Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 6

Criticism of the term
Juan Cole and Joseph Sobran have been accused of anti-Semitism. It seems to me that assuming these accusations are true, they are biased sources and thus ineligible for use as sources here (unless we add some kind of clumsy qualifier like 'Joseph Sobran, who has associated with Holocaust deniers, says that...'.

On the other hand, it's impossible to *prove* that these people are anti-Semitic, since unless someone is quoted as saying 'I hate Jews' it's pretty much impossible to prove anti-Semitism in general. How should we handle a case of likely (but not necessarily provably) biased sources? Ken Arromdee 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't speak to Joseph Sobran, but I believe the accusation against Juan Cole is largely bogus. In any case, the bias of sources is irrelevant because all sources are inherently biased.  Cole and Sobran are both critics of the term Islamofascism, and their criticism is presented as such.  Wikipedia articles dealing with controversial topics should not avoid biased sources, but rather attempt to present those different viewpoints with a neutral point of view. bcasterline t 16:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, I can't speak for Cole either, but it does seem like a strong case can be made that Sobran is an antisemite. Should we add that? IronDuke 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to speculate about his beliefs in an article that quotes him as just one of multiple examples. He is not the subject of the article, and his name links to his article if one wants to know more about him.  Since "anti-Semitic" does not equal "pro-Muslim", I don't think it's relevant information either. bcasterline t 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sobran is notorious. Why are we citing such a marginal crank?--Cberlet 02:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't add his quotation and I don't really know much about him. But, he has made a criticism which is not a marginal sentiment and is relevant to Islamofascism. I think it fits in the article well. bcasterline t 13:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If the criticism is not a marginal sentiment, then surely you could find a non-biased source which makes that criticism, right? Ken Arromdee 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's tough, considering the term is a neologism, which is used almost exclusively by biased sources in a war of words. There has not been any respected scholarship on "Islamofascism" -- so there really aren't any non-biased sources. (In fact, I think that's a fundamental problem with this article, which I mentioned in a topic above somewhere: the only thing to present is two sides of a dispute.) But many other people have expressed the same sentiment as Sobran, including Albert Scardino, whom the article cites in a different context. To leave out the "it's propaganda" criticism would be, in my opinion, a glaring omission. bcasterline t 06:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly! We have to present the debate to the reader, not an ultimate judgement.  Most of the controversy should be over determining who is a critical part of the debate vs someone no one's really listening to.  As I mentioned below, I believe Thom Hartmann's article is an important contribution to the debate and should be included in the criticisms section: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-23.htm  Plus his writing does a bit to clarify the debate itself in that he goes back to historical definitions that are being confused and then asks the question, "Why are they being merged today?"  I haven't seen anything on this page go that deep yet (though I admit I haven't read everything through...) 72.244.201.27 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If "there really aren't any non-biased sources", and if the "it's propaganda" criticism is only made from biased sources, then you *should* leave it out (or else leave it in, but mention that it is a criticism made only by biased sources).

Besides, there are different kinds of bias. It's one thing that someone criticizes the term because he's leftist. It's another thing that someone criticizes the term because he doesn't like Jews and sympathizes with fascists and Islamists because they don't like Jews either. Ken Arromdee


 * I don't agree. Being a syndicated columnist and writer of some repute, Sobran is a legitimate authority per WP:V. To preclude him from the article because you believe "he doesn't like Jews and sympathizes with fascists and Islamists" violates WP:OR


 * The original research rule applies to the content of the article, not to the decisions about what content to include. It isn't "original research" within the meaning of the rule to decide that a source is a biased source.


 * -- even if it's pretty clear that he's an anti-Semite, because that doesn't equate into pro-Muslim. Even if it did, though, I still don't see a reason for precluding him: it's a presentation of two viewpoints, and he has one. No matter his motivation.


 * The article does not present Sobran's quote as an accurate description of the use of "Islamofascism", merely a criticism of its use. It does the same for the other four quotes, which are also attributed to people who (being people) must have biases of their own. Again, there's been no real scholarship here, so "third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (to quote WP:V) are out of the question. bcasterline t 16:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sobran's argument purports to be supplying facts (Sobran's observations of how the term is used) and uses those facts as a basis for his criticism. Bias which may affect the accuracy of Sobran's facts, therefore, is relevant. Ken Arromdee 16:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoa...I honestly don't know anything about Sobran so I can't comment on him directly, but this discussion is going south. Ken, "bias" affects the accuracy of any "facts" that anyone uses as a basis for their critique of anything.  Based on your statement, all of wikipedia would be blank.  The best we can do is try to be honest about the character of that bias.  If you have a source that makes a rational argument that Sobran is racist or prejudiced against a people based on stereotypes, that's one thing, and should be included if we include any of his criticisms of the use of the term, just in the interest of full disclosure.  There are a lot of people who criticize the term who aren't anti-Semites, though.  Based on that evidence, we cannot use the fact that Sobran criticizes the term as a criteria for whether it should be included because he is or isn't an anti-Semite.  A) If Sobran can be determined to be a prominent voice in the debate over use and/or definition of the term, he must be included.  B) if he is included, it is fair game to include sourced, non-slanderous characterizations of him as they apply to the formulation of his critique.  His critique must be judged substantively, not on speculation of its origins.  That is always speculation, because we can never know someone's true intents for sure.  How do I know that you aren't "defending" the term because you hate Muslims and/or Arabs?  I don't--nor do I really believe that, but I can use the same reasoning to come to that conclusion and argue that you should be removed from the discussion...which is just stupid in my opinion, because I see no substantive reason why you should be excluded.72.244.201.27 20:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you propose to do? I see three options:
 * Remove the quotation because it's biased. If there's controversy surrounding Sobran's credibility, I'm all in favor of giving him the boot. But, unless you can find a suitable replacement, this is not an acceptable solution by me because it leaves one of the primary criticisms omitted.
 * Remove all the quotations because they're all equally biased. None of them are from respected, peer-reviewed, non-biased sources. As a source, Sobran is no less legitimate than the others. In my opinion, this solution is even worse, although it's not as one-sided as #1. Remember that the WP:V standard is verifiability, not truth.
 * Label Sobran an "anti-Semite" and maybe a "Muslim sympathizer". This solution violates WP:OR and, even though it's not his article, possibly WP:BLP.
 * Any other ideas? As I mentioned above: considering the quotations are presented as perspectives, not facts, I personally believe these are all unnecessary. -- bcasterline • talk 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest 1. Remove the quotation because it's biased. If you can find the criticism made by a non-biased source, use that. If it's really "one of the primary criticisms," then you should have no trouble finding the non-biased source. If you can't find one, it never was a primary criticism in the first place and *should* be removed.

Actually, "biased source" is the wrong phrase. You're right in that every source will have bias of some kind. But there's a difference between being, say, a Democrat, and just hating Jews, even though both of them are biased. You shouldn't quote a Jew-hater about Jews or about a subject directly influenced by his attitudes towards Jews. Ken Arromdee 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Anti-Semite" does not necessarily mean "pro-Muslim".


 * But the former often leads to the latter. Ken Arromdee 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And even if it did: Why does being a pro-Muslim writer preclude someone from offering an opinion on Islamofascism? You concede that they all have biases. The origin of their bias does not matter -- the effect is exactly the same. -- bcasterline • talk 18:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone who's pro-Muslim *because he hates Jews* should be disqualified from being quoted in an encyclopedia article about Islamofascism. Just because everyone has some bias doesn't mean that all biases are created equal or that it is impossoble to reject a source on the basis that he is biased in an exceptionally bad way. Ken Arromdee 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand, Islamofascists are "individuals who use Islam as an excuse to behave like fascists" and its purpose is therefore to distinguish between terrorists and mainstream Muslims. The term is identical to "militant Muslims" and "Islamic fundamentalists." Bill Levinson 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we include Thom Hartmann's critique of the use of the term in this section. In an article about domestic fascism, he defines the terms that are being merged into synonyms and gives some reasoning why: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-23.htm The article also provides an overview of various other critiques, and some writings from VP Wallace (WWII). One of the most important distinctions he makes is that a fascist can use fundamentalist theocracy for fascist goals, but being a fundamentlist theocrat does not necessarily make one fascist. Thus the criticism against those who use the term as a blanket statement against all Islamic theocrats (while conspicuously ignoring, supporting or using domestic theocratics)72.244.201.27 19:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Islamic fundamentalism
The article Islamic fundamentalism seems to be along similar lines to this... Maybe the two should be merged? Or is there some big difference about where a muslim nation stops being big on religion and becomes islamofascist I'm missing?--Josquius 19:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point of the criticism of the term--it's just being used provoke western fears about "fascism" and therefore action against what are really and essentially Muslim fundamentalist theocrats, very similar to the Christian fundamentalist theocrats we have here domestically in the USA in that their goal is a non-secular government established on the basis of religious law with a strict, literalist interpretation of the religious texts. I am going to pop my source up to the "criticism" discussion and suggest we include it, since it's an important point I didn't see discussed yet in the actual article that gets to the heart of WHY there is a blurred distinction.  Merging the articles would actually be doing neoconservatives an ideological favor and wikipedia scholarship a large disfavor.  Instead of saying they are the same thing, it is much more useful on a scholarly level to include critiques that show WHY and how they are being made to mean the same thing.72.244.201.27 19:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the distinction is (as far as I understand it) is that Islamic fundamentalism is a very strict interpretation of Islam and forcing everyone to follow the religion in a very strict way. Islamofascism is more of people using Islam as a false front to enact fascism, which is their real goal.  I guess it all boils down to the goal - is it to get people to follow the religion in a strict way, or is it to form a fascist country?  Even with that description, it's kind of ambiguous.  I guess think of it this way: It's a circle.  At the 12:00 position is moderate, "normal" Islam.  At 6:00 is the worst opposite of that.  Islamofascism and Islamic fundamentalism are at the 5:00 and 7:00 positions.  I don't know, that's the best I can figure to explain it, as I understand it, anyway.  Hope it helps somewhat. --69.161.146.61 06:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First, there are theoretical reasons why the two articles should be separate. They are not the same phenomenon nor are they particularly compatible (it depends on how loose one's definition of facism is, however).  Second, there are cultural reasons why the Wiki articles are separate.  These include the fact that "Islamic facism" is controversial while "Islamic fundamentalism" is a bit less perjorative.  This point really expands to a large body of Western scholarship that does not use "facism" to describe interpretations of Islam (even political interpretations).  Even when it is used, it is rarely emphasized and developed.  Some call this a "liberal bias", others good scholarship.  --Vector4F 15:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks, sorry if this is not exactly in the right place but... I humbly recommend keeping it simple. Don't try to over intellectuallize it. It means somewhat different things to different people (or nothing at all) and at this point that interpretation is somewhat in a state of flux.

For example: To me it represents a theocratic totalitarian ideology, which substitutes a fanatic interpretation of Islam for fanatic nationalism/racism as a justification. And there is a component that in my view includes a hegemonic zeal to actively export that theocratic totalitarianism at any cost and by any means necessary. A "Greater Islamic Reich", if you will permit the allusion.

In my view it is a separate term from "Islamic Fundamentalism" in that "Islama(o)fascism" was deliberately coined to allude to the similarities in the means and ends of the two root ideologies (Islamic Fundamentalism as a theocracy, and Fascism); a rhetorical reflection after at least 10 years experience in the west with fallout of the "Islamic Revolution".

Now... will that satisfy some poli-sci post graduate? Probably not. Or perhaps its like pornography, you can't quite define it, but you know it when you see it. The Taliban, Al Qaeda and the current government of Iran fit the bill in my view. What about the Fascist/Corporatism component, etc? To me its just splitting hairs to undermine or belittle the term. As Hitchens said, its "Fascism with an Islamic face". That's what the term represents. If people are offended or have political science or theological objections, it's beside the point.

So it seems therefore that if Christopher Hitchens or Khalid Duran or Stephen Schwartz or whoever coined the term, then that's what it is, for better or worse. Appropriate to stick with those definitions/attributions until such time as there is a clear consensus of some other nuance.

I would suggest thinking about the matter-of-fact characterization of Islamafascism as a political "epithet". While technically this is correct, "epithet" can have the connotaion as defamatory (as in slander or libel). Whether or not the term is defamatory depends on which side of the fence you are on. PJNevada --71.9.97.212 06:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting views, PJNevada, but before we can start deciding if x is an example of y, we need to decide if y exists at all. And to do that, we need a very precise definition of y.  The biggest criticism of "Islamofascism" as a term is that that particular ideology does not exist at all outside of the minds (or under the beds) of Western neo-conservatives.  There absolutely are fundamentalist Muslims who want to establish theocratic states, but to lump all of that together as "Islamofascism" shows a very shallow understanding of both Muslim theocrats and actual fascism, so "you know it when you see it" isn't going to be adequate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.19.49 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What is called Islamofascism actually has nothing to do with fascism. What the movement has in common with fascism is its intolerance and totalitarianism. But it shares that with communism and many other creeds. Why don't we call it Islamocommunism? In fact the use of "fascism" is simply as derogatory epithet, without true meaning. I believe that its origin lies in an American/(American)Jewish fixation with nazism (and not, ironically, fascism), and could accordingly be seen as an American-centric (is there such a term?) notion. Islamic fundamentalism is a far more accurate and far less judgmental term.JohnC (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Move
User:Humus sapiens has suggested that the article Islamofascism be moved to Islamofascism (epithet). Do other editors agree with this proposal? CJCurrie 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please can we not? I hate these sorts of "shudder parens" that are coming into vogue. Either delete the article or leave it. The word is what it is. Let the reader decide how to interpet it. IronDuke  03:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I also oppose the move. CJCurrie 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd oppose it but I think he's already done it. --Coroebus 06:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He did, but I moved it back before calling the current vote. CJCurrie 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that move would really only be merited if there existed a version of this word that wasn't an epithet. Netscott 08:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good reason...what was Humus Sapien's original reasoning for suggesting the move?72.244.201.27 20:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per article-naming conventions, parentheses are only used to disambiguate between identically-named articles, not to clarify an article's meaning or topic when there's nothing else to confuse it with. Hundreds of Wikipedia's articles are about "epithets"; if we used (epithet) at the end of every one, it would be unmanageably cumbersome, and if we didn't use (epithet) at the end of every one, only for this one, it would be horribly biased. The italicized "This article is about..." notice is more than sufficient for clarifying exactly what this article is about. -Silence 09:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just put the pertinent information in the intro summary, rather than the article title. If there is a problem with the "Islamofacism" title, adding qualifiers doesn't solve this (a better article, however, would). --Vector4F 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am wondering why nodody voted at a similar case Israeli apartheid (epithet). Humus's suggestion is interesting in a sense that whether to follow one rule (or guideline) or none. Cheers -- Szvest 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * I've provided the argument for moving Israeli apartheid (epithet) back to its correct title, Israeli apartheid, at Talk:Israeli apartheid (epithet). Hopefully the wheels of change will start relatively soon, now that Islamofascism is back to its own correct title. A third article, Wall of shame (epithet), has also been mentioned at the village pump; hopefully there aren't many more hidden out there to fix. -Silence 20:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Silence. --maru  (talk)  contribs 19:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NetScott, for what it's worth. cacophony ◄► 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Flippant suggestion. Fatalis 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agreed. --Petercorless 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is an epithet. It is no different from gook or nigger. The article Islamofascism tries to justify the word by putting in into a "historic context" and linking it with Hitler. The Catholic Church helped Hitler to power and kept Franco in power in Spain.

