Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian fascism

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). I am not bold enough to make this a redirect myself, but that shouldn't stop anyone else. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Christian fascism
This phrase gets me less than a thousand Google hits. The article provides no evidence of notable usage, certainly not on the scale of major commentators. Delete as attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point (again) and as a pointless fork of Christofascism (see Votes for deletion/Christofascism). Meelar (talk) 23:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Article is well-written and it is a notable term. Islamic fascism was kept after it's VfD. I see no reason why THAT article should be allowed to exist while this article is deleted. It smells of hypocrisy. Stancel 23:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It isn't our business as WP editors to determine if this exists, if it's good for the world, etc. However, at 447 Google hits, many of which reference a single speech, it doesn't seem to be in widespread use enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  00:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Fascism (epithet). Gazpacho 00:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If I had known about Fascism (epithet) when I voted on Islamofascism, I probably would have opted to merge it as well. Why do we have both Islamofascism and Islamic fascism? VfD consensus doesn't keep obvious duplicates from being merged. Gazpacho 00:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV nonsense and . There might be an article to cover Christians who were fascists such as Josef Tiso a priest who ruled Slovakia between 1939-1945 and other such people, it might have a point. However, this article is currently a neologism whose retention would discredit Wikipedia. Redirect to Clerical fascism. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - term gets 3400 google hits - and they ain't talkin' about Tito. I voted to keep Islamofascism (and redirect Judeofascism to Zionism) based on similar criteria. -- BD Abram son thi m k 02:03, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term gets 969 hits, not 3400. See my comments at Votes for deletion/Christofascism. Mackensen (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 7,080 for "Christian fascism" -wikipedia. -- BD Abram son thi m k 03:36, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article as it stands has improved marginally although it is still worthy of deletion. The first paragraph referring to fundamentalism and citing Rich Lang, a Seattle pastor who is not notable enough in its own right to make Wikipedia is irrelevant to the rest of the article and any credible attempt to address the topic. I will repeat that a worthwhile article on this topic will address people like Francisco Franco and Tiso (not Tito). It should address the resistance to fascism and Nazism by Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer as well in order to avoid being POV. Capitalistroadster 03:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Terms "Christian fascism", "Christian fascists". Christofascism, etc, seem to be in reasonably common use.  A quick google news search shows that the term turns up in National Review, there's an article by a history professor at Tufts, Gary Leupp, who is a self-declared libertarian, published by Counterpunch.  He in turn points to statements by commentators as diverse as Lew Rockwell, the RCP, and a Methodist minister. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this nonsense and create a redirect to Fascism (epithet). There isn't anything legitimate here that isn't covered there. Sorry, the belief by nutcases that the divine will was on their side does not a link between Christianity and fascism make. A Man In Black 03:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, normally I would vote delete on this but I feel that in order to have some balance on Wikipedia, we either keep both Islamic fascism or delete both. Megan1967 04:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a specious argument. If an argument is clearly nonsense, there's no need to keep it just because we kept the opposite argument. In any case, this article, Islamofascism, and Islamic fascism are all in dire need of deletion and redirection to Fascism (epithet), but this VfD is only about Christian fascism. A Man In Black 04:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, but treading dangerously close to POV. May need some work, but I must reluctantly admit to there being a need for an article on the term, whether or not there is a reality behind it. (As an aside, I think there's more connection between fascism and Christianity than this article wants to let on, but apart from pointing out the obvious connection between the Roman Catholic Church and Mussolini and Franco I don't think such things fit into this article.) Haikupoet 04:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Much of the content seems to rather doubtful. Anything that is salvagable should be merged into Clerical fascism and Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities. Martg76 08:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect per Gazpacho or Capitalistroadster. Radiant_* 09:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a valid term that has seen press usage and therefore deserves coverage. --Sanguinus 11:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV nonsense. Stereotek 15:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep-PlasmaDragon 18:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN Islamofascism and Islamic Fascism were kept, people can stop disrupting wikipedia now. Klonimus 02:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not disrupting. Stancel 19:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I still don't see a difference between Islamofascism and Islamic Fascism. I believe Islamic fascism is a shiny NN of Islamofascism and not as you put it up there. I hope someday people would vote with good faith. Svest 19:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * Delete. Quale 06:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A redirect to Dominionism is tempting but probably inaccurate. I've asked Cberlet to comment on this, since he seems to know something about the topic. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 14:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Curiously, its a real concept, altho not discussed whatsoever in this ridiculous article. Redirect to Clerical fascism. See also Falange and Integralism. Sam Spade 14:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic subject and could be useful as a link target for text on people who's critics accuse of being guilty of such a position.--Gmaxwell 19:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopedic. It needs enhancement. Svest 19:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to new article Neofascism and religion. I am on the road and away from the library where I work, but here are some thoughts. I just had an article related to this subject published in a journal, but the popular version is at: http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/clerical-911.html There are multiple problems in constructing the issues in an NPOV way.
 * 1) Most people have no clue what a legitimate definition of neofascism really is.
 * 2) Even among experts there are disagreements over the definition.
 * 3) Some folks are calling Islamic and Christian and Jewish fundamentalists "fascists" and it really is just a hyperbolic jingoistic epithet.
 * 4) Some folks are denying there are any strains of neofascism in modern religious movements and act as apologists when there are serious scholars who have raised the issue in a cautious and appropriate way.
 * 5) At Wikipedia we need to report on the last two points of view (hyperbolic Pro v. apologia Con), and then try to highlight the serious scholarship.
 * Ideally, the Islamofascism page and the Christian fascism page (which are both pretty badly written and probably pointless to try to fix) would be redirected to the larger discussion at Neofascism and religion.
 * This new page would start from the paragraph at Clerical fascism: "Some scholars consider certain contemporary movements to be forms of clerical fascism, including Christian Identity and possibly Christian Reconstructionism in the United States; some militant forms of politicized Islamic fundamentalism; and militant Hindu nationalism in India (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Bharatiya Janata Party)." I think keeping the page Clerical fascism for discussions of the European interwar movements makes more sense than expanding it to include neofascist movements...and we can move the appropriate book cites over.
 * The idea here is to avoid pages that are essentially battles between the hyperbolic and the apologia. --Cberlet 19:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea here is to avoid pages that are essentially battles between the hyperbolic and the apologia. --Cberlet 19:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Redirect to either Fascism (epithet) or to Clerical fascism. The same should be done to Islamofascism. --Lee Hunter 21:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Neofascism and religion. I don't fully subscribe to Cberlet's explanation, but I'm far from discarding it either. Ultimately, it serves as a feasible model to merge other problematic articles into, but I would like it to be consistent across the board. El_C 22:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Use of fascism as an epithet. Do the same with Islamofascism and stop this nonsense. Neofascism and religion? Come off it, El C. It's just mudslingers using the same old insult. Nothing neo about it.Grace Note 02:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh! I will do no such thing! At any rate, I argued all along that it's a term (and I have argued all along that there is grounds to write about the fascistic tendencies thereof; if it can conform to NOR/NPOV, obviously - but I'm willing to give it a chance). When I voted redirect to List of political epithets on Christofascism and Islamofascism and Judeofascism my chief concern was the O. Philologically crude? Perhaps. But not inconsistent. El_C 03:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep until this whole fascism epithet thing can be solved by a redirect to fascism as an epithet.Yuber(talk) 15:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fascism (epithet). Tomer TALK  17:32, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Fascism (epithet) seems like a good idea. The current article has a single author, who has a point to make. If it is kept, someone should really reformat this article. It's just a single boring block of text. It should also include a bit more than just a few quotes, and more on fascism (less on Hitler). -- Ec5618 15:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


