Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic fascism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus, therefore keep. moink 08:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic fascism

[edit]

Delete or Merge into list of political ephithets. See Votes for Deletion-Islamofascism This seems to be just a way to bypass that vote. He also includes a picture of a beheading and does not relate it to fascism in any way.Yuber 06:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note 1: Image:Islamic fascism100.gif MUST BE DELETED alongside this article or it will become an orphan. Master Thief Garrett 06:39, 24 Apr 2005

(UTC)

  • I'm not going to vote because I'm obviously conflicted as the author but I think this is a litle heavy-handed in the circumstances. I don't know whether to finish writing the article. I have offered to have a dialog with Yuber but have not got a response. This article may cover some of the same ground as Islamofascism, but I assume much of that debate is whether it's a legitimate word or not. No such issue arises here. As for bypassing a vote, that is absolutely not my plan, I'll respect whatever is decided, I just wonder how a judgement can be formed 1) before the article is really seriously started, 2) without discussing it with me at all and 3) based on suspicions and enmities which have nothing to do with me. Walkingeagles 07:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • the point is NOT whether it is finished or not! The Vfd rules DON'T CARE!!!. OK? Got that? Sorry, but please understand. If someone is writing something that is not fitting for Wikipedia we do not wait for them to finish it as they will be "wasting their time" once we delete it. Master Thief Garrett 07:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • However, the real question is what are you presenting in Islamic fascism, and how is it different from Islamofascism? Please, if you can, explain to us how what you have presented is different from the existing page. If they are the same, then you should make your contributions to the other page, and this will become a redirect. If not, tell us why, and we may vote to keep it and let you finish your work. Master Thief Garrett 07:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Please don't bite the newbies. I think that User:Walkingeagles can be a valuable contributor; he just needs to learn his way around Wikipedia policy. I don't believe that shouting at him is the most productive way to accomplish this. Firebug 07:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Islamofascism, NOT list of political epithets. Meelar (talk) 06:01, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Before the VFD posting, I had redirected the article to List of political epithets. That was later reversed by the article's creator, User:Walkingeagles. I decided not to press the issue because the user is a newbie. Unfortunately, User:Klonimus has already attempted to recruit this user as a soldier in the edit war on the main Islamofascism article. In my opinion, this action is ill-advised. Firebug 06:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah hello. I am not even 10% into completing the article so I'm not sure why you want to even consider deleting it before then. I can write and even research pretty well and I think it's a good topic. Have I missed something? Walkingeagles 06:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Um, well, most of the articles we Vfd are at an unfinished state! What were are assessing is its viability for remaining here, and that is only in part based off its current content. Master Thief Garrett 06:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Islamofascism, NOT List of political epithets, as per Meelar. Master Thief Garrett 06:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep And allow for organic growth. He;s just started writing the article, let it develop . Supressing Islamofascism and Islamic fascism reeks of obscurantism and Political Correctness . Klonimus 07:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • nonono, how are those two articles different? Aren't they pseudonyms? If not then the article is very very valid, if not then it should be a redirect. Do you understand? I hope so. And, technically, Wikipedia isn't supposed to give a damn about being PC, we have all sorts of contentious content here. Master Thief Garrett 07:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • My understanding of what he is trying to do, is thay Islamic fascism is about Islamic Fascist's, I.e muslim units fighting for the Axis, Grand Mufti and friends etc. Islamofascism is about post 9/11 use of that term to describe totalitiarian islamism. The current edit wars and acrimony from the Pro Islamic side are just clouding things. Klonimus 07:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Islamofascism and redirect to it. ObsidianOrder 11:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Islamic Fascism and Islamofascism are distinct subjects deserving of separate articles. And please people - try to keep your comments coherent and to the point. --Centauri 12:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Please, someone, please WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT?!? Come on, no-one has yet clearly said the difference. Can you say it in like 50 words or less? Is it like what Klonimus said, or something different??? Master Thief Garrett 12:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Starting by calling Al Qaeda fascist, as a given, begs all the questions. The current article is hardly retrievable as encyclopedic, even though it is not otherwise without interest. Charles Matthews 13:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Childish, strongly PoV nonsense. We're an encyclopædia, not a soapbox for anti-Islamic propagandists. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete - very POV and somehow I am not sure if it could get NPOV DeirYassin 13:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Good for AntiMuslimopedia but should be deleted from Wikipedia. I mean, really, would we write articles with titles like X is a fuckhead (insert your own X) just because somebody calls them a fuckhead in a screed? There is no "Islamic fascism". Al Qaeda don't identify as fascists and they don't pursue anything like a fascist ideology. Perhaps the editors who are so intent on pushing this anti-Muslim bollocks should try finding out what they do believe in?Grace Note 13:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do whatever is done with Islamofascism, which looks like it will be a merge and redirect. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork of Islamofascism. - Mustafaa 21:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As I'm not voting, I'll take some liberty and comment on the above if that's OK. This is a sensitive area. Anything to do with religion, the Middle East etc. generally is. But my conern is the vitriolic approach of a few people who've commented above. I don't mind which way the vote goes, although I think it will end up being a good article incorporating many different perspectives and bringing together much information. But look at some of the words used above and ask whether insults and attacks actually achieve anything.