The only reason you use the word Islamofascist is because you want to link Islam with fascism, as opposed to separate the "good" Muslims from the "bad." I am not saying it is wrong to link Islam with fascism. Everybody has his or her opinion about that. But to say it is not an epithet is to lie.

Michael Savage
"Radio talk show host Michael Savage has used the term "Islamofascism" frequently on his program. The context suggests the invocation of Islam to justify fascist-like activities."

Michael Savage, even on his own radio talkshow "The Savage Nation," takes credit for coining the term "Islamofascist." I haven't heard the term ever used before he started using it on his radio show, but I could be wrong.


 * If it can be cited, there's nothing wrong with including Savage's claim that he coined the term, as long as it is presented in the third person as a claim. It's relevant to the article.72.244.201.27 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081606C This guy says he was the first person to use the neologism, so if the above is going to be included than we also need to include that claim, too72.244.201.27 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have heard him use the phrase long before any politician used it. Funny how he isn't mentioned at all in the article. This article confirms that he did indeed coin the phrase. http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Fairness_Doctrine_Savage/2009/02/18/183069.html Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

Is this exclusively a right-wing buzzword?
Islamofascism seems to be a contradiction in terms on the face of it, as Islamism is a stateless movement with no connection to corporate capitalism, and fascism implies a tight connection between a state and corporations.


 * I have not gotten through the article yet, but I come here via the repeated use of the term in a major academic journal out of sheer interest to see how contentious the talk page is. While certainly the term is popular with the hard right, there are many very serious, objective academics who have made strong cases for and agaist the term. The very fact there is such a debate means there should be a wikipedia page. We cannot let a fear of discourse place an artificial veil over the content on this site.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.96.215 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I hear the well known demagogue Rush Limbaugh use this term all the time in his usual ignorant manner, and I have come to feel it is a smokescreen to distract from his own and the right-wing's overt fascist tendencies to take over the USA and make it a fascist country.
 * But this is why the article should be included in wikipedia w/these criticisms...for instance Thom Hartmann: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-23.htm hasn't been included yet, but he talks about that very issue in his article. Let's work on getting some of his criticism and research included.  People need to know the historical definitions of the terms vis-a-vis their current usage so they might be allowed to come to the conclusion that "Islamofascism" is indeed a contradiction of terms.  It's impossible to do that without a wikipedia article on it, though72.244.201.27 20:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone might want to write a section on the nature of it as a possible political oxymoron, that is amenable, but please do not conduct original research. Search the web to see if there are other scholars and authors who consider it so. If there are good sources, cite them. There are cases to be made in both directions. Just keep your own bias in the background and write from an WP:NPOV. --Petercorless 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Have the lunatics taken over the asylum? How can someone justify saying this:
 * ...the right-wing's overt fascist tendencies to take over the USA and make it a fascist country.

How no one can respond to this obvious fallacy of such a ridiculous statement is beyond me. Jtpaladin 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean, it's really not that far of a stretch, the neo-conservative movement is heavily based in authoritarian ideology. The point is pretty pov, but it's really not that much of an exaggeration. I also have never heard this term used outside of talk radio and the far right commentators. 24.98.225.16 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Islamic fascism
This article is about the political epithet "Islamofascism"... for "Islamic fascism" please see this section of Neofascism and religion thanks. (→ Netscott ) 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well-spotted! -- Szvest 23:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that "Islamofascism" is an epithet. It is a mere neologism. Even to say it is an epithet violates NPOV. People who have the term hurled at them may not like it, but that in no way diminishes the validity of the concept. I believe this entire article should have a "Neutrality Disputed" notice posted at its top. This should be discussed more fully. Syntacticus 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because something is a neologism doesn't exclude it from being an epithet. But that is beside the point.  "Epithet" is a loaded term, and it is more useful and honest to explain the controversy in the article vs just label and dismiss it.  eg "Epithet" is fair game to include in the critiques section, and if it is a prominent crtique, perhaps in the head paragraph.72.244.201.27 20:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, here's what I found at Neofascism and religion: FilipeS 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The terms Judeofascism and Zionazism are political epithets. Those who use the terms sometimes say they are referring only to certain groups or individuals alleged to have fascist or totalitarian tendencies. Critics of these terms argue that they are merely used to smear Jews or Zionists, and to inflame public sentiments, with the highly negative connotations. These terms are sometimes used as an expression of anti-semitism, and often wrongly conflate the religion, Judaism, with Zionism, the state of Israel, Israeli government policies, and Jews around the world (and with United States foreign policy). 

Bush near-use
Bush used "Islamic fascists" in his reaction to the foiled British airliner attack, which seems to have been run widely in the media in the last day or so... AnonMoos 10:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added it to the 'Examples of use in public discourse' section. --duncan 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See also previous point.

Note that Islamic fascism now redirects to Neofascism and religion.

Islamic fascist also currently redirects to Neofascism and religion.

I have no preference but several options could be explored, as far as I'm concerned:
 * Move the Bush quotes to Neofascism and religion — however, if Bush (or his advisors) intended "neofascism", he'd have said Islamic neofascists, no?
 * Have a separate article on Islamic fascism, instead of a redirect, if reliable sources document the use and meaning of this expression (note that several of the external links now on the "Islamofascism" page speak about "Islamic fascism", and not about "Islamofascism" - if it would be Original Research to consider these as synonyms, that's an indication that starting a separate page would maybe be a good idea)
 * Explain both related concepts ("Islamofascism" and "Islamic fascism") on the same page, making one of the two a redirect to the other. There are other Wikipedia pages where a concept redirects to a page on a related concept, and both concepts are explained on a single page. Think e.g. Fin de siècle - turn of the century: the intro of that page explains that connotations of both concepts only partly overlap.
 * Start a new page Islam and fascism and have all related concepts redirect to that. There is however a discouragement for the use of such page name at naming conventions --Francis Schonken 11:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem be highly knowledgeable about wiki-lawyering, but you don't seem to have much grasp of the relevant linguistics involved...  According to your principles, "Franco-American relations" and "French-American relations" would have to be two completely separate articles! AnonMoos 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one who needs convincing.  --Francis Schonken 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * AnonMoos, this article is about the term "Islamofascism", is that difficult to understand? (→ Netscott ) 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD should be rather enlightening about why there is an article on the term "islamofascism". (→ Netscott ) 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Bush near-quote deserves to be here, not at Neofascism and religion. Even though he didn't use the exact word islamofascist/islamofascism, I think it's a fine point to say using 'islamic fascists' means something different.  Is this article about the word or what it means? --duncan 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Duncan, have you read this AfD yet? (→ Netscott ) 08:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, what's your point? --duncan 09:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that this article is for the actual term. For the concept of "islamic fascism" there's Neofascism and religion. The title of this section is "near use" that's like saying "a near pregnancy" (either a woman is pregnant or she's not)... User:Francis Schonken makes a good point here... if there's a need then an article on the concept of "islamic fascism" should be created... and the content from Neofascism and religion moved to it. (→ Netscott ) 09:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't see why this is important, we thankfully don't create articles for every made up word and/or phrase that bush creates. This is no more, or less, of a justification for this article existing--64.12.116.137 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens citations
I've removed most references to Hitchens as the ones I removed didn't have him using the term. What I would suggest for those wanting Hitchens cited in this article is to either find references of his utilization of the term or further references to others' usage of the term similar to this article. (→ Netscott ) 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This too might be a good start for including citations of Hitchens and the term "islamofascism". (→ Netscott ) 20:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamofascism
It seems a pleonasm to me. Every monotheistic religion only supports 1 Leader, that is God (or Allah in this case). Add the punishments against traitors of that particular religion, the fact that non-religious people are inferior to religious people etc. And consider the name of Islam, meaning "Submission", and you get the full story. A muslim can be peaceful despite of Islam, never because of it... Pity. Torero 00:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Torero! This is not a blog!!!! Please discuss stuff related to how to improve the article and that's it. I see that you are "new" but seems that you got an agenda. Please leave those kinds of comments out of this respectable place. -- Szvest 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This certainly is not a blog. But that doesn't mean only Islamohorny people may react to it. Respect is not dependent on pro- or anti-Islam (or neutral). I hope you will recognise that. Cheers, Torero 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you recognize it is not a blog than why are you blogging anyway? You should respect this place first before an "islamohorny" (in other words me) could respect such a rant! -- Szvest 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All the makings of a fine blog, left-field commentary based upon original research (otherwise known as "one's own ideas"). Good call Szvest. :-) (→ Netscott ) 01:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Torero is welcomed to contribute. However, i'm not convienced w/ his first day show. -- Szvest 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right!!!! But consider using less punctuation. Fatalis 21:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

original research
It might be appropriate label the unsourced statements as original research. The statement of the definition I understand for islamofascist is based on common knowledge and its use can be found on these blogs. (can provide more). A published source with this usage includes the the National Review: "...Hitler had his Reich, Osama wants his Caliphate...". Mrdthree 12:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of "islamofascism" in that National Review article. Remember this Wikipedia article is about the actual term. (→ Netscott ) 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Should I ignore the comment about some writers given the plethora of bloggers[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431313/posts]? Mrdthree 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell the text you're working on would be better suited to idea of the concept as explained in Neofascism and religion. There's some talk above about starting an article (using content from there and elsewhere) entitled Islamic fascism, that might be an even better option given that the President of the United States is utilizing the phrase "Islamic fascists". (→ Netscott ) 23:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what this article is intended to do, but if it means to discuss Islamofascism, it should offer or mention a definition that is in fairly wide use.Mrdthree 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

judeofascism
The inclusion of the comment on judeofascism seems a little petlulant. This article is not about making everythign else balanced. This article is valid and needed beacuase unlike the peripheral use of judeofascism, Islamofacism is in core poltical use by world leaders and media. It is also a current affairs issue. For this reason I am deleting this paragraph and would agree that perhaps the inclusion of the term exist on its own merits, in its own article, just asother types of facism should. It is however not relevant to discuss here. This is not a score chart to give political discussions parity.--Peej 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Peej. If Zionism has been notably compared to fascism, the Zionism page might be a place to mention that.  Personally I haven't run across the term judeofascism before, and while it may be a great pity that the term hasn't achieved currency, this isn't the place to ascribe currency to it that it doesn't have. St. Jimmy 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see an expansion on this topic, I belive Zionfascism is a more appropiate term.
 * Why? You think the Zionists want to conquer the world? Or maybe you think they knocked down the World Trade Center? Your made-up terms "Judeofascism" and "Zionfascism" might have some usage among anti-Semites and the like, but are simply namecalling in the same vein as "So's you're old man!" Give it a rest. 68.5.64.178 08:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a pro-Nazi Jewish terrorist group called the Stern Gang. It is best known for the murder of Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden (1948), a UN mediator at the time. It's leader was Yitzhak Shamir and he later became Israeli prime minister. I doubt that the dumbasses who use words like Zionazi or Judeafascist even know about any of this, though.Kauffner 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What does conquer the world or knocking down the World Trade Center have to do with Islamofascism? Conquer the world is inherent in the Abrahamic religions. "Judeofascism" and "Zionfascism" have as much or little validity as "Islamofascism." The latter is a Christian construct. It's not in popular usage in secular Europe. "Islamofascism" is, as usually is the case with these things, part of something much greater. It is a much bigger and complex issue than I can cover here. So I will only throw a few bits in here almost at random. If you are serious about this you can do your own research. Anyway, in the 12th century Roman Canon Law, Jacques Le Goff equates "foreigner" with enemy. Christianity and Islam relate to Ferdanind Tönnies conception of Gemeinschaft and the secular world to Gesellschaft. The Gemeinschaft/Gesellschaft has been refuted by "postmodern" philosophers. They are wrong. The Gemeinschaft devides people into friends and enemies. A city is a Gesellschaft. There are no enemies in a city. It makes no sense to view other people in the city as enemies. There are only competitors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.73.175.238 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Islamic Totalitarianism
Islamic Totalitarianism is an article on a very similar subject to this. Nothing links to it. Perhaps editors of this would like to look at that. Drett 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why so many examples?
Do we really need eleven examples of use in public discourse? A few (maybe four or five?) quotations are helpful, but most of these don't add any information to the article, except the name and role of the person at the end of the quote. Those names can easily be summarized by saying, "Other politicians and writers who have used the term are...". Clayoquot Sound 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody has commented on this in the past three days, so I've reduced the number of full examples to four, and summarized the remainder at the end of the section. Clayoquot Sound 05:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a more general word -Theofacism
Is there not some way to place this with other Theocratic movements and ideology. There seem to be many variants of Islamic theocratic extreamism, based around Sunni/Shia divisions as well as some more esoteric than I can understand, but other than variations of Dogma they seem to differ little in policy from Kahanists, the several flavors of Dominionists, Moonies, and many smaller cults.

