party have been almost entirely supported by Christians or minority groups in the Arab world that feared Islamism. The founder of the SSNP was a Christian, as the founder of the Baath was Greek orthodox. The Kataeb was founded by Bachir Gemayel, a Maronite Christian militant. All these ideologies were officially secular but had mainly Christian support. Islamic fascism is a contradiction in all senses of the word. Islamism has no ideas about racial superiority either. That is why it is utterly ridiculous to have an Islamic fascism article.

My views on this article are that it is a way for WalkingEagles and Klonimus to insert their own judgement into an Anti-Islamic term that should frankly be listed under political epithets. Just because neo-cons have started using this term more does not make it factually or historically correct.Yuber 16:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice job not refuting anything I had to say :).Yuber 02:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, you remind me of the texas farmer who was the best shot in the west. First he would shoot, and then he would paint a bullseye. I'm not playing a game with you about weather Islamofascism exists or not. It doesn't matter if the term is as you claim "factually or historically correct", it matters that it is being widely used to mean a specific concept. And therefore must be documented in an encyclopedic encyclopaedia.
At the moment I have to say that I agree with the general direction of the Islamofascism article. It was a mistake on my part to combine Islamic Fascism (Fusion of Islam and fascist political movements) with Islamofascism (term to describe totalitarian Islam, and groups that support it.). I think the current split is a good idea, and the two articles can crosslink. I do wish the whole thing could have been done with less rancor, which would have been the case if people hadn't been so quick to delete materiel they found objectionable. . Klonimus 17:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to Resort this VfD[edit]

IMHO it would be nice if thise VFD could be reformated along the lines of.

The current VfD would make a nice article in itself. Controversy surrounding Islamfascism anyone? Klonimus 01:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No resorting, please. It only confuses things even more, and breaks the cronological flow. --cesarb 01:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps once this debate is closed. At the moment any resorting, especially by an involved party, would just complicate matters. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question for all who vote to keep[edit]

If a coalition of hate groups (may Allah(swt) forbid) started talking about a Jewish conspiracy to control the global media, coined a single catch-word for that supposed conspiracy, and kept posting that single catch-word on blogs until it started showing up on Google, would that new word deserve an entry in a responsibly -edited encyclopedia? (Not a rhetorical query, I'd like your answer, please.)BrandonYusufToropov 17:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is in fact such a term. It's called Jewish Supremacism. It gets thousands of Google Hits and was coined by a White Supremacist. It is merely a political epithet just like Islamofascism.Yuber 17:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well Yuber, go make an article on it. Klonimus 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why would I? That would be hypocritical of me, and I have no interest in making articles just to degrade religions and people, unlike some people here.Yuber 23:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There's also Zionist Occupied Government, for which we have a decent article that treats the slur as a slur and doesn't spend time on the backgrounds or political views of U.S. neocons. As it should. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Go make an article about Jewish Influence on American Politics Klonimus 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If I were going to do that, which I'm not, why would I use that awkward title when Zionist Occupied Government and variants get thousands of Google hits? —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Nigger" gets thousands of Google hits too, but we don't make "Nigger" the primary title or even a redirect to "African American". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Precisely. Yet we (or Klonimus and co., at least) use "Islamofascism" as the primary title. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mirv, ZOG is a term used by racist kooks, Islamofascism is a commonly used word in the media when talking about totalitarian Islamism. Klonimus 01:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Islamofascism" is similarly a term used by racist kooks and political polemicists. In academic discourse, for example, it is a non-starter. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Islamofascism" gets used in the Wall Street Journal, National Review and the Sunday Times, this suggests that it has entered the mainstream of respectable opinion. Weather or not you personally agree with that. I take your further silence as the sound of profound ownage Klonimus 16:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Two outlets of U.S. right-wing opinion, and which Sunday Times? Your failure to refute my argument about academic discourse is telling. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am unsure how many people voting to keep this article are doing so out of a misguided attempt to present articles on all phrases that enter common parlance. This is not and has never been the objective of a responsible encyclopedia. (Is there an entry in the Columbia Encyclopedia for "trailer trash"? Or "retard"? Or "wetback"?) This is the kind of pejorative we're dealing with, and if you don't think so, you're not thinking very hard. BrandonYusufToropov 01:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for someone who voted to keep to respond to this (non-rhetorical) question. Once again, it is:

