Talk:Islamofascism

This article survived a vote for deletion. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (Apr 13 2005 to May 6 2005):

Meeting of Islamists and fascists during WWII

Wahhabism

Judgemental language

Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01#Aryan Nation material

SS photo

Definition of fascism

Proposed merger with Fascist (epithet)

how did this page get reduced to a collection if quotes?

Early history of this page

Look to the talk pages Talk:Slogan 'Islamofascism' and Talk:List of political epithets for much discussion of this text. --- Charles Stewart 18:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Islamist VfD didn't work so they gutted it?

And apparently they continue to do so - BrandonYusufToropov being just one example of those who stand guard removing ANY substantive edits on the matter. Factually, the term IS used to describe Islamic regimes which ignore human rights, oppress their people, and generally behave in a Fascist manner. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Hezbollah are great examples. ElKabong

• Yes, that is the correct motorcycle. Klonimus 08:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

In case you missed the discussion, the identification of those regimes with the actual political-science term Fascist has been a matter of some dispute hereabouts recently. Whether you like the regimes or not is not the issue. As for "generally behaving in a Fascist manner ..." -- this tone, which you've imparted to the article, may be perceived as reckless and less than objective. BrandonYusufToropov 15:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

No, didn't miss the discussion, but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that the term itself is used often in connection with those nations/organizations. ElKabong

Yes, Syria is an Islamic regime, you have officially proven you don't know anything about what you're talking about.Yuber 15:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Syria an Islamic regime? In what way? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. Syria has probably the most secular regime in the Middle East, due to the regime being controlled by a slightly heretical sect of Islam that is a minority in Syria.Yuber 17:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Would other editors pls review ElKabong's changes

Please discuss and/or pick the version that seems least POV.... thanks BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the one that I last edited; the intervening edits either reverted my attempt to make the summary read better, or added back in a lot of PoV stuff. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

My so-called "changes" were the reversion of losers like you GUTTING THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. If you have SUBSTANTIVE changes to make, fine, but don't wholesale delete things because you're mad your attempted VfD failed. ElKabong

Re: "Losers like you." Your work today is not biased or in any way a personal attack? Just checking. BrandonYusufToropov 15:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to define our terms, to a professional editor a "substantive edit" is a technical term which refers to changes to the structure and/or content of a document. This might include changing headings and heading levels, changing the point of view, revising conclusions, questioning the writer's facts or assumptions and generally adding and removing content. In short, removing large chunks of nonsense would very much qualify as a "substantive edit".--Lee Hunter 17:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

How many reverts of the page is that for ElKabong?

I have lost count. BrandonYusufToropov 15:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care. How many is it for you, for that matter? A concerted campaign to gut an article is VANDALISM and so the three-reversions rule does not apply.ElKabong

Two. I'm disengaging from this discussion for a while in the hope that you will regain your composure. See you later. BrandonYusufToropov 16:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

ElKabong broke the 3RR, and has been blocked for twenty-four hours. Yuber is up to three reverts. The "vandalism" defence doesn't hold in this case on either side, and I'm not playing favourites. If ElKabong comes back and starts the same behaviour, you should ask for page protection rather than simply reverting his edits (I'd normally say that you should reason with him, but the exchanges above demonstrate that that's not really a practicable option). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page. This revert war is unseemly, and since one participant is happy to use multiple IPs to override 3RR blockage, I don't see much choice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You should instead revert it to the state it was in before the whole thing started - before Grace Note vandalized the page in the first place.KaintheScion

Is "Islamofascism" a conspiracy theory?

Since the term seems rather dubious to me I am wonder if it could accurately be labeled a "conspiracy theory"? As a separate question, why does the article only mention the "epithet" version of the term, I would have thought this article would be about politics or allegations of fascism. If this article's scope is only definining usages of the term itself then shouldn't it be transwikified to wikitionary? zen master T 01:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why not. BrandonYusufToropov 02:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not know if it can be labeled a theory, but I am still worried about the uses of this word. I do not know who uses it now, though mainly I just see blogs and news reports (Nov-Dec 2001). I will try to check in the word usage and see if it is still used. But, as for the transwiki, I do not know if it can be done. Zscout370 (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The word is in use all over the place. Not that it matters; with the topic locked and neutered, Wikipedia is worse than useless in this regard. And all to placate a swarm of POV-pushers who were angry that they lost a VfD vote and decided that if they couldn't eliminate it entirely, they'd make the article useless. The saddest part is that the Admins went along with it - though that's not surprising since the first Admin to abuse his authority in here, Mel Etitis, is one of the main "contributors" to the discussion and has proven he has no objectivity at all on the matter. KaintheScion

So says a user that just registered today, and already has knowledge of the history of the vote and the topic over the past few weeks. I'm not saying that you're a sockpuppet, Kainthescion, but your comment seems strange for a newcomer.Yuber 03:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you've never heard of a "lurker" before, Yuber. Or maybe you're just incredibly biased on this topic. Whoops! A quick look through your talk page reveals that you're INCREDIBLY biased and shouldn't be let within 1000 feet of this topic. KaintheScion