Though agressively atheists, the unitary nature, and death penalty for "apostacy" to their fantasy pastoral vision, the Kmer Rouge was extreamly similar to these groups in many primary ways. Dragonwlkr 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this neologism. It fits my bias like a glove. Fatalis 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to create an article on the neologism Theofascism, feel free to add it to Wikipedia. There are citations of the term out there on the Internet. However, Islamofascism is a particular allegation of "theofascism" tied directly to Islamist movements. It is also a pejorative which might be inaccurate used by people who are Islamophobes. So, while we can have a reference to theofascism, and even say that "Islamofascism is a form of theofascism," there's no reason to genericize the term Islamofacism when it is such a polarizing term and should be studied with a bit of academic sobriety. --Petercorless 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

mention in the news
FYI, this article and an editing dispute on it are mentioned in the article What Is 'Islamofascism'? by Stephen Schwartz. After a paragraph explaining how he coined the term, he follows with another describing "a long and demeaning colloquy" in which the wiki article ended up attributing Malise Ruthven, he states "I do not care much, these days, about Wikipedia and its misapprehensions, or obsess over acknowledgements of my work.". - BT 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Fascism page
The Islamic Fascism 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 editror 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. If people want to have this discussion here, that's fine, but it is not a useful procedure to launch a discussion on an inactive redirect page.--Cberlet 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Cberlet -- thanks for bringing some much-needed perspective to this. This conflict mirrors one in the English language itself, and in American political culture. It's important, and I hope editors are willing to have a meaningful discussion to this page to address it responsibly. What, if I may ask, do people feel we should do here? BYT 12:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia government and islamofascism
I see that user:SlimVirgin reverted my edits without motivation. I would like to request her to give this motivation. Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the edit; I think you mean 'without explanation.' She may have avoided giving you an explanation because the reason this doesn't belong in the article seems pretty obvious on its face.


 * If I were to offer an explanation for this revert, which I very much support, it would be this: while the passage in question makes a lot of noise about "promoting" Islamofasists, it never refers to the government of Saudi Arabia as an Islamofascist regime. Nobody seems to know what would actually constitute such a regime, but let's leave that problem aside, as it doesn't seem to stop anyone on Fox News. Not a lot of fascist monarchies out there. BYT 17:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

State capitalism is central to fascism, not to totalitarianism
Fascism was (is) totalitarian, but all totalitarian ideologies are not fascist ideologies. "Islamototalitarianism" ain't catchy, but it'd be more accurate. The word "islamofascism" is despicable precisely because it muddies our thinking & replaces reason with emotional appeals. Billbrock 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Muddying our thinking and replacing reason with emotional appeals is precisely what the people who popularized this term, and now appeal to it with talismanic frequency, have in mind. BYT 20:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * State Capitalism is what we capitalists call a socialist mixed economy and regardless of whether you call it a socialist economy or state capitalism it is the dominant form of economics practied in the region (Iran, Saudi, etc.) Mrdthree 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We have never see anything but "mixed" economies. There has never been a capitalist society. Hong Kong in the 1960s probably came as close as we have ever seen. For now capitalism remains a utopia/dystopia, depending on if you are the buyer or seller. Money is the only yardstick in a capitalist society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.73.175.238 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC).


 * So capital will be deployed in the Reich and in the Caliphate similarly? I do admit that Ahmadinejad is an interesting case (Holocaust-denial and exterminationist rhetoric), but I think that in many respects, the vision of the radical Caliphate is closer to the Communist vision. Billbrock 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)  Thinking about this stuff got me to wikify Chasseguet-Smirgel, a friend of truth who (I just discovered) passed this year & should be mourned by friends of freedom on both Left and Right.  Billbrock 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

When people start equating sharia law with corporatism or state capitalism, I get curious about exactly how they plan to back such an argument up. "The region" is not an Islamic state. Compare: What is happening economically "on the ground" in Israel today tells you exactly ... what? ... about what Judaism mandates regarding economics? Help me out with this one, please. Historically, what variety of state ownership are we talking about under Muhammad or any of the rightly-guided caliphs? What madhab today advocates seizure of the means of production by the Islamic state? BYT 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not "Islamocommies?" It has the same desired rhetorical effect, and it's probably less inaccurate! Billbrock 02:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * IG Farben, Degussa, Krupp, Siemens AG, Volkswagen AG, Daimler-Benz, AEG, Osram, Rheinmetall Borsig, MAN AG, Henschel, Dornier, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Blohm & Voss, AG_Weser, Deutsche Schiff- und Maschinenbau AG...I'm just getting warmed up.  Somehow I don't think the bin Laden Group is a full equivalent.  :-) Billbrock 02:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On another level (having little to do with economic form--oh yeah, superstructure): for the Islamic fundamentalist, the dhimmi has certain rights under sharia; further, the ethnic Jew (e.g.) is always free to convert. Compare the Nuremberg laws.  Sure, the followers of dajjal are baddies, but so were the kulaks.  Get rid of the baddies, and the world can be paradise: subtract ganja, add jihad (or class struggle), and neither the Communist nor the Islamic fundamentalist are that far away from Bob Marley's vision of One Love.  Zionists are excluded from both visions (heh! not Marley's!) for ideological reasons; Jews aren't.  Again, Ahmadinejad doesn't fit neatly into my little story.  We empiricists are accustomed to making such concessions.  Reality is messy; fairy tales are neat.  Billbrock 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC), minor edits Billbrock 06:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand, but heres some unfiltered source material on the economic vision of Islamists, someone who has time can run a summary? Mrdthree 20:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article Neofascism and religion explains that there are a few scholars who make the case for certain militant Islamic movements to be classified as neo-fascist.--Cberlet 03:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric Margolis article
Silence from the neocons. As usual (when they're not in attack mode, that is). The act of posing questions based too closely on objective reality disturbs and frightens them, I think.


 * It isn't clear what your questions are. Perhaps if you made a new section titled "questions", someone might answer them? Ken Arromdee 15:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Either that, or I could use a device known as a "question mark," as in the quotation below:


 * Historically, what variety of state ownership are we talking about under Muhammad or any of the rightly-guided caliphs? What madhab today advocates seizure of the means of production by the Islamic state? BYT 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Another question -- echoingly unanswered here over a period of months, but which I pose every once in a while in an attempt to tether this conversation to reality -- is this one: What Islamic scholar advocates corporatism, which is regarded by Benito Mussolini (see below) as a prerequisite (at least) of fascism?


 * "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini (from Encyclopedia Italiana, Giovanni Gentile, editor). BYT 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of developing and sustaining fairy tales for political advantage ... what do editors here make of this article from Eric Margolis, the respected author of WAR AT THE TOP OF THE WORLD? BYT 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

<-Sorry folks, but the Mussolini quote is a hoax. It does not appear in the Encyclopedia Italiana. It cannot be found in any of Mussolini's English translations. There were three types of fascism between WWI and WWI: Italian corporatism, German national socialist racialism, and clerical (or theocratic) fascism. See Fascism, Fascism and ideology, and Fascism and Religion.--Cberlet 19:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My bad -- didn't doublecheck the source. Thanks Cberlet. BYT 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think citing that article has nothing to do with the topic. The author basically says "because most islam nations don't follow western fascism and are allies of america there is no islam fascism at all." - or in other words, because most apples are green there aren't pies on earth - how much more blunt can one get? In fact Nations like Iran and Talibanistan are perfect examples of islam fascism and even if those nations wouldn't exist then islam fascism as a theory is still a valid theory. 82.135.82.192 00:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question
(With thanks to Ken for the suggestion that I use this heading.)

This source connects Mussolini with the process of "organizing the whole of society into corporate entities subordinate to the state." Clearly, when we talk about fascism we're not talking about merely taxing economic activity -- the IRS does that, and they're not fascists. (At least not if the word "fascist" carries any actual meaning.) We're talking about the state controlling, appropriating, targeting, and/or reallocating massive resources and (classically) authorizing a small number of corporate elites allied closely with the state, and subordinate to it, to use those resources. Where is this advocated in Islam, please? BYT 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to see a discussion of how some scholars see elements of fascism in certain Islamic movements, see Neofascism and religion or this resources page I just posted a few weeks ago after Bush and Rumsfeld started tossing the terms around. The Term "Islamofascism" still creeps me out, even though I think selected Islamic militant movements qualify as forms of theocratic neofascism.  I think the use of the term fascism by Bush and Rumsfeld to demonize U.S. political enemies is a reprehensible political propoganda ploy that should be treated skeptically by Wiki encyclopedia editors.--Cberlet 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If a new word is necessary to describe radical Islamic totalitarianism, then coin it. Fifty million people died to end fascism; that's too many deaths to bandy the word about lightly.  And it's easier to be an effective leader when one can clearly explain to one's citizens what the struggle is all about. Terrorists are bad and real: imaginary fascist régimes (useful for crowd control) aren't.  When I hear "Islamofascism," I can't help thinking of "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." Billbrock 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger Discussion
It appears that User:Francis Schonken is going to insist that we all go over to the outdated Islamic Fascism (that was turnd from a redirect back to a redundant POV fork page) and debate a merger proposal. Please take a moment and post comments at Talk:Islamic_fascism--Cberlet 19:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See also above for prior discussion. E.g. (quoting Netscott, near the end of that section): "if there's a need then an article on the concept of "islamic fascism" should be created... and the content from Neofascism and religion moved to it."
 * Also above : "There's some talk above about starting an article (using content from there and elsewhere) entitled Islamic fascism, that might be an even better option given that the President of the United States is utilizing the phrase "Islamic fascists"." --Francis Schonken 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic fascism is a Disambiguation Page
The compromise consensus among those discussing this matter was to make Islamic fascism a disambiguation page. The majority opposed the merger. Please, Francis Schonken, stop reverting this decision and join with other editors on this and other active pages where this topic is being discussed. You lost the vote. Get over it.--Cberlet 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What a useless article!
Most of the article is about what a terrible word "Islamofascist" and why you should never use it. Both the intro and the Criticism of the use of the term sections are solid POV rants with no useful information at all. The quotes in the "Examples" section are overly long. If the article is going to be kept at all, I'd like to see brief OED-style citations demostrating the use of the word in its various senses. I say merge this article with Militant Islam and Islamic Fascism. The merged article should be about the actual phenomenon and not what word should be used to describe it, which is an entirely subjective question.Kauffner 14:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what Neofascism and religion is for. There were two VfDs for this article, and neither generated consensus to delete. So here it is. -- bcasterline • talk 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * From looking at the comments, I gather the participates overwhelming wanted a merger. But of course that's not an option in a VfD, which is about voting "yes" or "no" on deletion. I can't understand why anyone would want deletion -- that would leave us with nothing to say on a hot topic that is persumably a common search term.


 * Pending a merger, I'd like to see the article the redone in a more NPOV format. It would be a series definitions, each with several brief citations, OED-style. (OED doesn't have an entry for Islamofascism, so it wouldn't be redundant.) Then there would be a section on the controversy regarding the use of the term, with 2-3 articles cited on each side.

Kauffner 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to start on a test page, although you seem to be describing the article more or less as is. If you can find a series of clear definition with citations for each, please do; but I think you'll find there's a reason the article is as it is. -- bcasterline • talk 16:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Check
I hope I'm doing this POV Check right. Here goes: It seems abundantly clear to me given the lengthy discussion of the term Islamofascism that the article itself may not be NPOV-compliant. As I noted above, to call the term an epithet appears to be an attempt to delegitimize it. To me, it seems a perfectly legitimate concept. Islamofascism does not appear to have all the attributes of the more classic Hitlerian Fascism or of Fascism a la Mussolini, but it does contain key attributes of Fascism, for example, 1) a belief in a strong, supreme leader, or in German, the Fuehrerprinzip 2) preservation of private property rights subject to heavyhanded control by the state 3) a romantic longing for a better time in the past (as opposed to the socialistic/communistic longing for an ideal future) 4) militarism and 5) irredentism. I suspect the rejection of the term by many is grounded in a dislike of the Bush administration's war on terror, but that's just a guess on my part. I also suspect the fact that the main proponents of Islamofascism are non-state combatants makes many uncomfortable labeling the phenomenon Islamofascism. We should discuss this in a more balanced, systematic way. Syntacticus 01:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Syntacticus. Have you read the previous discussions of the points you bring up? This has been much-discussed. Check the archives at the top of this page. Cheers. IronDuke  02:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke: Yes, I skimmed those previous debates. I still don't believe the "epithet" issue has been resolved. All the other points I make above are as to the validity of the concept -- which I acknowledge has been well covered in the debates. I think reason has prevailed because the entry survived deletion attempts. Whether it is an epithet is key, as I see it. Just because the word "Fascist" is thrown around so carelessly today that its meaning has been reduced to an emotional ejaculation like "I don't agree with it" or "I hate you so much I can't express my hatred intelligently" (similar arguments were made by George Orwell in his classic "Politics and the English Language" essay) does not mean that there is no such thing as a hyphenated version of Fascism pertaining to the Muslim world. Let's debate whether it is an epithet. Is this unreasonable? Syntacticus 03:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all unreasonable. However, as someone involved in some of the past debates, I'd just say a couple things: 1) This article has engendered a lot of bitterness for people on all sides of all debates about it. 2) The version you see is pretty much a compromise version. Trying to shift it too far one way or another may result in the start of another disruptive edit war about it. 3) As a technical matter, my understanding of the word epithet is that it is not per se negative. Rather, it refers to a descriptor imposed from without. And this is technically true: no one has ever referred to themselves as "Islamofascist", as far as I'm aware. 4) The "rightness" or "wrongness" of IF as a term (e.g., can Islam be said to contain fascistic elements) is not relevant for our purposes. Merely how and when the term is used.  IronDuke  04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, IronDuke. You have opened my eyes somewhat as I did not think through fully what would happen later. Note that I have never slapped a POV Check on an article before (not even in the 3 or so years before I formally registered with Wikipedia). I would have made the change myself (that is, by deleting the epithet reference) but I thought that might needlessly stir things up (and that it would have been rude and presumptuous). I could always take the POV Check off in a few days...or I suppose someone could 86 it on their own (ha ha). Anyway, I take your excellent point as to an epithet being how the term is actually used, but it has been my observation that "epithet" is a loaded term, rich with connotations that outweigh the strict dictionary definition. Islamofascism itself has not always been used in a pejorative way, i.e. as some kind of curse word, and suspect that some other non-loaded term might be more appropriate. I think it is a useful neutral political science descriptor, that it is used as such and ought to be. I could be wrong and perhaps I am making a mountain out of a molehill. Let's see what others have to say. Syntacticus 04:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the "compromise" in the page as it is now? The article is a rant about what terrible word Islamofascist is. Islamofascist is not my favorite word. I prefer militant Islam and would redirect to that article. Islamofascist can be put in the wikidictionary. But in the meantime we can rewrite this article in an NPOV manner.Kauffner 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Kauffner. Off the top of my head, I'd say the compromise lies in the article's existing at all. Many people voted for its deletion, others that it be merged to various different articles dealing with Islam and fascism or simple political epithets. Many people felt that by taking the word more or less at face value, WP was implicitly endorsing the views of those who use the word. This created quite a lot of controversy.