If a coalition of hate groups (may Allah(swt) forbid) started talking about a Jewish conspiracy to control the global media, coined a single catch-word for that supposed conspiracy, and kept posting that single catch-word on blogs until it started showing up on Google, would that new word deserve an entry in a responsibly -edited encyclopedia?BrandonYusufToropov 19:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who answers your question can probably expect to have his words used against him in some way. You're not exactly being subtle about it. Rhobite 20:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I translate as: Yes, there is a double standard at work here, but I'd rather not discuss it. BrandonYusufToropov 20:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No there isn't such a term, but if it existed then it would merit inclusion and good article. I can understand why you might find casual use of the term islamofascism offensive. How ever the term is in wide use, and a comprensive encyclopedia must document it. This is independant of the moral value of the word itself when used to describe totalitarian Islamism. Klonimus 01:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, thanks for the stealthily amended answer (above) to my complaint (below, entered 23:01 24 Apr), but it would have been more comprehensible, and more honest, if you had not gone back and quietly edited the line I was complaining about, so as to make it look like I was making things up. You did offer a straight answer to the question, though, which is something. What you're saying is that something patently offensive, a la "K-ke conspiracy to dominate world media" deserves an entry on its own, yes?[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 10:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure go wild on Jewish influence on world media,Jewish influence on american politics, [[Jewish influence on israeli politics, Jewish influence on iraqi politics, Jewish influence on candian politics anything you like. Having an article on something doesn't mean you agree with it, wikipedia exisits to document all that exists. BTW I changed my signature so that anyone could see that I edited my reply. Klonimus 00:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are either deliberately ignoring, or somehow failing to understand, my point. I suspect it's the former. But, just in case .... I am not talking about sanitized article titles like the ones you propose above, but rather something patently offensive -- just like Islamofascism -- as the title for an article. You're not talking about calling the page something vaguely intelligent like Political trends in Islam, but instead insisting on a single, foul-sounding coinage that lumps 1 billion people together with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. My question is, if bloggers made a similiarly offensive, similarly paranoid neologism about Jewish people show up on Google, would that offensive term itself be appopriate as the title of an article? BrandonYusufToropov 02:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If that term became very popular, was cited in prominent mainstream media and books, and described a concept that is notable: then yes it deserves an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia exists to document what exisits. Klonimus 16:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With respect, I can't help noticing that you're ducking the question I posed. BrandonYusufToropov 23:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Answers to Yusuf's question[edit]