 * MERGE The article should be redirected and absorbed into Neofascism and religion. Weirdoactor 13:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved the following argument from my post on the discussion page, with minor changes/updates:


 * 1) The term gets a huge number of search engine hits (see: link to search for term "Christian Fascists" as an exact match)


 * 2) The Christian Right Wing has fascist elements (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan, the Westboro Baptist Church, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson). These are not fascists in the epithet use of the word; one definition of fascist is "a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views". As fascism is "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism" and more the point of this discussion, “a political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government”, and the examples mentioned before are fascists by that definition (as judged by their actions and statements), and all are Christians, the term is legitimate, and not solely an epithet.


 * 3) Epithet vs. Legitimate Term: One example of a word that is both legitimate and an epithet: liberal. Conservatives use this word as an epithet to inspire their base. Should we delete the liberal article as well? How about redneck, which is also both a legitimate term (often used by those it describes in a positive way) and an epithet? And let us not forget nigger, which possibly the gravest insult a white person can call a black person…but a word used over and over again in rap music, performed mostly by blacks. It’s both a legitimate term, and an epithet; should we delete that article as well?


 * 4) If the term is legitimate, and not solely an epithet, the article is legitimate. If the article is legitimate, it should not be deleted. At most, it might be redirected/absorbed into Neofascism and religion, Neo-Fascism or Clerical Fascism (or all three), a move I would agree with more than a pure deletion. Weirdoactor 13:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So now Weirdo has switching from arguing that this article should stay because he thinks I'm religious to that it should stay because there are insecure people out there to call people like Pat Robertson fascists although, like has been made clear earlier, they are clearly not fascists. Itake 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Let's be clear and honest, Itake: it is YOU who have switched arguments, from "POV" to "the term is misleading". I've never made the argument that the article should stay because a) I think you are religious (your obvious bias is my issue, not your religion), or b) "insecure people out there to call people like Pat Robertson fascists" (sic) (this is, ironically, a POV, yours to be exact, and it merely proves my point of bias). My argument for keeping the article is very clearly stated above. Should you need assistance understanding my argument, feel free to ask me specific questions regarding the points I've made, or answer those points. And please refrain from freestyle interpretation of my statements to fit your agenda. Thanks! Weirdoactor 18:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Honesty? I don't think non-religious people like you know the meaning of that term. Did I ever say the sole reason for its deletion was that the term is misleading? No, I didn't think so either. You, you have no points. Its just one long rant on that the article should stay because some people use the term "Christian fascist" to describe people like Pat Robertson. Itake 19:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're just going to be insulting and dishonest to make your points; I won't waste my time trying to have a civilized discussion with you. If you delete the page, I'll create a new Christian fascism page, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Have a nice day! Weirdoactor 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to get a life...Itake 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you do! I hope you get one. You'll get bored with stalking me me before I get bored with counter-stalking you; so you'll need a hobby. May I suggest treating your Borderline personality disorder, or perhaps apostasy? Weirdoactor 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, the entire page is one big POV. Itake 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG DELETE, this is just a tit-for-tat response to islamofascism see here: link to google images of salutes BTW I'm not christian
 * You're making an argument for the deletion of Christian fascism, not Islamofascism. Your cookie-cutter approach to that argument combined with your ability to Google images isn't terribly convincing. Look, I can Google too: link to google images of Christian Fascists; link to even MORE google images to even more Christian Fascists Weirdoactor 13:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP. These sorts of wackos need a page of their own, lest they get mixed into movements like the Christian right. CyberAnth 17:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEPThis topic gets more relevant by the day.
 * STRONG KEEP Some sort of redirect would be alright, as long as the phrase "Christian fascism" is intact. This moniker has been used in some media. The phrase is accurate in describing certain dominionists, reconstructionists, and others deeply entrenched in the far religious right.