 * Note: I just removed "politically motivated" from the lead. I have argued in the past and will continue to argue that this article must not become a platform from which to attack the term itself. IronDuke  06:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Islamofascism is a perfectly justifiable term to describe the ideologies spread by Islamoterrorists like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The term exists and will continue to exist, like it or not. Cerebral Warrior 15:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not legimtimate, and I could give you why it would be a whole lot less legitimate than if the term were used for Israel (for one no 'islamic state' exists and fascism has a pre-requisit of a state, and yes I am totally aware of the ignorant belief that Al Queda wants to take over the world and create this state, whilst Bin Laden hides in a cave). As it stands the term is nothign but a thinly disguised reductio-ad Hitlerum on islam, a fallacy may I add, and I vouch this article should treat it like one.86.140.121.103 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

to the anon
Supporters of epithets usually don't believe they're epithets. -- M P er el ( talk 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Good point. Syntacticus 00:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is arguing that the article shouldn't contain the accusation that it is a political epithet. However, I agree that the proper place for the term "political epithet", which links to a page of "pejorative political epithets" such as "baby killer" and "moonbat" and "feminazi", is clearly in the "critics say", not in the first sentence, where it is now accurately labeled a "controversial neologism".  Fair?  -- User:Symphy

Sunday Times article
A Sunday Times article by historian Michael Burleigh arguing against the idea of Islamofascism in case anyone wants to make use of it:
 * Burleigh, Michael. "Islamofascists: a dangerous label", The Sunday Times, October 1, 2006. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A fascinating article, SlimVirgin. I believe those whose oppose the use of the term Islamofascism make their strongest argument when they contend that Islamofascism is not true Fascism because it lacks nationalism. Indeed, Fascism, as I understand the term, does not refer to a pan-national phenomenon (unlike Communism, for example). This thing I call Islamofascism is not, strictly speaking, necessarily nationalistic: the Islamists don't seem to care which nation sets up the Caliphate, whether Saudi Arabia or Iran. Dissimilarly, Hitler wanted his Germany-based Third Reich to dominate the world as a vast empire. Is the lack of nationalism in a Hitlerian sense what makes Islamofascism not true Fascism in the eyes of those on the other side of the argument? (Also, when Hitler came on the scene with his rabidly anti-Semitic brand of Fascism, did academics --many of whom in the West deeply admired Mussolini and his works-- argue that Hitlerism was not true Fascism? I myself don't know.) Thoughts, anyone? Syntacticus 22:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with these points. I think part of the problem is that the term is a complete neologism. Connotation aside (for a second), I don't know if its extant usage is actually encyclopedic by itself. Besides, the juxtaposition of the two concepts in question is essentially oxymoronic. One point of Islam is the primacy of God, and one of fascism (I hope we can agree on this) is the primacy of the state. So it doesn't even make sense in the first place. For this reason, I think that use of the term presupposes some (unjustified) commonality. Which sounds POV to me. I say pitch it. --Mashford 22:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with the above; for the record I oppose the use of the term for four reasons: 1) in terms of political science it makes no real sense (see above arguments, especially on nationalism), 2) it says nothing in particular (vaguely anti-liberal, statist), 3) it suggests very crude comparisons (e.g. people continually try to equate Sayyid Qutb with Alexis Carrel), and 4) the philosophical bases for Islam and fascism are radically different.


 * The use of terms like Nazism and Fascism are generally meant as historical constructions related to nation-states. (It's really no accident that the Western discipline of political science developed out of historical studies.)  The farther you stretch these terms beyond their historical apex, the more and more vague they become.  We could theoretically start calling the Babylonians fascists - since typical use of the term "fascists" is essentially egocentric political rhetoric (language meant to please ourselves and a select, closely identified group), the details of, say, material reality are never really issues of concern (notably, nationalism has strong material correlates).  If you want to use historical constructions seriously, you have to carry some overhead of information in the discussion.  Political rheotoric is designed to be devoid of such content.  Nevertheless, the slight obsession Western societies have with these ideologies (they are part of our cultural lexicon), itself a historical phenomenon we are still living through (with some good reason), will pass.  One of the benefits of general ignorance is that some people can get serious study done.


 * Islamism is an open-ended historical construction - scholars are still working out what it might mean, and the plethora of labels (e.g. Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic resurgence, etc.) reflects this. The interdisciplinary field is just now getting over state-centric thinking, moving towards a transnational understanding of Islamism.  The religious elements are still completely up in the air though, as it's still a struggle to define what Islam is, let alone define it terms that can be studied.


 * The real defense of the term "Islamic fascism" comes down to this: As Kierkegaard described it "There is a view... which conceives that where the crowd is, there is also the truth, and that in truth itself there is need of having a crowd on it's side." The Internet allows us to compile our own crowd so as to support any number of claims - and make no mistake, using this term is making a claim. Wikipedia is not somehow disengaged from various crowds and their assertions.  An encyclopedia can be neither a democracy nor a transcript/vehicle for popular rhetoric.  This is where Wikipedia will be most strongly tested.  --Vector4F 05:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reality always has more dimensions than a single word can describe. The Sunday Times article defines "fascism" as "extreme nationalism," but this strikes me as simplistic. Mussolini wanted to recreate the Roman Empire, and a Caliphate is the Islamic equivalent of this idea. Words like "Islamofascism" are useful as weapons of war, even if they are imperfect as descriptors. "Islamofascist" is in common use now; It's not a neologism any more. There is at least one area of overlap between the ideologies of the Nazis and that of militant Islam: extreme anti-Jewish sentiment. This can be traced back to the success of Nazi propaganda during WWII. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were popularized by Nazi agents based in Vichy-administered Arab countries and the book remains both popular and widely accepted to this day.Kauffner 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. The status of this term as a neologism may be open to argument, but its use seems more likely to assert a sort of analogic similarity between the two concepts, rather than an actual relation. There is no justification for the implicit assertion that putative commonality between the two concepts constitutes a defense of their union.


 * Aside from these formalist objections, (and please bear in mind that I am not defending terrorism) it should be noted that European (fascist) anti-Semitism and Islamic anti-Semitism have clearly distinct motivations and apologia. Moreover, the position of the Caliphate in the Islamic community in general (the 'umma) is a poor comparison to the leader of a fascist state. In this context, fascism itself is a neophyte: how can we accurately compare (much less equate) a purely 20th-century phenomenon with one that is essentially medieval? There are more divergences than similarities. These extend from the motivations of each to their demonstrable manifestations. The fact remains that no historically recognized fascist regime or movement has had Islamic elements (for rank speculation, I think Hitler probably would have exterminated any Muslims in Nazi Germany along with the Jews), and that no organization of militant Islam (Hezbollah, for example) has expressed fascist tendencies.


 * For these reasons, I believe the term is a semantically bankrupt weasel word, and that the article's language should express this lack. --Mashford 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pfff, a half good article, good ol mike is kind of a chauvinist and never sticks to one issue and loses its trail of thought before even reaching to any logical point (the question: "we should or shouldnt use the word Islamo facism because...?" never really gets a proper answer or even a decent synthesis), the most interest part of the article is where he completely ignores the oil interests of the western in middle east or in Africa and goes on into saying that we should probably modernize villages and completely erradicate any sign of their culture in our advantage (assimilate them into something more like us, cos its smalltown-islam the cause of all this terrorism!, right...). With no real proofs and an article that completely loses its point, i think its more of a quck advertize for his upcomming book (pretty obvious there).


 * To my mind, the word "caliphate" immediately brings up parallels that justify the "Islamofascist" moniker, (or would, if I thought Islamic militants were serious about the caliphate idea). A caliph is "commander of the faithful" and therefore the Islamic version of Il Duce or Der Fuhrer.  On the other hand, I don’t see how an actual person could even begin to go about becoming a caliph. There is no appointment mechanism that would be recognized in more than one Islamic country. So the calls for caliphate are more along the lines of looking forward to the second coming than a political agenda.
 * On the issue of anti-Semitism: Of course, there are anti-Jewish verses in Islamic literature (as well as attacks on Christians and pagans). But modern anti-Semitism in the Mideast is based on the idea of an international Jewish conspiracy, which I don’t you’ll find in the Koran. Hamas cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their charter like it was holy writ.
 * The isn't much consistancy in the way the Islamofascist label is used. The Ba’ath Party is both Islamic and fascist, but somehow not Islamofascist. Militant Shi’ite groups like Hezbollah have no historic links to fascism and don’t believe in caliphate, but they still get the Islamofascist label.
 * I would say that the basic philosophical difference between fascism and militant Islam is that fascism is about obtaining government power and exercising it. When Mussolini was asked about his program, he replied, “We’ve seen enough of parties and their platforms. Our program is to rule Italy.” Fascism is a reaction to communism. The underlying idea is that only communist methods can succeed in the fighting communism. In contrast, militant Islam is about killing unbelievers, dying, and getting your 72 virgins (or raisons, as the case may be). “We love death as you love life,” is how they put it. After 9/11, Bin Laden made those videotapes where he rambles on about the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the Byzantines and whatnot. He doesn’t seem to have any deep belief that he wants to communicate. Killing defenseless office workers is his thing and he’ll reach for whatever justification comes to mind. If he was devout, would Robert Fisk be his favorite journalist? The jihadists are terrorists sponsored by Syria, Iran, and Pakistan rather a political faction with a distinct ideology. Blaming “Islamofascism” puts the onus on something abstract as opposed to governments that the U.S. has diplomatic relations with.Kauffner 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Rescission of POV Check
I am satisfied with the sentence someone inserted, namely: "Critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam with fascism is an offensive and inaccurate political epithet." I am now going to attempt to remove the POV Check notice that I installed. Thanks to everyone who participated in this voir dire. Syntacticus 00:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda
"Islamofascism" is a propaganda term. This article should be deleted. FilipeS 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * well, this article has already survived two WP:AFD motions. is it a propaganda term? yes. is it a neologism? yes. is it potentially offensive to some people? of course. however, it is a notable term that has gained widespread usage and since most discussion on the internet that uses this word tends to be heavily loaded with bias, the web needs a good, well-written and neutral treatment of 'islamofascism'. -- frymaster 15:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it is a propaganda term does not mean it should be deleted. There are many English-language neologisms developing around this conflict: War on Terrorism, Islamism, Islamofascism, Talibanization, Al-Qaedaism. They each have their own Wikipedia pages. They are in the news and they are terms used by the heads of state. They are memes in the matrix. You can deny them all you want, you can be angry that they exist. You can feel however you feel. But as a neutral observer of the world, Wikipedia should simply recognize the debate, remain calm and rational, and note how it is being used by people. Do not censor. Observe and record. --Petercorless 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because this is a propaganda term, I doubt it will ever be possible to talk about it neutrally. Besides, what about verifiability? Which peer-reviewed publications is the article supposed to be based on?... Rabid op-eds don't count. FilipeS 13:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of heads of state who are using this term in everyday speech. It is not our job to ignore vital neologisms which are being used by people who are using such concepts to determine whether, for instance, they commit nations to war or peace. Had some of us been alive when other highly politicized neologisms were coined, such as Lebensraum or Quisling we might have had similar debates. Yes, it is often used pejoratively. That can be duly noted. But such highly-charged terms became part of culture and language during the conflicts, stretching from the highest ranks of politics to the common everyday beliefs of the masses (or at least, some large percentage of them). Islamofascism is part of the meme-stream. We document what people are meaning when they use it. If you want to write about this in Criticism of the War on Terrorism, you can cite reputable sources that do not like such neologisms as, for example, Islamofascism, Islamism, Al-Qaedaism and Talibanization -- all of which are modern Western neologisms to describe or ascribe characteristics of elements of Islamic society as seen through the lens of modern politics and current conflicts. Rather than complain about why you don't personally like the term, document reputable sources that make your case. Consider making a page called Propaganda in the War on Terrorism. Also consider making the page balanced, and cite the propaganda from both non-Muslim and Muslim groups. That'll be a pretty big barn to paint to earn a barnstar for writing up a good article. --Petercorless 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job dodging my objections entirely. Bravo! ("Meme-stream"? Where did you dig that one from?!...) FilipeS 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "meme-stream" has been around for a while: meme-stream.com, Memestreamblog. --Petercorless 05:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite this Garbage
This term is a product of a competing ideology that seeks to subjugate Islam. There is no analogue to the term in the Islamic lexicon. I am not arguing that the term does not exist. But the etymology of the term MUST be discussed at length because it is rooted in ideology and is not objective. We know that leaders such as G.W. Bush have used the term. But this just proves that it does exist. We need a detailed explanation why it exists. And that explanation is not simply because there are these "Mooslims in the Middle East that don't like the way we live...." hence the term Islamofacists. I think that it goes a little deeper than that....

70.55.238.80 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create an account, log in, and improve the article. --Petercorless 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the "garbage" has been re-written rather well, and I would like to duly recognize and thank others for a few recent contributions, especially some of the salient comparisons to historic fascism and modern militant Islamism. Good work! --Petercorless 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that would be a good idea, seeing that we are using neologisms in our exploration of other neologisms (Islamofacism and Islamism anyone?). That said, the article is improving.

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 18:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So I guess you're not going to create an account? Jtpaladin 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Choosing not to create an account does not invalidate my point....

70.55.238.80 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial
Is holocaust denial amongst the muslims considered as a part of so called "islamofascism"? Tuohirulla puhu 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is certainly valid to quote sources that assert connections between Holocaust denial and Islamofascism. For example: Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal noted that "The three AEL cartoons posted so far have been very instructive in that they have all mocked the Nazi persecution of the Jews and the Holocaust, as if Mr Jahjah wants to emphasize that islamofascism is indeed the ideology he adheres to." -- Hamshahri newspaper plans cartoon response (Wikinews) --Petercorless 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added more about the historical comparisons of Fascism and Islam from the 1930s, and added the common attribute of Antisemitism. --Petercorless 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Neologism?
It's a contradiction to begin the article by saying that "Islamofascism" is a neologism. Wikipedia has a policy against article titles that are neologisms. Does it make any sense any sense for an article to begin by denouncing its own existance? But as a Google search will confirm, Islamofascism is in fact a common term and even appears in some dictionaries -- it's clearly not a neologism.