  1. I voted redirect to list of political epithets but I see the case for a keep vote provided the page documents the use of the epithet and only provides links to more appropriately titled articles for discussion of the content. In an ideal world, editors could actually keep to such a policy, and so an article on Yusuf's hypothetical epithet would be good for Wikipedia, but too many editors are too gummed up with hormones and propaganda not to opine on the content, so redirects are better. Please note the parallels between this argument and that on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Prussian Holocaust... --- Charles Stewart 08:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm gonna be bold, answering, as one who did not vote for "keep", in a forum in which the requestant has not requested my input: Islamofascism is a term that has come to be accepted in journalistic circles, if only "outside CNN", as a descriptor of fascistic tendencies exemplified by the leadership of certain (sadly, the vast majority of) Islamic régimes. Wishing the term into oblivion is neither intellectually honest nor encyclopedic. That said, you'll note, my vote was to redirect the content of this article to Islamic Theological Intolerance or something equally descriptive. The concept within modern Islam is, not only present, but prevalent, and in certain circles, predominant. The term "Islamofascism", however, as derogatory as it might sound to the vast majority of Muslims, is one that has gained a not-insignificant currency in the Journalism of the West. The only relevant question here, if I might be so bold, is whether or not this term should be the TITLE of an article, or a redirect to an article describing the phenomenon. My contention is that Islam has inherent tendencies that permit the interpretation thereof in favor of Fascism, but that the term "Islamofascism" should be applied exclusively to such groups as follow this interpretation, which is, unfortunately, gaining sway within the muslim world. As such, any such article should concentrate on these groups, rather than dragging down the erstwhile phenomenal accomplishments of Islamic Civilization (which OK, here's my bias, is nothing more than the preservation and encouragement of the achievements of civilization overtaken by muslim warriors, but that really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand). To say, however, that fascism is not a(n unfortunate and predominant) trend within modern (vocal) Islam, is neither historically nor intellectually honest. I wish it were otherwise, perhaps more than most muslims, in fact, but the fact remains, Islam in "this day and age" has been coöpted by the dominance and influence of Wahhabism and Allawitism, both of which are quintessentially fascist, sadly. Tomer TALK 10:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you should have voted redirect. Apart from that I pretty much agree with everything you say. --- Charles Stewart 10:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) --- Postscript: A caveat: I don't think that Islam is ideologically a good fit for quasi-fascism, but the fact in most Arab countries is that Islam provides the only non-suicidal means of dissent. The connection is structural and circumstantial, and quite different to what User:Klonimus has been arguing. --- Charles Stewart 11:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you're illiterate: I did vote redirect... Just to make sure... Tomer TALK 12:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Illiterate? No, rather literate, just time-challenged: I misconstrued a less-than-ideally-worded sentence that I could have figured out with more care. --- Charles Stewart 19:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I guess I can understand the argument for a redirect to list of political epithets. I agree we could probably handle such offensive terms in this way, assuming intelligent editing that does not succumb to cultural or political bias.
I do have a couple of questions about some of your underlying assumptions, though, which I hope you'll consider.
When you say that fascism is descriptive of 'the vast majority" of Islamic regimes -- I hope you don't consider Egypt, UAE, Indonesia, Turkey, etc. to be members of this universe of "Islamic regimes"? Do you? That there are Muslims within a secular government does not make it an Islamic regime!
Which "Islamic regime," specifically, do you consider to be fascist? If your answer is, say, Saudi Arabia, how does the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a bitter enemy of the ruling monarchy enter into your calculus? Does that mean that the ruling family are Islamofascists, but Bin Laden, by opposing them, is anti-fascist? Are you sure you don't mean to say that some governments that rule over Muslims are authoritarian?
No, they are totalitarian, try waving an Israeli Flag in Mecca or Riyadh and see how long it takes before you get arrested. Try walking around in shorts on a hot summer day in Jeddah, Try having a satellite dish and watching CNN in Teheran. Islamism invades every aspect of life in Saudi Arabia or Iran, not just politics. Egypt is authoritarian, Saudi Arabia/Iran are totalitarian. The bitter enemies of these totalitarian regimes, do not in anyway exonorate the regimes they are attacking. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were totalitarian states, same for Saddam era Iraq and Iran. Klonimus 20:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(sigh)I know you don't like those countries. Question is not whether you like them, but whether a) they are "Islamic regimes," as has been claimed, and b) whether they are fascist, according to some meaningful definition of the world. I can't get Bridges TV (Muslim cable network) here in Massachusetts, but that doesn't mean Massachusetts is fascist. Are you arguing for Islamototalitarianism? If so, you're on the wrong page. Please stay on topic, and please try to focus on the actual conversation we're trying to have, ok? BrandonYusufToropov 22:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Iran claims to be an "Islamic Republic", the rulers of saudi arabia claim to be custodians of the two holy mosques and defenders of the faith. IMHO they are self proclaimed "Islamic regimes." Both governments also enforce sharia law which would make them Islamic by definition. I personally have no opinion if they are fascists or not, but I think a good case could be made for both sides. Klonimus 01:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yusuf, you seem to be missing the point that Wikipedia does not exist to pass judgement, only to document: that means that we are documenting the claims that surround the useage of the term Islamofascist without passing any judgement over its existance or nonexistance, pejorative nature, moral value of those who use the term, history of use, etc etc.Klonimus 01:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, you and I simply disagree on this.
  • If it were as you say, we would have an independent main article on the word "Nigger," and we don't.
  • Why don't we? Because it's patently offensive.
  • Now then. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two examples I thought of, too, that might conceivably be called "Islamic regimes."
  • But -- reality check -- the claim was that a majority of these "Islamic regimes" were fascist, and that is simply not factual, unless "fascist" means "objectionable to the speaker" or some such ridiculousness.
  • Factuality is apparently not a big deal for you, which is fine, but if you believe, as you appear to (with others on this page) that there is some "trend" toward fascism in Islam, then I submit that it is incumbent upon you to explain why you believe this, and to use the words "Fascism" and "Islam" as though they had consistent meanings. BrandonYusufToropov 01:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When you say that fascism is a "trend within modern (vocal) Islam," I assume you mean fascism, the real thing, as opposed to fascism, the "boo" word that carries no actual meaning beyond "you're a bad guy." So presumably you are saying that there is a sect within Islam that embraces corporatism? I'm unfamiliar with this sect or its proponents. Can you please be a little more specific about it?
Its the fusion of government ideology plus national oil companies as a source of wealth. Klonimus 20:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
a) That's a "trend within modern (vocal) Islam"? Where's the trend? Which scholar is espousing it? b) By your logic, USSR, which had both oil wealth and a state ideology, was fascist, not Communist. Is that what you mean to say? Again, I thought fascism had something to do with corporatism.
Again, thanks for the response. BrandonYusufToropov 12:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