"fuckhead" "bollocks" "editors who are so intent on pushing this anti-Muslim bollocks" "childish" "soapbox for anti-Islamic propagandists" "WRITING IN CAPS" and IN BOLD, in asking and re-asking answered questions...

It seems to me that language like this will - whether intended to or not - exclude people who either don't like profanity or aren't as aggressive. I know I don't appreciate it, I may have asked for it by being bold enough to write an article on such a topic but I think anyone familiar with dispute resolution knows that screaming (or its virtual equiv.) and profanity and aggressive language generally only inflames disputes beyond what they originally were. Because of that, I believe comments of the kind I've listed are really unhelpful and unproductive. Just my opinion but I hope someone listens. Walkingeagles 17:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Just to let you know, writing in bold is the common procedure for distinguishing a vote (not that I'm excusing the other behavior). So I'm voting give this article the same treatment as Islamofascism whatever it may be. --Dmcdevit 20:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Centauri for once. Megan1967 03:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. As long as Walkingeagles and Centauri couldn't come up with a formal explanation about the difference between Islamofascism and Islamic Fascism, this article should definetly be merged with Islamofascism. The distinction, if it exists, must also be mentionned clearly at the top of this article. Otherwise, I will be voting for a Delete. --Svest 03:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete *SIGH* This is just an attempt by people who dont think that Islamofascism is an epiteth to express their political views. If Islamofascism survives the VfD then redirect to there, otherwise kill it. Dalf | Talk 07:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at the very least merge with Islamofascism. Bad enough that there's one article. Two is simply redundant - i.e. it covers exactly the same ground.--Lee Hunter 15:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

[edit]

Do not vote in this section!

  • I've just removed a section that's clearly inappropriate (consisting of claims about what U.S. white supremacists think of Islamic groups, and a long quotation from a journalist about one person who's Muslim and a fascist), together with a couple of other unsubstantiated claims. I've also reordered the text to flow more smoothly, and corrected a number of internal links. If the article could stay like this, or develop along these lines (though it's difficult to know what else there is to be said), it would at least be NPoV; I could even bring myself to vote for its retention. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I was kinda attached to the CNN reference because it was Sat night's show that got me thinking about the topic but you make a good argument and others have made too about it being separate so am persuaded to agree. The issue of Aryan nation lusting after al Qaeda might deserve another article although I can promise this much, it won't be me writing it! I am going to write about quieter subjects, haven't had one edit, revert, attack, bollock or fuckhead reference over at my Anti-Cruelty Society article. Much more my speed. Walkingeagles 11:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just so people are clear on what it being voted upon.

[edit]
  • Islamofascism Term used to describe totalitarian Islamism. (Survivied VfD)
  • Islamic fascism Term used to describe actual muslim fascists. I.e Bosnian SS Units, Grand Mufti, etc.

Klonimus 05:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of the claims about Islamofascism is that its article attempted to make connections between Islam and Fascism that some editors thought to be non factual. How ever no intelectually honest person denies that that Bosnian SS Units and the Grand Mufti existed. Hence the need for an article on Islamic Fascism.