Do we really know that Hitchens' "fascism with an Islamic face" is a play on Susan Sontag's phrase "fascism with a human face"? Whether it is or isn't, the original phrase is "socialism with a human face," a slogan of Prague spring (1968). Kauffner 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the quote from Carl Gustav Jung authentical?
In the article it says: ''"in 1939, when psychologist Carl Jung observed of Adolf Hitler, "he is like Mohammed. The emotion in Germany is Islamic, warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god."[5]'' Is this proven to be authenic? Can I find anywhere the German original of this quote which allegedly is from Jung? Thank you. 81.173.230.143 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)--Robert

Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article
here. Thanks. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro
The intro of this article is pretty loose. One of the references given about Iran does not comply to WP:RS (I suppressed it) and there are no refs for the other organizations like Hamas etc. The Washington Times ref about Iran comes from Gaffney. Is this really serious ? No one seems to question the seriouness of such "warrior against terrorism", when put in parallel back into times when he was on official position in Europe, around 1985, when the Bologna railway station exploded in Italy, making more than 80 casualties... TwoHorned 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why "Islamofascism" and not "Islamocommunism" or "islamototalitarianism"?
A few reasons.
 * Like Eurofascism, Islamism is about inequality and conquest of the other. Those from outside the Islamic Umma (a word often translated as nation, though it has no ethnic connotation) may not have legal equality with Muslims. And of course women are unequal. For women and kaffir to have equal rights is "against Islam", i.e. in violation of traditional sharia law. In theory all the kuffar will see the power and glory of Islam and convert so there will be no blood bath. In this regard (delusional predictions) Islamism is similar to other totalitarianisms, not just fascism.
 * Like Eurofascism, Islamism focuses on the earlier golden age,  while unlike Marxist Leninism focuses on the future. For Islamofascists this era was during the reign of the Prophet Muhammad and some combination of the rightly guided caliphs: all four rightly guided caliphs, or just Abu bakr and Umar (Qutb), or just Ali bin abu Talib (Shia), etc. depending on the strain of Islamism.
 * Like Eurofascists, Islamists such as Qutb and Khomeini are/were obsessed with evil foreign conspiracies against the nation/community, especially those of the Jews. Marxists tend to think of the enemy as following its interests as dictated by the relations of production rather than a force of wickedness.
 * the historical link between Fascism and modern Islamofascism via the World War II-era Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini. This connection has filtered down to the present day.
 * It is true the most famous and powerful fascist movements of Germany and Italy did not pay very much attention to religion, but there were other kindred movements that did. Few deny they were fascist. (see the article [])
 * Examples of Fascist movements that embraced religion include Spain's Falangists, the People's Party of the pre-war Slovak Republic, Fascist Ustasha movement in Croatia, the Iron Guards of Rumania, and Plinio Salgado's "Integrationism" in Brazil.     --Leroy65X 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, enough muddling already.. No need for a dissertation. We have this ridiculous word and we're stuck with it. (Thanks, Ann Coulter.) There is no point in exacerbating the issue with even more dubious neologisms. I think its justification and defense are also not necessary: it's in the language (cites abound) which is sufficient. --Mashford 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dubious sources to say the least, we seem to have a little of a confirmation bias here over a word thats been used (and created) mainly by right-wing pundits. If the word exist, so be it, though to id just wouldnt encourage trying to find a proper explanation for a word that has strong roots on the patriotism of WW2 (in which democracy was of course the "virtue of virtues" while facism was the most evil thing ever imagined by man) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.168.240 (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

"Islamocommunism" would sound ridiculous, because everyone knows communism is atheist. Bad PR. FilipeS 17:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indoctrinating children
What's the relevance of this section to the article? Is the claim that fascists indoctrinate children, so this must be an example of Islamofascism? If so, it's OR unless there's a quotable source making this link. Or is just an example of bad things done by Hamas?JQ 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the relevance is unclear, as the section's content bears little relevance to actual fascism per se. Its inclusion here is more accurately a reflection of the problematic nature of the term itself. But surely you can admit that the phrase "the mouse program" has a certain tongue-in-cheek flair. A source would still be helpful to say the least. --Mashford 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any obvious relevance, I'll delete this.JQ 09:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am reverting the deletion. Indoctrinating children in the precepts of murderous conquest for world domination is self-evidently an example of fascism by anyone's definition. The Nazis certainly thought so when they ran the rat-faced Juden cartoons before the kinder.--Mike18xx 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indoctrinating children is a feature of most belief systems, and of nearly all that engage in a murderous quest for world domination (imperialism in all its forms and Stalinism being obvious examples). Unless "fascism" is being used as a catch-all pejorative here, this argument is invalid. I can't be bothered with an edit war, but I'd urge Mashford and others to keep this kind of stuff out.JQ 09:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added Hamas to the list of organizations labeled "Islamofascist", along with a few references (I could easily add a half-dozen more from the first page of Google returns)...and that ought suffice to put a fork in the relevance argument. Whether Islamofascism should really be called Islamoimperialism or Islamocommunism is a moot point.--Mike18xx 09:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I attempted to wikify Indoctrinating children, trimming it down and putting it in the Background section. --Leroy65X

Regarding the recent edit
"Rephrase last paragraph of section, I gather the "new unified Muslim state" and "the new Caliphate" are synonymous".. This is acceptable only in the already muddied semantic waters of "controversial neologism". Strictly speaking, these two ideas, "Caliphate" and "unified Muslim state" are not equivalent. The first refers precisely to a government under a successor to Mohammed, and the second is anything but precise. I think the phrase's suggestion is a state standing firmly in contrast to Iraqi strife, but this is debatable. Nonetheless, the rhetorical tendency of the subject to inflammatory conflation renders my objection here moot. I note it here for the satisfaction of accuracy. Please continue. Mashford 03:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism & Fascism?
While clearly Nazism was anti-Semitic, I have not seen sources that claimed that Fascism had as part of its' idealogy anti-Semitic teachings. Also, Islam according to the Koran, does not preach anti-semitism while in practice, many adherents are anti-Semitic. So how can "anti-Semitism" be listed as being associated with Islamofascism? If there is a source, can someone please note it? Jtpaladin 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is the other way around. Militant islamic extremists (that is my understanding of the term "Islamofascism" from what I read) are anti-Semitic. :Dc76\talk 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That adherents of the Quran, many of which are Arabs, would be anti-Semitic is a bit laughable. FilipeS 21:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Militant islamic extremists are a tiny minority among adherents of Quran. :Dc76\talk 21:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole discussion is outside the purview of this article. While I reaffirm the contention that Muslim extremists are only a small fraction of adherents, I find no credible parallel between them and fascistic political associations. Use of this term "islamofascism" only restates the spurious claims that engendered it, it does not confirm them. I side with Dc76's assertions, and repeat my original complaints about the term under #27 above. Mashford 18:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So are we in agreement that Fascism has little to do with anti-Semitism? If I'm wrong, someone please post a reference on this. It just seemed odd to me when I saw it. Jtpaladin 02:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not try to play these types of juvenile debate tricks here. It is tacky. --Cberlet 02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you talking to me? Because if you are, you are in violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Do you understand these basic WP guidelines? Are you simply incapable of discussing facts thats why you resort to pathetic claims of trickery? Why don't you come back when you have something useful to say because right now you clear don't. I asked for references but since you brought none and this article lists none, I'm guessing you have no facts to bring to bear. Jtpaladin 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jtpaladin, your statement that Cberlet commented on was completely inappropriate. Mashford was entirely correct when he said the discussion was outside the purview of this article. Addhoc 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me attempt to bring some clarity to this discussion. There are (at least) 2 separate issues. 1) Does anti-Semitism have any connection with fascism? 2) Do either of these have any connection with Islam? My own feeling, freely offered and unreferenced, is a qualified No to both. However, this does not address the contentions implicit in the use of the term, nor its context in contemporary dialogue. Whether we agree with these contentions, and 1) and 2), is a question for another arena. Since this term, specious or not, remains in the language, its discussion continues. This term was invented and promoted by those who stood to gain from the rhetorical confusion we face here. Let us speak about what we know, not what we suspect. Addhoc: Thanks. Jtpaladin: I understand your request for a source, but my understanding is that this is more stringently required in the article itself, whereas the talk page can tolerate a personal (if tolerant) discussion. Cberlet: Some cogent analysis, or appropriate addition, is what is called for here. The guidelines are clear; and if understood, not immediately relevant to the discussion. Simple criticism lacks a constructive objective. Mashford 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mashford, let me start off by saying, thank you for taking the time to articulate your perspective in this matter. Lately, we are finding all too often that "editors" come to a Discussion page only to dispense with a whole host of irelevant absurdities. I can never understand why people do that. As for the issue at hand, you're right. There is more than just one question. The word "fascism" has very definite connotations. It has an established agenda and a solid foundation in our lexicon. If someone wants to put "Islam" and "fascism" together to make a new word, that's fine, but who defines the meaning of the new word and how do those words reflect back individually to their original meanings? All I ask for is for some reference that makes it clear that "Islamofascism" is "anti-Semitic". My opinion? It is. But I am not the author of the term nor do I allow myself assumptions. Since Islam by its' nature is not anti-Semitic (I believe Islam hates everyone equally, even though "people of the book" are supposed to be afforded special consideration) and fascism is not anti-Semitic, how does putting the words together create a definition of anti-Semitism? If someone can simply stick a reference to that next to "anti-Semitism" in the article, that will satisfy the issue. Is that fair enough? Thank you. Jtpaladin 21:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nazism, as a form of fascism, was built around antisemitism, so there are connections. Not all fascist movements need by antisemitic, however. I find the term Islamofascism offensive, but the term fascism has a history and meaning that involves, in some cases, antisemitism. The work of Norman Cohn makes that clear. What we have on this page is a list by Paul Berman that includes antisemitism. It is not for us to find a cite to back up Paul Berman. He is quoted making the claim. It exists as his assertion. The rest is sound and fury on the discussion page.--Cberlet 15:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If he is quoted here, without comment or challenge, making a connection between Islam and antisemitism, would it not be appropriate to cite an equally prominent figure who holds that opposition on the part of Muslims to Zionism, a political movement, is often interpreted as anti-Semitism? BYT 14:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously not, because that doesn't directly relate to Islamofacism.--Addhoc 16:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But the uncritical linking of anti-semitism with Islam does directly relate to the term Islamofascism?
 * Suppose Berman had cited as an element of Islamofascism the Muslim civilization's "historic love of pork"? Would we assume that was reality, too? Or cite a source demonstrating a contrary opinion?
 * If some academic somewhere were to claim that Christianity itself endorses mass murder of Jews -- on the strength of, say, an episode of violence in the Crusades -- should I put that quote, without any alternate view, into Christian terrorism? BYT 12:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have another look at the NPOV policy - it doesn't advocate that articles should be similar in style to Crossfire.--Addhoc 15:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia Promotes Islamophobic Bigotry ....
The wiki article on "Islamofascism" -- in such dispassionate language -- describes the term "Islamofascism" as merely "a neologism suggesting an association of the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism." However, if we are to use such dispassionate (trivializing) language in describing a clearly Islamophobic epithet as "Islamofascism," why not also apply the same standard to the article on the Blood libel and call that blatantly anti-Semitic use of language merely "a belief suggesting an association between Judaism, human sacrifice, and cannibalism"?

As well, the ever-popular falsehood of Islamic anti-Semitism is brought up once again, for instance, in the supposed analogy between Islam and Nazi Ideology's perceiving the Jews as a "malicious, predatory alien forces ... conspiring against and within the nation/community" requiring a "violent revolution ... to defeat and expel" them. This is clearly false, and I refer anyone who believes such falsehood to the history of Sephardic Judaism in Turkey. If Muslims are so anti-Semitic, why did the clearly fundamentalist Ottoman Caliphate -- in 1492 -- allow these "malicious, predatory alien forces" to settle in its territory (and even send ships to facilitate that settlement)?

Finally, the article claims that just as Nazi's collaborated with "extreme leftists" so do these supposed "Islamofascists" -- which is false on both counts (supposing one means Al-Qaeda when one refers to "Islamofascists"): in fact, Hitler and other earlier German National Socialists (like the Freikorps) actually massacred "extreme leftists," e.g., Karl Leibknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. The only "leftist" who collaborated with Hitler in any way was Josef Stalin -- whom "extreme leftists," from Trotskyists to Anarchists, condemn as a "State Capitalist" (for evidence of this, refer yourselves to the writings of Alexander Berkman or C. L. R. James.) As for "extreme left" collaboration with Islamism in the contemporary Arab world, I refer you to the records of Arab Socialists like Gamel Abdel-Nasser, Hafez Assad, Anwar Sadat, and even Saddam Hussein with regard to Islamic fundamentalists.

Thus, once again, just as the wiki editors considered a blatant reference to the harassment of traditionally dressed Muslims (in the article on the kufi) merely as "fun and games," now they consider a bigoted, factually inaccurate, epithet merely a "neologism" that merely "suggests" some "association of the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century." Once again, bigoted epithets are trivialized by the dispassionate editors of wiki. If the same trivialization was applied to an article on the Blood libel or the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, I can guarantee that Wikipedia would surely be hearing from the Anti-Defamation League.


 * Suggest you have a look at WikiProject Countering systemic bias, which acknowledges "a systemic bias that grows naturally out of the demographic of its contributors and manifests itself as an imbalance". Addhoc 15:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, sign your posts. Next, while not condoning the systemic bias properly noted here, I see a synonymous relation between "dispassionate" and "NPOV". I agree with your assertion that use of the term supposes a severely slanted outlook, as shown by the cited sources here, but is this true of its discussion too? The equation of such a discussion with the term's inherent Islamophobia is not particularly dispassionate either. Finally, "neologism" does not mean "less deserving of criticism", it means new. Mashford 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahem, where in the above is "neologism" equated with "less deserving of criticism"? I think the point was that there is a qualitative difference between merely a "neologism" and a slur.  The term "Islamofascism" is a slur which draws its rhetorical force from a false analogy made between Islam and Fascism -- which is offensive in itself and all the more more offensive when one notices that the "fascism" Islam is being equated with is that of Adolf Hitler.  The dispassionate tone of the "Islamofascism" article is used precisely to conceal its POV -- precisely to mislead the reader into believing that there is some factual basis to its assertions of the connection between Islam and the beliefs of Hitler.  The above post "Wiki ... promotes Islamophobic Bigotry" only states the facts: the Ottoman Empire granted asylum to Spanish Jews after 1492, that's a fact; the Nazi's never cooperated with "extreme leftists" -- but systematically murdered them -- that's another fact.  These facts are readily accessible to any educated person with a library card.  On the other hand, the assertions of the "Islamofascism" article is based entirely on false analogies, opinions, and (frankly) slander.  Again, if the article on the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was written in the same way as the "Islamofascism" article one would have good reason to suspect such article of promoting Antisemitism (and to telephone their local chapter of the ADL).  Mazallen 10:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does Not promote Islamophobic bigotry
Islamofascism is not a slur. It is tendency among some Muslims for which there is plenty of evidence. Please do not pretend Islofascism means Islam=fascism. And if the article has a POV or is misleading someone please give examples and not rants. --BoogaLouie 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While my views don't entirely coincide with BoogaLouie, I completely agree this talk page should be purely for practical discussion on how we can improve the article, instead of lengthy unconstructive diatribes. Addhoc 18:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is martin kramer notable?
One of the many edits by nosfartu included a tag on a cite by martin kramer. This is from the Martin Kramer article: ''During a 25-year career at Tel Aviv University, Martin Kramer directed the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies; taught as a visiting professor at Brandeis University, the University of Chicago, Cornell University, and Georgetown University; and served twice as a fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. He is currently the Wexler-Fromer Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, and Olin Institute Senior Fellow at Harvard University.