It seems that this is going nowhere! I just wonder how come a NPOV of a few right-wing writers (I say a few) could turn into a 1-0 in the propaganda war and How the right played the fascism card against Islam! I just wonder indeed how come two articles of the same nature (talking about this one and the other shamefull non-sense fictitious Judeofascism) could have different fates! How come Judeofascism got already a status of pending deletion?!! Because of google hits?! Is this the main argument? (If yes is your answer, then refer to the end of my intervention below). Who spends most of his time discussing the phenomenon of Islamofascism on forums and blogs? Aren't they people who got an anti-islamic agenda?

In this list of pejorative slogans at Nationmaster.com both expressions are listed and explained without any POV. So wouldn't be the same in Wikipedia? Worse indeed. Some users have already started Islamic fascism and claim both articles mean different things!! . So explain to us how different they are please! It is clear that there is a difference between Big mama and Big Mama, between bin Laden and Bin Laden ("He's one of them bin-ladens") as refering to Arabs.

If we follow this trend we will end up having duplicate articles confusing readers and ourselves.

I still believe this article have to be kept but also have to focus on the pejorative nature of the term instead of claiming non-sense things relating state controlled business to fascism without any single reference! Do we have to include countries like France into that category?!! A break please!

Do we have to start an article called Americofascism (or whatever you name it) because of Guantanamo camp? It will be a total non-sense kind of article though I will give you this argument:

  • "Islamic fascism" offers you 17,500 barrels of oil.
  • "american fasicm" cannot offer you less than 17,300 dollars.
  • guantanamo +fascism in google gives you 48,200 handcuffs.

I am sorry but I am not that good on googlewhacking though the above is not a real GW. --Svest 14:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete votes[edit]

Somebody deleted (by accident? intentionally?) a keep vote. Please please please don't do this, it makes things far more difficult for everyone, okay? BrandonYusufToropov 16:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. It was clearly unintentional. It probably happened because I saved the page twice when the server was having some problems. It is already fixed by TShilo12 now. --Svest 16:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
No problem, sorry to even bring it up, but I wanted to err on the side of caution. BrandonYusufToropov 17:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recap for those who voted to keep[edit]

I voted to keep because there are indeed fascistic trends in contemporary Islam.

Are you really and truly sure you understand the definition of Fascism? Is it worth clicking on the link for thirty seconds or so to check? Do you realize that people who are actually promoting contemporary brands of fascism in the Middle East are bitter enemies of Islamists? Do facts matter in an encyclopedia, or not?
      • `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
      • Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
      • `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
      • `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
      • `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' BrandonYusufToropov 20:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC), channeling.

I voted to keep because the term is apparently in common use.