I urge people to think about the encyclopedic nature of the topic of historical and current Islamist alliences with fascists. I the 'article in its current form needs serious work to address this issue, but that does not detract from its encyclopedic character and worthyness of inclusion in a great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 05:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    • Thank you. That is exactly what I was wanting to know three days ago. Finally someone has answered it clearly and concisely. I will reconsider my vote. Thank you! Master Thief Garrett 22:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Great job Klonimus. Does anybody else agree about the definitions? Walkingeagles, do you agree or disagree about that? I would agree about the definition given to Islamic fascism though I remember the picture of the Grand Mufti shinning on Islamofascism instead. Do we remember that Klonimus?
I totally disagree about the one defining Islamofascism. Does it mean that every totalitarian regime or doctrine would be considered fascist? Does it imply that the Soviet Union under Stalin would have been called Fascist Soviet Union??!
Whatever the answer is, why not than have the Islamofascism article renamed Totalitarian Islam instead? It is really confusing!
After all, from where have we got the definitions? --Svest 00:06, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
I would support renaming this article Totalitarian Islam or perhaps Totalitarianism in Islam would be a more neutral name. I just really really think that the word fascism and its deratives have been made so ambiguous through constant misuse that they are not at all encyclopedic unless the article is about the term. As this article is not about the term and is not really about fascism but rather several flavors of Totalitarianism some of which might contain some aspects which may relate to fascism. In any event a name change would increase its chances of surviving this VfD (I think). Dalf | Talk 07:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's quite confusing, Dalf. You voted delete on Americofascism. You haven't suggested to redirect it or rename it to American Fascism or something else as you are preaching for this article. If we follow your reasoning above talking about the misuse of the term fascism, we would assume that we will be ending having 100 plus articles of Islam. What would be a difference between Islamofascism and Totalitarian Islam? IMHO, this article is just a mirror of Islamofascism. Why not merge them? Or do you agree about the classification of klominus? Cheers and respect Svest 07:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up
You could be right. The truth is I think all of these articles are problematic. I voted delete on Americofascism because I did/do not think it is a real term. That and it was an obvious WP:POINT violation. Also note that I voted delete here as well ... I am just sort of thinking out loud down here in the comments. As to the confusion you mention, redirecting any article to a title with the word fascism is IMHO a bad idea. Other the word inflames emotions, and even when used correctly it is ambiguous because of the cultural and vernacular history associated with it. My comments here about moving things should be seen as saying "if there is appropriate content for any of these article I think a better title can be chosen". That goes for articles about criticism of or reactions to American foreign policy as well. All in all I still stand my my original statement that I made in my vote *SIGH* Dalf | Talk 09:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see an agreement with what you explained. I think, if someone wants to denote a fascist, he should simply use "fascist" and then if needed stipulate the religion or the nationality. The vast majority of Muslims are not fascists. Any religion, creed or philosophy can be perverted and twisted to meet extreme aims. Therefore, the term Islamic Fascism can be used as Italian Fascism, Spanish Fascism, American Facsisms, etc... As replied to Klonimus about his ignorant and personal definitions, I disagree totally about the term Islamofascism. The term 'Islamofascism' will need a book length theorisation by somebody who knows the subject inside out before it can be used in serious political discourse, rather than knockabout polemic.
For instance, Klonimus wants to reserve it for a specific strand of Wahabbism. Yet the parallel between reactionary Islam and fascism is to my mind best illustrated by the Iranian revolution. Those events met many of the classical criteria that differentiate fascism proper from other types of authoritarianism, such as military dictatorship or peronism. It was - and still is - a regime of crisis, built on the mass mobilisation of the middle class to crush an insurgent workers' movement. Yet it is, of course, 100% shiite.
But even though I'm picking Klonimus up on this point, I'm not claiming deep enough knowledge to pontificate with authority. Until a useful definition can be established - assuming that it can be - the term should be used with utmost care. Especially by jobbing hacks who lack any expert perspective. Cheers and respect Svest 13:43, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up

Wasn't this deleted a few days ago?

[edit]

I thought the vote for this article was already closed and it was to be deleted, why is it back again?Yuber 02:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing it with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamofascism. Or maybe not. Master Thief Garrett 03:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You really have to organise your X-rated fascism articles' database. Or maybe you need a wikivacation Yuber. Think about it! ;-) Svest 04:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
LOL, no, I distinctly remember this article being deleted. Check the edit history, there were no edits for 4 days. Is it possible that there was some furtive action to reinstate this article after deletion? Perhaps someone had relocated it to a subpage and then moved it here after it was deleted. After all, when you move a page, no history of it being moved is recorded. Yuber 06:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That may be right. I think that people are still busy with the other one; the one by one rule, I suppose. One of the reasons that there has been no edit for 4 days might be that this article is being forgotten on the basis that it is being clear that this one is just a mirror for Islamofascism. Cheers -Svest 06:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

It might be partly the result of the article (and Islamofascism having been blanked, and a "pendingdeletion" template added. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamic_fascism&oldid=1086069922"