He is a senior and past editor of the Middle East Forum's Middle East Quarterly.[3] Kramer has also published columns in the National Review magazine[4][5] and on the websites of the History News Network[6], martinkramer.org[7] and bitterlemons.org.[8] (Front Page Magazine publishes selected pieces of Kramer's on its website[9])'' --BoogaLouie 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If I put a tag on him, it was because it was a self-published source which didn't describe his background. If he is a past editor of the Middle East Forum's Middle East Quarterly then he sounds alright, let's just give some of the information that you've provided so people know why he's important. I'm slightly hesitant about using pieces only published at his personal website, but this may be okay given his background; clearly, it would be much more desirable if we could find his same article on Middle East Quarterly, the History News Network, or appearing in Front Page Magazine.


 * The reason it was tagged is because there were far too many self-published citations in the article appearing from Geocities and Tripod. I think we'd both like to find ways to improve the article. --Nosfartu 16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag because I found an HNN archive which mentions the exact same thing. The problem is that the reader (and I) won't always have the time to perform all of this background research about each individual source appearing in the article. Wikipedia can do this for the user by attributing criticism from reliable sources.


 * I'm still a little hesitant that this Wikipedia article doesn't even mention Martin Kramer or his background (adding this information could actually increase the credibility of the statement), but I have removed the tag since I believe it comes from a better source now.. I may not have the time to do this for every source, so feel free to give it a try yourself if you have time. --Nosfartu 16:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section: Prominent historican Niall Ferguson
Conservative British historian Niall Ferguson has commented:

''“…what we see at the moment is an attempt to interpret our present predicament in a rather caricatured World War II idiom. I mean, “Islamofascism” illustrates the point well, because it’s a completely misleading concept. In fact, there’s virtually no overlap between the ideology of al Qaeda and fascism. It’s just a way of making us feel that we’re the “greatest generation” fighting another World War, like the war our fathers and grandfathers fought. You’re translating a crisis symbolized by 9/11 into a sort of pseudo World War II. So, 9/11 becomes Pearl Harbor and then you go after the bad guys who are the fascists, and if you don’t support us, then you must be an appeaser.”''

(Source: Niall Ferguson Interview (2006): Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley)

--Kitrus 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Islamofascism Awareness Week
I believe that it's this week (week of Oct. 28th). It seems to be controversial and popular to discuss -- should it be mentioned here? Konamaiki 08:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The term versus the larger concept
The block of text moved to Neo-Fascism and religion is primarily about the larger issue of linking Islam and fascism. The term "Islamofascism" is contentious and not used in much of the text that was moved. This oage has historically been about the term "Islamofascism" as a controversial term. As it states at the top of the page, the larger disucssion belongs on Neo-Fascism and religion. I have moved the text. Please do not restore it without a full discussion here.--Cberlet (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chip's move of the text, and with the larger point that content related to potential intersections of neofascism and religion belongs in that article, not this one. BYT (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: The terms versus the larger concepts
Should discussion of the larger issues of Islam and neo-fascism be moved to this page or remain on Neo-Fascism and religion and Clerical fascism?


 * They belong on separate pages, in my view, where they can be dealt with in depth. This article, to the degree that it serves a constructive purpose at all, should focus on the neologism. BYT (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. The greater context referred to here is well out of the scope of this article, which appears to chiefly regard the term's status as a neologism, its apologetics, condemnation, etc. The other pages cited in the question are more suitable for other issues. Mashford (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Islamofascism should focus on the neologism. Dlabtot (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascism Series
I dont know if this came up earlier in the discussion, but I think it is wrong to haev made islamofascism part of the Fascism series, A considering it is a controversial term and in many ways islam and classical fascism are not compatible, and fascism in this case is mistaken for authoritarianism. B it is a term nearly always used as an insult, a neologism, and is pretty much always used with bigots with highly contentious POVs. Therefore it should not be made a part of the fascism series like it is some undisputed fact that there is such a thing as islamofascism, its a bit like making an editor here part of the POV editors series, it is stating it is a fact that islamofascism exists, whereas as this article shows this is probably not true in a classical sense, and highly contended in a modern sense of the word fascism.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Give you guys a few hours then ill see if I can remove it myself, if you want to place it back put your comment here.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anti-BS Squad, could you please express yourself in a more dignified manner? This kind of speech is not appropriate for Wikipedia.  As for Islamofascism — this is a well-defined, notable concept, with many citations in reliable sources, and this is what matters here at WP. So, if you have a critique to bring, please bring something specific, based on policies and guidelines, and on reliable sources, not just some foul-mouthed version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thank you. Turgidson (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From the lead: 'Islamofascism is a controversial neologism' I think that illustrates my point quite well, if something is a controversial neologism how can it be a definite form of fascism, it seems like someone is trying to push the POV that islamofascism is definetly a form of classical fascism, which is what they are stating by making islamofascism part of the fascism series. Im very sorry for upsetting your sensibilities, Im sure you have never seen fouler language, If you can think of a better example you are welcome to replace what I wrote. Also wikipedia is not censored, especially on its talk pages I might add. Im sorry for any cardiac problems I may have given you. My point was not whether this article is well sourced or not, but that it is highly contentious whether islamofascism is actually a totally legitimately proven form of classical fascism, which it is not, as this article shows. My suspicion is that islamofascism was made part of the fascism series to push a particular point of view, i.e. that islamofascism is definetly a legitimate term, whcih this article does not support. The other possible reason could be that some bigot felt like trying to link islam directly with classical fascism and therefore make islam part of the 'unfavorable group' (as the example I stated showed you what I meant). In conclusion the reason is probably somewhere between the two. I repeat what I said, if no defense can be made of my suggestion I will try and see if I can remove the tag myself.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag, put it back if you want, but please state your objection to my removal here.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Who replaced the tag? why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-BS Squad (talk • contribs) 03:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay so a user told me to achieve consensus before I remove the tag, sorry for removing it straight away, Idoubt somehow that ill achieve consensus, and it probably isnt a big a deal as I originally thought anyway. However I am against the idea that islamofascism is a proven form of fascism. Thats my point, and I havent given up hope yet.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources talk of the link between Islamfacism and facism etc. This is the same situation as in Islamophobia. We have a template there as well, for a highly controversial term which includes less controversial, more agreed upon terms but the template is still there. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally Ill delete my profanity sorry for being rude, it is a seriosu topic after all.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO two wrongs dont make a right, although I havent looked at the islamophobia article much as yet. Personally if islamofascism is not even a legitimate academic term, it seems a bit jumping the gun to declare it part of the same fascism series that Mussolini inhabits.R.G.P.A (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a reason that "Islamofascism" does not appear on the template. If not there, why here? It is clear that the term is controversial and not widely used in academia. A few scattered cites and lots of hot political rhetoric--some of it bigoted--are hardly proof that the template belongs on this page.--Cberlet (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, as you cannot get to islamofascism via the themplate, for purely technical reasons why is this template here? As I cannot see its accuately part of the fascism series.R.G.P.A (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (BTW this signature is to anti-BS squad but apparatnyl that was a profanity as well).R.G.P.A (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cberlet, you make a good point i.e. we dont have Islamofacism there and so we shouldnt have the template here too. Since the term is controversial, I'm ok either way. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think everyone involved here needs to step back and take a deep breath. It's going to get heated in here. We know this. However, it is wise for any Wikipedian to remember that one should do onto others as they would have done onto themselves. --  Shark face  217  04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Im the user R.G.P>A's IP, Im sorry for being needlessly agressive in making my point, Im sorry if I offended anyone.86.145.205.156 (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm down please
Folks, this is a controversial page, and it would nice if everyone avoids more edit wars.--Cberlet (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have consensus ...
... to remove the template? It really doesn't belong here, IMHO. BYT (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Explain. Arrow740 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Arrow. I'm not the only person who feels this article is primarily about the term and its usage, and not about a poli-sci designation. (See discussion above.) If you feel differently, though, I certainly respect that, and would be eager to hear what you have to say about this. BYT (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The template is very appropiate. Islamofascism is obviously about fascism. It belongs.  Yahel  Guhan  03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article were "obviously about fascism," it would seem to me that it would be referenced here. Wouldn't you agree? BYT (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * not necessarily. Things seem to take a lot longer to get into the portals than the articles. I (and it seems many users) rarely edit them. But it can always be added. The last edit to the fascism portal was almost a year ago. The last edit to Fascism was yesterday.  Yahel   Guhan  06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yahel, the talk page discussion (above) doesn't seem to me to support the inclusion of this template. BYT (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think the Fascism Template belongs on this page. I regularly review all Fascism-related templates.--Cberlet (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Im user: R.G.P.A and cant find my password, I raised the point above4, just scroll up, I support removing the template and so does I assume Cberlet BYT and Matt dosent seem to object. So I think weve got a consnsus, also it is not 'obvious' that islamofacsim is a form of fascism, that is exactly the point, it is very disputed where this is just an epithet or an actual phenomenon.86.150.147.133 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * you seem to have ignored my objection. It is obvious that islamofacism is connected to fashism. The term means "islamic fascism" and reguardless of whether it is real or not, the term refers to the relationship between islam and fashism. In that sense, the Islam template should also be added.  Yahel  Guhan  23:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Logical fallacy: A Guinea pig is neither from Guinea, nor is it a pig. There are no navigational templates connecting it to either on the page about that animal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whats your point? You are not comparing apples to apples. Unlike a guunea pig, Islamofascism is defined as having that connection.  Yahel  Guhan  00:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that connection – supposed by some, denied by others – is matter of content. Anyway, not established enough to be taken for granted by a navigational template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Navigatnonal templates represent the topic(s) of the article, and in this case, the connection is shown. It doesn't matter if it exists or not. That doesn't change the subject or the clear relevance of the templates. The subject of the article is clearly related to both islam and neo-fascism. "It is denied or doesn't exist, therefore not related" is a very poor arguement, and certianly is a fallacy(Non sequitur (logic) I believe).  Yahel  Guhan  00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For comparison, the connection of Guinea pigs to "pigs" and to "Guinea" is explained in several paragraphs in the Guinea pig article. Neither of these connections are explicited by a template, while these connections are tenuous - as is the connection of Islamofascism to either "Islam" and "fascism".
 * Also, I'd like to give you a warning as intended by Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. I've no idea whether Islamofascism relates to "Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted", and that's not my judgement to make, as I got involved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, it DOES matter if the fascism portal links here before you put the template here, because if it dosent then there is no consensus to whether islamofascism belongs in the template in any case, and therefore the template shouldnt be here. Also the fact that islamofascism is an epithet and not really an academic term per se, (of course this depends on your views of what is academia, but Im talking about political thesis here). It is debated whether there is ANY link between islam and classical fascism, therefore to add it to the fascism template would be favouring the POV that there is a definte link between fascism and islam, as Islamofascism finds its most common usage as an epithet, and not as a topic of academic discussion about fascism, then you cannot stick it on a portal that links it with ideas such as Italian fascism and National Socialism.86.150.147.133 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would llike to point out that I have published scholarly articles and chapters in books in which I argue there is a connection between some forms of militant Islamic ideology and new forms of "theocratic fascism." Nonetheless, I never use the term "Islamofascism" because I think it promotes religious bigotry--and I object to placing the Fascism or Neo-Fascism Template on this page becasue the term itself is controversion. The proper page for the Neo-Fascism Template is on Neofascism and religion. It is already there.--Cberlet (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with this sentiment, and would note that we don't have the template on the Christofascism article either for a number of reasons, including some of the ones you noted. --68.72.38.42 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial"
While this comment is not meant to solve the controversy that seems to have started over the use of the adjective "controversial" I do want to point out two important factors. 1) It is not accurate to compare this entry with Islamophobia in order to determine whether or not to use the adjective "controversial," since these terms are very different in nature, in use and in their linguistic history. For instance there is no suggestion inherent in "Islamophobia" that anyone or any group of people are inherently Islamophobic, yet it is suggested in "Islamofascism" that Islam is compatible with Fascism.  When Islamophobia is "controversial" it is in application but not because of its inherent qualities as a term.  You would do better to look at entries for terms like Christofascism.  2) The Oxford English Dictionary, the best dictionary standard in the English language, does not mention that Islamofascism is "controversial." It does however classify the term as "depreciative," meaning that according to the OED the term is used to demean or "lower" something in "estimation." Here is the entire entry:


 * depreciative.


 * The advocacy or practice of a form of Islam perceived as authoritarian, intolerant, or extremist; spec. Islamic fundamentalism regarded in this way.


 * 1990 Independent 8 Sept. 15/8 Islamic societies seem to have found it particularly hard to institutionalise divergences politically: authoritarian government, not to say ‘Islamo-fascism’, is the rule rather than the exception. 2002 National Rev. (U.S.) (Nexis) 10 Apr., You cannot deny that a brand of Islam is most certainly at war with us. You can call this brand Islamofascism, radical Islam, Wahhabism, whatever you want. 2005 N.Y. Rev. Bks. 13 Jan. 22/4 Our enemy{em}variously known as Islamofascism, Islamist extremism, global jihad{em}has no rational agenda beyond its desire to destroy the United States out of remorseless, theologically inspired hatred for its values.