Is the word "Jap" in common use to describe Japanese people? Does it deserve an article unto itself? How about "Sand Nigger"? Is there any point at which patently offensive epithets do not deserve an entry?
Just so people are clear on what it being voted upon.
    • Islamofascism Term used to describe totalitarian Islamism
    • Islamic fascism Term used to describe actual muslim fascists. I.e Bosnian SS Units, Grand Mufti, etc.
(by Klonimus, only signed timestamp) 20:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Now, do we agree about the definitions or not? Personally, I don't buy it for reasons explained in response on the discussion there. IMHO, we need to discuss this here as well as we are doing in Islamic fascism before deciding what to do; whether to merge and then keep them or not merge and redirect them to whatever we agree about. --Svest 10:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
RE: "Do we agree about the definitions or not?" I just want to point out that Klonimus is now arguing that Islamofascism is a "new idea" that need not conform to the real-world definition of fascism. Yet, before he took this position, in his many edits on this article, he repeatedly (and vainly, in my opinion) argued that state-controlled oil wealth amounted, more or less, to corporatism. This was a clear attempt on his part to match this patently offensive epithet with the actual poli-sci meaning of the term "fascism."
Well, which is it? Is "Islamofascism" a "new idea" that floats effortlessly above the real-world meaning of fascism? Or is it an actual description of an Islamic political philosophy advocating the combination of state and corporate power? Forget about whether anyone else agrees about the definitions. Does Klonimus agree about the definitions?BrandonYusufToropov 12:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unlike some people on wikipedia, I can change my mind. I carefully reconsiddered what my understanding of the facts of the matter are and came to a new conclusion. Islamism and Fascism are distinctly separate idea's however many Islamist movements are inspired by fascists and may share elements of fascism. My current understanding is that Islamofascism is a notable neologism used to describe sub-types of Islamism that share certain attributes (Anti western, pro Jihad, and seeking to create totalitarian Islamic societies) At this point I don't think Islamofascism as a concept is deeply connected to fascism. How ever many Islamofascists, are inspired by people like the Grand Mufti who are undeniably fascist. In some countires the government is Iran, or is influenced by Islamofascists (Saudi Arabia. I still think that the fusion of oil wealth plus Ideology brings elements of fascism to countires governed by Islamofascit governments. Klonimus 03:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I voted to keep because Wikipedia is here to document, not to pass any kind of judgment on, ideas.

Are we prepared to employ this standard consistently, even with ideas with which we personally disagree? For one fascinating answer, see [[5]]

Even if the word "fascism" isn't quite a perfect fit, I voted to keep because I feel sure there is something troubling happening in Islam, and this term is the word that currently seems to be connected to that troubling process, the details of which I am unable to specify.

See systemic bias.

I voted to keep because journalists are using this term, and they tend to be correct.

No comment.

I voted to keep because I personally do not like Islam, and this term insults Muslims in a way that I feel is probably justified these days.

Okay. Nobody actually wrote this, but: shoe ... fit ...