As I mentioned, I do not intend this message to solve your dispute, but I do wish to shed some light on the matter for those willing to find a good solution to it. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "controversial" is in itself a controversial one and should usually be avoided in Wikipedia articles. Who decides what is controversial and in what cases the term is appropriate to use? Probobly 50% of all WP entries, not least politics-related, could be seen as "controversial" in one way or another. I don't think that this label adds anything to the reader, it's much better to just write why some people have criticised the subject. This becomes even more obvious when we compare to persons, for example we don't write "controversial film maker Michael Moore", "controversial US President George W. Bush" etc. Newspapers can use those terms, not an encyclopedia. /Slarre (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to use more precise comparisons here in the interest of rational discussion. The comparison between political neologisms and living people is totally off base, especially given all the hub bub over WP:BLP.  I will note again that other neologisms which are controversial because of their inherent properties, like New antisemitism and Christofascism do include the term "controversial" in their respective Wikipedia entries.  If your concern is not with this entry's specific content, as you keep on suggesting, might I suggest that you also delete the term "controversial" from those entries.  By the way you make it sound like you have some policy and/or guidelines in mind when you say that the term "should usually be avoided in Wikipedia articles."  Could you direct us to them so that this discussion can be a more informed one?  There is also a sociological dimension here that I think you are overlooking.  When a term is known predominantly or at least prominently for its controversial nature isn't it precisely the job of an encyclopedia to make this known?  You could say that such logic transfers to a film maker like "Michael Moore," and I agree wholeheartedly, but the reason for not labeling him as "controversial" has everything to do with existing guidelines that apply specifically to living people.  I would also like to know how you suggest dealing with the fact that the OED recognized the term as a "depreciative" one.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The comparison between political neologisms and living people is totally off base" If that is off base, let's take another example: movies. Why doesn't Wikipedia label Fahrenheit 9/11 a "controversial film"? A search for "fahrenheit 9/11 + controversial" on Google gives over 230,000 results. The reason is simple: that could imply a negative viewpoint on the article. OED's use of the term "depreciative" is of course correct ("Fascist", "Nazi" etc. is also depreciative) but that is not a reason we should still use the vague term "controversial" here at WP. I'm not referring to any principal policy here at WP other than WP:NPOV. I've removed the term from the articles that you pointed out (New antisemitism and Christofascism) now as well. Btw it's completely wrong to say that Islamofascism is "known predominantly or at least prominently for its controversial nature". It's a very accurate term for radical Islamism and its ideologicial and practical similarities to fascism, and it has been used by reputable authors such as Paul Berman and Christopher Hitchens. /Slarre (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" is not a "negative viewpoint," it is a statement of social fact, when and if it accurately represents what is going on. For instance, there is nothing "negative" about stating accurately, that the novel The Last Temptation of Christ was steeped in controversy.   All it means is that something is contested and/or disputed.  You may claim that any one side of this controversy represents a POV, but the fact that controversy exists is itself not a POV.  I also think you fail to understand exactly how contested/disputed the term is in the English speaking world.  Ironically, your claim that it is "a very accurate term for radical Islamism" puts you square into one of the camps of this controversy.  In other words you are doing exactly what you claim to be fighting--biasing the entry with one particular POV.  What needs to be determined is if "controversy" accurately represents the circumstances surrounding this term, and not what your side of the dispute would like to claim (and yes Hitchens and Berman fall into that camp as well).  BTW, lest you accuse me of inserting the opposing POV, I would like to head you off at the pass on that one.  The opposing point of view would be claiming that the term is inaccurate and racist.  Stating that there is controversy over the term is not the opposing POV, it is the recognition that both POVs exist and are publicly in dispute.  On a side-note, Hitchens is one of the most contentious writers in the Western World and that is exactly how he makes his living.  Using him as a representation of anything mainstream is farcical--and I say that as someone who actually enjoys many of his musings.PelleSmith (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First I would like you to calm down and stop your harsh personal attacks! I am not biasing anything here, the one who wants to bias the articles is you! Yes, "controversy" does not always need to be a negative viewpoint, but it can often be misused to imply that. You are not answering my question also, who defines what is controversial and what isn't? Why shouldn't we call the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 controversial? Why aren't we calling communism a controversial ideology since it has murdered over 100 million people and has many many critics worldwide? There is no secret either that Wikipedia has a very deep left-wing bias on many subjects. Btw also interesting that you mention the The Last Temptation of Christ since that hasn't the word controversial in it. /Slarre (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fahrenheit 9/11 is clearly controversial, but what does that have to do with this entry? As you can see I'm not opposed to calling something controversial, you are.  BTW, do not conflate an actual ideology with a term used to describe it.  Are you asking if communism, as an ideological system in practice in the Soviet Union was controversial, or are you asking if the term is controversial?  I am not commenting here on Islamism, a recognized ideology, for instance, but on the English use of the neologism Islamofascism.  There is a clear distinction between a controversy over a term and controversy over political practice and I hope you understand it.PelleSmith (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the lead for the book The Last Temptation of Christ:
 * The Last Temptation of Christ (or The Last Temptation; Greek: Ο Τελευταίος Πειρασμός, O Teleftaíos Peirasmós) is a novel written by Nikos Kazantzakis, first published in 1951. It follows the life of Jesus Christ from his perspective. The novel has been the subject of a great deal of controversy due to its subject matter, and appears regularly on lists of banned books.
 * These are the first two sentences of the lead to the entry on the film version:
 * "The Last Temptation of Christ is a 1988 film directed by Martin Scorsese. It is a film adaptation of the controversial 1951 novel of the same name by Nikos Kazantzakis.
 * Again, here there is a statement of fact. The novel was controversial and the controversy is well documented.  We can (see below) document this controversy as well.  You have made no attempt to argue against the empirical validity of this descriptor, instead claiming falsely that "controversial" is somehow pejorative.  Please suggest to me how I can explain this more clearly?  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I note you still don't answer my questions above. /Slarre (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I have now. Please see immediately below your last post, and also my most recent post below.  No one "defines" something as controversial, but we may look into the extent of the controversy, which is what I've been trying to show you below.  It happens to be a prominent controversy, and you fall into one of its camps.  This is measurable as much as we can measure anything by looking at sources from the media.  Please ask any question you feel has been left unanswered.PelleSmith (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Basis for controversy?
Can we take a look at whether or not controversy surrounds this term without making any assessments of its accuracy or usefulness. In other words it should be possible to say whether or not it is known to be controversial predominantly. My take, from a brief Google search, is that it is highly controversial, which is exactly why Christopher Hitchens has bothered to write specifically in defense of its use. What a Google search turns up, other than the obvious links to FrontPageMag editorials and the like, is only controversy. A very quick glance will give you sources like these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Wow, here's an indictment of the term and description of the controversy coming from The American Conservative no less, and here is a good example of the controversy from The Nation. Now I'm suggesting that this makes a case for "controversial" or "contested" being pretty good descriptors of the term, based on social fact. Is there an empirical counterargument to make?PelleSmith (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can find a number of sources calling the Quran a controversial book too, but that doesn't mean we should use the term! You must understand that wikipedia is neutral not political propaganda! /Slarre (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why are you pushing your POV? Please familiarize yourself with the term "controversy."  You are completely misrepresenting it.  It is NOT A NEGATIVE TERM, nor does it represent a POV.  It is a statement of social fact.  It is measurable, and we can get a pretty good estimation on how mainstream the controversy is by the sources publishing about it and/or publishing opinions that fall into sides of a given controversy.  This controversy is very, very mainstream and no amount of bickering about it is going to erase that fact.  Again, I am not promoting either of the two prominant positions 1) that the term accurately represents an ideological movement or 2) that it inaccurately represents any such ideological movement.  I'm simply trying to show you that the dispute over this is clearly mainstream in the English speaking world.PelleSmith (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No you are wrong here! It is NOT a "statement of social fact" as you try to argue, because then you must exactly define what makes up a "controversy". You still don't answer any of the questions that I asked. /Slarre (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My dear friend. It is a simple matter of doing as I suggested above--looking up the term as it is understood in the English language.  There is no ambiguity here, though as you are a very good example of, the application of the term is sometimes contested.  Here is what the OED tells us, very plainly, and you wont find much argument in any other English language dictionary:
 * " 1. The action of disputing or contending one with another; dispute, debate, contention.   {dag}a. as to rights, claims, and the like. Obs."
 * We do not define controversies, they define themselves. We may ponder about how mainstream or how well known any given controversy is, but its existence is very easy to document.PelleSmith (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So in your opinion we should call everything that has been the subject to controversy (whoever decides what that is) as "controversial"? /Slarre (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is the point of investigating the prominence of said controversy. When you have proponents of the term defending it publicly its a pretty good bet that the term is rather prominently controversial, but when you add to this mainstream media outlets reporting on its controversy and adding op ed pieces that argue against the terms accuracy you get even closer to a sure thing.PelleSmith (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are trying to make your own personal opionions here as some sorts of fact. You must read and understand WP:NPOV completely. /Slarre (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have argued from an empirical and verifiable basis about the application of a term that is not inherently POV but a description of social fact (again see the dictionary). Please do not throw around inapplicable policies.  You have failed repeatedly to show how this violates NPOV.  Please explain the basis for this policy suggestion.  Meanwhile I will continue to add sources above.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing 'controversial' about 'Islamofascism' being a controversial theory. PelleSmith has argued minutely according to the rules of evidence, and I can see no indication of a comparable effort by those who contest the use of this adjective to describe the topic.  Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And that says a user who has been blocked several times for making POV edits and engaging in edit wars. Not very trustworthy.


 * Many people would argue that the term "Islamophobia" is even more controversial than "Islamofascism", yet some people only wanna use the term on one article. These kind of obvious double standards does not exactly help to clean Wikipedia's reputation as a strongly left-wing/Anti-American biased encyclopedia. /Slarre (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not use Other stuff exists, or in this case, "other stuff doesn't exist" as the basis for an argument. If "Islamophobia" is a notably controversial term then use what I did here as an example, go to the Islamophobia entry and show the editors there that serious public controversy over the term is notable and sourceable.  Noting controversy, when it exists, is not biased, hiding it is.  So if you are right then it shouldn't be a very hard exercise.  Best.PelleSmith (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Slarre For the record (and you may check my archive) I was blocked three times, of which two were valid, since the editor who blocked me the third time apologized for what was an egregious error of judgement, widely acknowledged, mistaking me for an edit-warrior. I have never been blocked for making POV edits. The first (naivity by a newby) and second blocks occurred because two notoriously partisan editors with no record of knowing the subjects they edit, continued to removed multiple-sourced material from front-ranking scholars I posted, because they did not like the content. I took this as vandalism, and when the technical breach was noted, accepted the ruling. So, keep to the text, and do not personalize issues. I happen, by the way, to have a professional and published knowledge of fascism Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamism and fascism
Perhaps it makes sense to change the title to Islam and fascism. Reason is, the connections between Islam and fascism are being discussed in rational, academic and intellectual circles by many scholars who shun the term Islamofascism, but who are discussing both similarities in the political theory of fascism and Islamism, and by scholars who are tracing the historical links, such as the one-channel radios Mussolini distributed (Arabic, in Northern Africa) and the activities of the Nazi party in shaping the politics of politial Islamists in Persia and the Arabic-speaking middle east. Clarity Trustworthy (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Clarity Trustworthy
 * Agree. Apparently any sources that do not specifically use the term islamofascism are not allowed in this article (at least according to PelleSmith), so that an Islam and fascism article could include much of relevance to Islam and Fascism that this article does not. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would argue (just from facts) that rather than Mussolini or Hitler shaping radical islmism, Britain France and America have been supporting Political islam basically sicne the beginning of the 20th century in order to combat pan-arabism. Rather than there being any link between fascist dictators and islamists (which is constantly repetated but not elaborated on further than the token support of a Palestinian leader or two) there is a strong link to Britain cementing islamism ever since it leant its support to the muslim brotherhood in Nasser's Egypt.86.140.121.103 (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the move of Israeli apartheid to Israel and the apartheid analogy, perhaps we have a precedent for a more productive path forward here: Islam and the fascism analogy. BYT (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What a mess
After looking into this term because of the above discussion I note that things here are bleak. This page is a total mess and I fear any attempt to edit it productively would only be met with stark opposition. While most people would agree with the idea that there are some similarities between classically "fascist" ideologies and the ideals of several Islamist groups, the term Islamofascism as Clarity mentions above, is "shunned" and/or disputed by virtually all scholars of religion, political theory, or anything else for that matter. As the sources I provided above show (and there are countless more from mainstream sources) the term is also highly contested at all other levels of public discourse. Amongst those who have used and/or do use the term publicly, only a fringe group of advocates (associated with a very specific space within the American conservative blogsphere) have a programmatic use of the term. It seems to me that this page exists more to promote the use of this term and to promote an uncritical connection between Islam and Fascism than anything else--which goes along with the programmatic use I mentioned just above, but does not reflect public discourse very well at all. Outside of this niche of conservative commentary, and a handful of examples in more mainstream arenas, we are met with 90% contestation and controversy, amongst both liberals and conservatives, Muslims and non-Muslims. This is not accurately reflected here at all. There is way too much of a hodgepodge of text here about virtually nothing, with huge block quotes to boot. This entry could be streamlined to a very short description of a controversial and little used political neologism. Again, as I write this I know trying to accomplish such an end would be virtually impossible given the atmosphere surrounding these types of entries--I mean look at how difficult it is to even accurately represent the very blatant and prominent controversy surrounding the term. So at that I'll say, good luck to anyone who tries to make a useful and accurate entry here.PelleSmith (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Support" Section
Nothing should exist in this section unless it explicitly shows support for the term "Islamofascism." As of now most of the section does not seem to deal with the neologism at all. Please either make the sources conform to the section, and the entry itself, or remove them.PelleSmith (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And please note that this is the page for the discussion of the word and the controversy surrounding its use. The proper page for analytical text from cited published sources is Neo-fascism_and_religion.--Cberlet (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should consider the name change suggested above and also rewording the article to make a clear distinction between the use of the term islamofascism to refer to Islam, and its use to refer to a particular strain of Islam, i.e. Islamism. It's a huge difference that is currently not made clear. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Berlet's comment above I've removed the quote you restored. It clearly does not belong in the current entry, and its inclusion is in breach of WP:NOR.  Perhaps not under the entry title you are promoting, but in the current entry this is clearly the case.PelleSmith (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And there is already a substantial amount of text on Neo-fascism_and_religion which was created as a compromise to stop multiple edit wars over the linking of any religious belief system and fascism. Please research the history of these pages before supporting a name change that would cause renewed edit-warring.--Cberlet (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought Islamism and fascism might be less controversial and objectionable to editors than Islamofascism but I'll try adding to Neo-fascism_and_religion. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Be aware that others may object to this quote on that page as well given its absurd length. If you really want the information it bares to stick in an entry I suggest condensing it to a nice couple of sentences of paraphrase, because its an eye sore.PelleSmith (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was no consensus for move. Jafeluv (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Islamofascism → Islam and the fascism analogy &mdash; Given the move of Israeli apartheid to Israel and the apartheid analogy, perhaps we have a precedent for a more productive path forward here. BYT (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved the page. BYT (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's an article on the Sun, you wouldnt rename it to "Bright light in the sky". Likewise this article talks about the term Islamofascism, hence the title. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Islam and the fascism analogy is a more neutral title for what is less a neologism and more a fringe theory. I support this title, and will undo Matt57's revert, which he has not discussed, as such. The Sun analogy is truly feeble; the ability to see complex analogies, and see past facile ones to the more relevant analogy is involved in most IQ tests. The concept of Islamofascism itself is based on just such a puerile analogy. Anarchangel (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose the page move, and believe it should stay at Islamofascism. This is in no way an endorsement of the ideology; in fact, I think the concept is utterly idiotic.  However, it is a widely-used term and should be discussed as such.  //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please define "widely used term".PelleSmith (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Term = period of time, + widely used = the evening, when everyone takes their WP:WEASEL for a walk. Right? Anarchangel (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move unless people are willing to make this entry about the neologism "islamofascism" and nothing else.This would mean most of the origins section (which has WP:SYNTH problems anyway) needs to be removed. I've been convinced that it is better to oppose the move and keep the entry about the neologism only.PelleSmith (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. Political correctness has no place in Wikipedia. Just use the most common term.  Grue   08:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please explain what you mean by "the most common term." This term is not "common" at all unless you read right wing blogs.  Should the entry only be about the recent neologism or about other analogies with fascism as well.  If the former then sure oppose, but the latter is WP:OR of the worst sort.  There is "no place in Wikipedia" for building up the notability of politicized neologisms through WP:SYNTH.PelleSmith (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about explaining how the title is political correctness? Or maybe which WP rule forbids it?

WP:POV is the reason why the title should have a neutral tone. I am open to suggestions for its improvement, but 'Islamofascism' is most definitely not neutral. Anyway, isn't political incorrectness all about protesting other people trying to impose their views on you? Are you not attempting to force your views on us? It's all very relative; I stop listening when people say PC. Unless it is me, saying, 'Patriotic Correctness'. There's a neologism for you, I made it up myself, to describe the spineless behaviour of Americans after the [9/11|attacks on the Pentagon]. Anarchangel (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is such a thing as "Islam and the fascism analogy", or if it exists it is a very marginal idea only supported by a fringe. I don't think comparing Islam (the religion) to fascism is valid and I also don't think that people who use the term "Islamofascism" mean to compare the religion to fascism. As such the current title and the proposed move are not even correct because they use terms implying a debate about a relation between Islam and fascism when none exists. Even the intro to the article talks about "specific Islamist movements" and not Islam. I think we have a serious disconnect here. Dr.K. logos 20:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose move. The reason an "Israeli apartheid" move could conceivably be justified (though I don't particularly care which of the apartheid page's titles are used, they're basically equivalent) is because it's an article about an allegation, not an argument about a noteworthy term. Islamofascism is first and foremost an article about a word (though obviously it covers a number of issues in order to fully explain the word's social context and the controversies and ideologies surrounding the debate of its usage), which is why it's in the categories Category:Political neologisms and Category:Pejorative terms for people. (Incidentally, I recommend that all opponents of the term Islamofascism having its own article ought to look through those two categories, since they illustrate how many other articles use this type of title for other groups &mdash; have a look through Nigger, Hillbilly, and the exactly analogously titled page Feminazi for starters. In general, when a simple catchphrase is available, Wikipedia vastly prefers to use that catchphrase rather than try to come up with its own, possibly more subjective, neo-title to describe the controversy. Just look at all the articles like Yellow Peril.
 * Besides, the new page title dignifies this type of argument too much. This isn't an "analogy", it's a slur. "Analogy" makes it sound like most of the users of this term are actually pointing out commonalities between fascism and Islam/ism, when it seems like in reality it's almost exclusively name-calling, with a few noteworthy exceptions. -Silence (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A tempting argument. However, I have to concede that the proponents of the term do in fact point out commonalities. A list of them. It just isn't a list of the salient features of Fascism. For example, the fourth through sixth points, inasmuch as they fit Islam at all, could be said of any of the shall we say, higher functioning 20th and 21st C nations. The fifth, part b, just doesn't fit Fascism well at all. Part c fits Fascism better, but not well.


 * I don't usually find OTHERSTUFF useful, but I think I will change my focus on this article from a title change to content change. Thank you for the list of articles to show treatment in similar cases. Anarchangel (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with this rationale as long as it is an entry about a word. In fact I agree wholeheartedly that it is a slur.   The entry is, at the present, however not simply about this term.  If we cut it down to that actual subject matter then it should be moved back.PelleSmith (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a regular editor here, so forgive my ignorance, but I honestly can't find any parts of this article which aren't relevant to a discussion of the term Islamofascism. Even the newly-created section "The analogy with Fascism" seems to be only discussing the rationale people have provided for using this term, and an etymological background on the usual meaning of "fascism". Could you point out the offending parts of the article to me? -Silence (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The section is not new. It is renamed and material added. Look at the page history and get back to me if you have any further questions. In fact, you have plenty of reading to do on this page also, if you are in the dark about reasons for moving. Anarchangel (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. BYT, you know better than this... this is and was completely wrong and outside process (as well as common sense). It's a controversial move of a term that has stood for years. If you had consensus -- firm, clear, consensus -- for the move, then fine. But you clearly do not. It's a notable term, for good or for ill. IronDuke 03:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The term is FRINGE. It purports to be a sociological assessment, and it is supported by no one in the historical community. It's not so notable that it can get around being a Flat Earth theory, with no consensus. This article can be nothing more than a report on a social phenomenon; the rise in popularity of the conspiracy-theory-level bunkum 'Islamofascism'. We show scholars' reports on it, and keep the comments of Flat Earthers to the barest minimum possible to eke out the quality of their opinions on the subject. Work with me, and we can make this a fair and balanced article. If you want a WP:SOAPBOX, you have come to the wrong place. Note that the duration it has been a half-baked conflation does not equal notability. The list of proponents' arguments badly needs work btw, it is PoV Hell. I just realized that they aren't quotes, and not properly cited anymore, so they need fixing pronto ) Anarchangel (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Solved. Turns out they were all taken from one article. Quoted the article, that he said it is citable, PoV gone. Anarchangel (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * oppose The article claims the term is a neologism, but this is clearly not the case as it appears in various dictionaries. If the term really was a neologism, the article should not exist. WP:FRINGE has to do with theories, not terms. Analogizing to fascism is not the most common reason writers use the term. Per Matt57 above, even if it was, the shorter title is be preferred. Kauffner (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not true. See Category:Neologisms, which is bustling with articles. A neologism "is a newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language"; that definition allows for dictionaries citing it, as long as it was still coined relatively recently. You may be thinking of "protologisms", which are indeed so sparklingly brand-new that they can never qualify for an article &mdash; unless they evolve into a highly noteworthy neologism (which is very rare). -Silence (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary", first line of WP:NEO. If a word is included in a general-purpose dictionary with no special notation, then one can reasonably conclude that it has entered mainstream use. Kauffner (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You quoted a Wikipedia policy page, which reflects the opinions of editors here; I quoted a Wikipedia article, neologism, which reflects the consensus of the world at large, not just Wikipedia. But in any case, the key word here is "generally". Most neologisms don't show up in dictionaries, but some do. Islamofascism happens to be one of those few. That's why Islamofascism is in Category:Political neologisms, as I noted above.
 * As a side-note, I'd point out that most words in the OED and its spinoffs are far from 'mainstream', by ordinary standards. ;) -Silence (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia categories and articles don't reflect "the consensus of the world at large," (??!!) just the view of the last editor who worked on them. Every word was a neologism when it was first created. The neologism category you link to has subcategories like, "Words coined in the 1920s", i.e. words that were neologisms at that time, but wouldn't be classified as such today. Kauffner (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If categories and articles merely reflected "the view of the last editor who worked on them", that would require that WP:NPOV and Wikipedia's other policies never be adhered to, rather than merely being adhered to imperfectly. The point you missed in my last comment is that the function of articles is to reflect global consensus (even if they fall short at times), whereas the function of Wikipedia: pages has nothing to do with expert opinion, reliable sources, or standards of accuracy and verifiability; it's (deliberately) just what people on Wikipedia happen to think, and we Wikipedians don't get to define 'neologism' for the world. It is therefore understandable that a looser definition (employing more rules of thumb and generalizations) would be used on our Wikipedia policy page, which is only a user guide, than on an actual article covering the same topic.
 * Now, with that clarified: Actually look at Category:Neologisms for a moment. It is not a wastebin of words that were ever neologisms in the past; it (and, by extension, 'Political neologisms') solely includes current neologisms. You won't find any words coined in the 1930s there, I don't believe. :) That's what the 'coined in' categories are for. -Silence (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - per BYT. I want to mention something aswell, adding "strongly" before your oppose doesn't give it any more weight. Izzedine  (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - All articles in WP should be neutral The topic name sounds as if Islam is related to fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notedgrant (talk • contribs) 08:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just because Israel and the apartheid analogy isn't called what it should be called (i.e. the most WP:COMMONNAME: Israeli apartheid), that doesn't mean we should succumb to the same logic here. Islamofascism is a perjorative neologism that should remain under that specific title to discuss the concept, who uses it and why. Changing the title to a WP:OR concoction in the name of neutrality might actually backfire. It will open the article up to all kinds of OR comparisons using texts that mention Islam and fascism in the same breath. I realize how offensive the term is to people who see no relationship between Islam and fascism (me among them), but believe me, it is much better to keep it here than it is to move it to what's being proposed.  T i a m u t talk 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thank you all for your most persuasive arguments, that showed me the error of my ways. Nauseating as it is to retain this name, I have been convinced that we cannot euphemize our way out of it being conflated with real historical nomenclature. Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Fascism
" === Historical scholars' definition of Fascism === After sixty years of academic study and debate, historical scholars of Fascism agree in the main on the following list of core attributes of the Fascist ideology. None of the qualities listed below are reflected in the list offered by the proponents of the term 'Islamofascism', above.

I truly am at a loss to understand why someone would delete this, even after your summary: "remove ... this is OR unless it is directly linked to the discussion of this neologism". Allow me to explain why I think it should be in the article. The word in question, and its proponents (this word also seems to have inexplicably provoked a reaction, marked as it is) purport to show similarities between 'Islam' and 'Fascism'. It seems to me to be instructive and relevant to discussion of the word to include what scholars believe to be the defining aspects of 'Fascism'. All of the information is painstakingly and durably summarized from top scholars on the subject, and cited as such. The preceding summary is empirically observable. Anarchangel (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology   and a corporatist economic ideology.
 * In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").
 * It is much defined by what it opposes, what scholars call the fascist negations - its opposition to individualism, rationalism, liberalism, conservatism and communism.
 * It is the belief that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.
 * It advocates the creation of a single-party state.
 * Its governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.
 * It opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept. "


 * Sound reasoning. Izzedine  (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OR means original research, which is exactly what that section is. It's about as clear a case of it as you can have, outside of posting your own personal interview with someone. Is the fascism section false? Not to my knowledge... but it is argumentative. It would make a fine article, I think, just not for Wikipedia. It's perfectly okay -- even encouraged -- to go out and find RS's that argue that Islamofascism is a lame term because the people it describes aren't actually like real-life fascists. What's not okay is to gin up our own little disquisition on fascism, which acts as a POV pointer to say, "See! This term sucks! It has nothing to do with fascism!" IronDuke  17:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your colloquialisms are a straw man which distract from the real, substantial argument. But first I think we should define our terms. What are the defining aspects of Islamofascism?


 * Hitchens defines it as a movement with "obvious points of comparison" to Fascism. He then defines these.
 * The people who, sorry, but really know what Fascism is, say the real Fascism is lots of things. Not a single one of these is the same as Hitchen's list.

And how, may I ask, did Hitchens miss the blindingly obvious one, that ::is:: on the list: "It comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology"? Because it makes immediately obvious that certain Islamic organizations do have something in common with Fascism: not fascism itself, but Authoritarianism. Occam's Razor then would trim Hitchen's assertions down to the next most plausible congruity, and gather consensus around this less far-reaching conclusion. Islamofascism is all about the big lie, repeated often enough. Throw enough dirt, and some of it will stick. Calling Islamic states authoritarian is the yawn heard round the world. No one cares. That doesn't suit controversy peddlers one bit. Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This may well be true but you have to find a reliable source that makes the argument for you. Saying that something is WP:OR does not mean it is not true, or that it hasn't been arrived at by a reliable source or two.  But you'll have to find those sources and use them.  That's all.  Until that time it can't be included unfortunately.PelleSmith (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You have strong opinions of the relationship between radical Islam and fascism, opinions which may well be right. Their being right is not the point. You may feel free to disagree with Hitchens (I often do), but you are not a reliable source. If you can find a way to publish an article in a refereed journal making the points you enumerate above, I'd be honored if you'd let me put the cite from your article into this one. But the section in question as it stands is pure OR. Your argument may well be "real" but is completely irrelevant here. IronDuke  01:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is your shadow play that is irrelevant, Duke. Unable or unwilling to address the extensive arguments I have listed above, you have taken up feigning showing the way to enlightenment to a poor benighted apprentice. The arguments remain; should you become willing to abandon your pose and rejoin the discussion you may of course do so. Anarchangel (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't given a reply to my points at all, and yet demand that I do so, after I have essentially crushed your own? You may feel that sneering at me is an effective way to wave your hands past this point, but I can assure you it isn't. IronDuke  15:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

POV tag
A cursory check of this article's history will reveal that it's a controversial one. We're currently in the process of addressing some major disagreements on what the article should be called. Use of the tag seemed appropriate, so I added it. BYT (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

An addition to the note above: Inasmuch as virtually the same core issue was resolved (after much toil, tears, and sweat) at Israeli apartheid, I'm going out on a limb to suggest that a very different standard is being advocated here because some editors working on this page may not be approaching the topic in accordance with WP:NPOV. P.S.: This is not an article about a school of philosophy or political theory. BYT (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest, via the POV-check tag, that other editors review this article for neutrality. BYT (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What are the POV concerns?LedRush (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't appear there are any live concerns.... I think the tag could be removed at this point. IronDuke  23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Four hours have gone by between the question and the suggestion to take down the tag. Give BYT or others a reasonable amount of time to respond at the very least.  We need discussion not edit wars.PelleSmith (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet far longer time has elasped since the tag was placed, with no indication of why the tag was placed, other than the article name, which has been settled. And I see no one here advocating edit wars. IronDuke  01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Soon after the tag went up it was deleted by someone who has yet to grace us with his rationale. BYT posted here whether you think his rationale makes sense or not.  A question was posed of BYT.  Let the dialogue happen.  If it doesn't take the tag down.PelleSmith (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okey-doke. IronDuke  02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)