BrandonYusufToropov 18:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Brandon, this "patently offensive epithet" is just that--it is not a scientific term, and is therefore not bound by the need to fulfill any criteria whatsoever, other than its ability to get people to latch onto it. At the same time, however, there are three problems with what you're trying to do here. (1) You're basically trying to browbeat people into agreeing with your point of view by arguing in terms that really have, unfortunately, nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the article. (2) You're using this logical subterfuge to cloud the issue: there is a phenomenon in the muslim world which this word was specifically coined to describe (which, frighteningly, has more in common with Hitlerian and Goebbelsian Nazism than it has to do with the more readily recognized forms of Spanish and Italian fascism). And (3) you've turned a VfD discussion into a freeforall. Stick to the subject matter. You've succeeded in derailing the relevant discussion (the de/merits of the article), and turned it instead into a discussion of how those who wish to keep the article, with whom you've been very unprofessionally adversarial, should really be doing original research instead. Tomer TALK 13:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying, but I would ask you in turn how you would pursue a discussion of the "merits of the article" if it was your faith or nationality that had been targeted by an article's patently offensive underlying assumption/implication.
Let's begin here: Would you agree with me that it is possible that the reason some people want this article to stand independently is in order to lend some kind of legitimacy to a blatant religious slur?
With respect, the "merits" of such an analysis as appears in Islamofascism are not what we should be most concerned about. (And as a side note, I think my edits have substantially improved the "merits" of this particular piece, which should count for something.)
With regard to your points on the "phenomenon in the Muslim world" that you find disturbing. Let me draw a parallel.
  • The Cosa Nostra has for many years appropriated the trappings of Roman Catholicism in its rituals, meetings, initiations, etc.
  • The Cosa Nostra has also undertaken many loathsome crimes, including assassination, drug dealing, mass murder, extortion, etc.
  • Are members of the Cosa Nostra "Catholic"? Interesting question we could debate at length.
  • Do the actions of members of the Cosa Nostra represent a "phenomenon in the Christian world" that we would find disturbing? I think not. Rather, they are thugs.
  • Their actions represent a "phenomenon in the thug world," definitely disturbing, but not to be confused in a million years with Christianity or its teachings.
  • If someone were to write an article about, say, Catholic doctrine as reflected in Mafia hits, would you expect a Catholic to patiently discuss the reasoning in the article? Or would you expect that Catholic to tell you forthrightly that the very existence of the article was patently offensive and did not belong in WP? BrandonYusufToropov 14:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Brandon, as I've pointed out previously, I think this should be a redirect, either to an article that deals with racism, anti-semitism, anti-westernism, or whatever, in the muslim world, or simply back to list of political epithets. I agree it's patently offensive, and while anti-semitism and anti-westernism are rampant in the arab world, there are other articles that deal with this already. The Islamofascism article had the potential to be a decent article at one time, but there are related issues, no matter how remotely, that are too close to the hearts of too many of us for it to long remain an NPOV article, unforunately. Deleting it altogether, however, is a bad idea, however, IMHO, because it will open up the slate for someone to start this whole machlochet again. (Hmmm...maybe I should start Machlochet and make it a redirect to this talk page...) Tomer TALK 17:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see that the issue is getting out of hand and being deflected to personal attacks instead of being a responsible discussion. We don't care too much about keep, delete, merge, but we do care more about being reponsible. User:TShilo12 claims that there is a phenomenon in the muslim world which this word was specifically coined to describe (which, frighteningly, has more in common with Hitlerian and Goebbelsian Nazism than it has to do with the more readily recognized forms of Spanish and Italian fascism). Are you serious??! Is this the point you are trying to inject into the article? Is this the agenda behind your support to keep the article? If yes, then I would really Reconsider my earlier keep and merge vote.

If your personal comments are based upon the Grand Mufti, than this excerpt is worth reading:

When the local electoral college of pious Muslims voted for a moderate and learned leader and placed at the bottom of their list Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a young man in his twenties, given to fanaticism and hatred of the Jews, the Governor was initially content and confirmed the appointment. However, at this point the Hajj’s powerful family, backed by right-wing extremists, launched a fierce campaign of denigration against the electoral college, accusing its members of treacherously conspiring with the Jews to appoint one of their own party.
Sir Herbert, who was himself Jewish, sought the counsel of E. T. Richmond, who acted as adviser on Muslim Affairs, and who was an extreme anti-Zionist. Richmond persuaded Sheikh Hisam al-Din, the man who had already been confirmed in the post, to stand down. He then convinced Samuel that the best way to restore order was to concede to the agitators by letting the Hajj become Grand Mufti. This was in spite of the fact that the Hajj had already been imprisoned by the British in 1920 for his role in fomenting vicious anti-Jewish riots.
The British themselves were thus responsible for turning an electoral process upside-down in order to install an extremist Palestinian leader. This abuse of power would have fateful consequences not only for the future of Israel but also for ordinary Palestinians who were now subjected to a leader they had not chosen but for whose ill-judged actions they would, in the years to come, repeatedly be held responsible... -richard webster, [6] New Statesman, November 29,2002

If that happened yesterday and explained today, what about today? Which relation is there between the muslim world which this word was specifically coined to describe (which, frighteningly, has more in common with Hitlerian and Goebbelsian Nazism than it has to do with the more readily recognized forms of Spanish and Italian fascism)?

Cheers and total respect! Svest 16:04, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not injecting anything into anywhere, so put your soapbox away. :-p Tomer TALK 17:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
And no, nothing I said had anything to do with where the (deposed) "Grand Mufti" spent the bulk of WW2. What I'm referring to are the blood libels that fill the official state-run newspapers of such "moderate" countries as Egypt and Qatar, as well as the laws in such wonderful countries as "our friend" Jordan, prohibiting the sale of land to Jews, a "crime" that is punishible by death. Tomer TALK 17:27, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tomer. No worries about the soapbox ;-). I believe we are dealing here with something called Islamofascism and not Arab Fascism. Do you mean you are giving your ok vote on the basis of the Arab official state-run newspapers instead of Mr Big Mufti? Cheers & TR. -Svest 17:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Grrrrrrrr! Apparently you haven't been listening! I voted redirect! I voted redirect! I VOTED REDIRECT!!! </yelling> :-p -t Tomer TALK 17:51, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
One other minor point tho...I would have said "Arab antisemitism" if it were limited to the Arab world, but, sadly, it's not. This same kind of rubbish gets big play in Pakistan and Indonesia, for example, which are not Arab. Tomer TALK 17:53, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Just because there has been a confusion between the explanation given for your keep, but rename and your comments relating the phenomenon to Nazis. I am with keeping it though I will not be against renaming it or even redirecting it. IMO, the problem is the potential duplication (i.e. Islamic fascism). But anyway, let's deal with this first. Cheers Svest 18:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Closure[edit]

  • What say you and I and the rest of the partisans be quiet now, Klonimus, and let the grownups decide this one, eh? BrandonYusufToropov 03:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There's no such thing as no consensus-keep — it doesn't even make sense.
  2. To say that most (or even many; indeed, any?) people have voted against merely because of political corretcness is absurd and insulting (and indicates that you have either not really read or not understood the arguments. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rough tally[edit]

Note: This is a crude tally of votes (and, as many of them were a bit vague, it's not even guaranteed to be pin-point accurate even then). The admin who has the unenviable task of sorting out this VfD won't just count votes, but will look at the arguments offered, and try to come to some conclusion concerning consensus. For my money, too many of the 'keep' votes were either based on Google hits or on anti-Islamic prejudice, but I'll not be the admin responsible because I'm involved. 

Delete:           8
Keep:             26 (of whom one wants a rename)
Merge and/or redirect: 23

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taken from the Wikipedia VFD page, "Merged and/or redirected to an existing article" counts as one type of vote. I've changed the tally accordingly.Yuber 23:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not an airplane, neither a Wbur forum! Are you serious? Is that the only reason you got for us here to your vote? No other reason letting us know why? I couldn't judge your temperament but my comment now is based on you userpage instead. I am sorry to give you now my POV on it; I mean you still got the definition of the term fascism the wrong way. Anyways, I hope that your vote will be considered. Cheers and respect - Svest 03:57, May 1, 2005 (UTC)


Why was my vote deleted?[edit]

Expect me to be working real hard on Christofascism. - Stancel 12:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia:Avoid personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  3. WP:POINT

An anon editor left (( unclosed, and this caused yours and MANY OTHER comments not to be displayed. Nothing was deleted, nothing was lost, calm down. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. But if this article is kept on Wikipedia, I'm still going to be working on Christofascism. Until Islamofascism is deleted, I will bring Christofascism to perfect featured article status, although it currently does not exist yet. I hope we'll be able to come to a compromise in the following days, if not, expect Christofascism to grow! I'm doing this in the name of NPOV, because I don't believe it's right to allow this clearly biased article to exist. So in the end if all goes well both Christofascism and Islamofascism and all others of these ridiculous -fascism suffix articles will be deleted. And my plan will have been accomplished. LOL I just told you my plan. oh well. ;-) Stancel 14:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to repeat one of Jpgordon's links more clearly: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't starting an article called Islamofascism in the first place be considered "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point"? - Stancel 2:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No. You should read the page to which I gave the link. Creating an article that you think should be here might be a mistake, or misguided, but it's not disrupting to make a point; creating an article that you think shouldn't be here is. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the final verdict on this? - Stancel 14:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
More