Comments about someone vandalizing my userpage, comments about having a link on an article, and comments about me categorizing Irgun as a zionist terrorist organization reveal me to be incredibly biased? Well, you're a strange lurker, you seem to have lurked this discussion and series of articles for a long time with no contribution.Yuber 04:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on that one. I do not know much about this topic myself, but I know I am walking into a battle that has been ever raging. I do not know what else I can bring into the article, since I mainly got dragged into this page (and others that deal with Arab topics) due to vandalism. I just mainly want to know if a link to this article from a page called Islamist Terrorism would be considered OK or POV pushing (as some users have told me). Zscout370 (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Such a link would be a tool for instilling POV and would be totally inappropriate. BrandonYusufToropov 11:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say that a link to this page from the Islamist Terrorism page would be completely OK; they ARE related topics, even if this one has been shredded to bits by those who are mad that they couldn't get it completely deleted. Maybe THAT can get sorted out sometime soon. The old page actually had valuable information on it, while the vandalized one that's been locked in by an Admin on a power trip is almost worse than useless. KaintheScion

It isn't a conspiracy theory since it isn't a theory; it's an epithet that some editors here have turned into an original research "theory." El_C 03:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's neither a theory NOR an epithet, but a real term, admittedly recently coined, used to describe a very real political agenda. KaintheScion

It isn't a term unless it can be shown that the critical scholarship considers it to be one, rather than an epithet used to describe (and I won't comment on their description) a phenomenon (the fascistic tendency in Islam) depicted through (or within) more objetctively-phrased terms, concepts, constructs, etc. (theories, models, etc.). Until if and/or when this is demonstrated, my above statement stands-o. El_C 04:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: it's not a "term" until some ivory-tower egghead puts it into a paper and gets it printed in a scholarly journal or into some book off the printing press? You're certifiably bonkers if that's your justification for claiming the term doesn't exist.KaintheScion

Don't troll, and don't play with semantics. El_C 04:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again, KaintheScion, can you describe this fascistic agenda that is Islamofascism? I wouldn't recommend taking a dictionary.com definition and twisting it around as ObsidianOrder did.Yuber 04:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's a polical agenda why doesn't the article discuss politics at all really? Is "Islamofascism" anything in addition to being an "epithet"? Seems like this "epithet" describes an allegedly "fascist" political theory? Is Wikipedia really in the business of having articles on epithets like this? I bet the fuck article is more informative. zen master T 04:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

An epithet is: a defamatory or abusive word or phrase; "sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me" or a descriptive word or phrase [1]. To me, I do not know if Islamofacism is a word. This is a posting I have read about this word (phrase seems to be the keyword on Google). As mentioned earlier, it is not used by our government, but mainly by political pundits (O'Reilly, Limbaugh). I have no clue on how to make it POV, since most of the sites I am finding now that deal with this issue are stinking blogs. Zscout370 (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

By your definition there, the terms liberal and neoconservative are both epithets. But they are also real terms. What is disgusting is not the fact that this page has entries on the word's use as an epithet, but that there are actually people here deliberately trying to ensure that this page does NOT discuss the rest of the term, its meaning, how and why it is used, and what it really represents. What is DOUBLY disgusting is the fact that they've gotten away with this abuse courtesy of admins who are actively trying to enforce precisely that POV.KaintheScion

You can aim for a better straw man — not all words that, in that specific sense, are (sometime) employed as epithets, are limited to that use alone. El_C 04:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Technically, this can be called a political epihet. From the main article on political epithets: "Many political epithets are obtained by joining an otherwise neutral description of a political movement or group with a pejorative term questioning the groups's sanity or motives, or associating the group with hated political movements or leaders of the past." It qualifies as that since a word that is a neutral description of a group (Islam, the religion) is combined with a word that is questioning the groups motives and the term is associated with groups past that are hated (fascism, the political idiology of Hiter and Mussolini). Though all we have is basic quotes on when the term is used, but we should give more background detail into the word, such as, who started it, where it was first published, if this word is used now and mention on why this word is offensive to the Muslim population. Zscout370 (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Slippery slope. We tried that. The article quickly turned into a food fight. "Intelligent people believe X about the topic, whereas idiots, on the other hand, believe Y." BrandonYusufToropov 11:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it was just fine up until your VfD attempt failed and you, Grace Note, and Yuber started systematically removing all content of value from the article.KaintheScion

You seem to know an awful lot about this conflict, Kain. How is that? I mean, you're a brand new user, right? BrandonYusufToropov 17:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

When page is unprotected...

Can someone add the {cleanup} header to this article, in my opinion it needs it badly. Also, I think the {disputed} header is more appropriate than the {npov} header as there is a dispute over whether excluding definitions of this term that aren't "epithet" related is the right thing to do. {TotallyDisputed} could work too but first and foremost the factual accuracy of this article is disputed (since facts are systematically being excluded). zen master T 21:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that it's in need of cleanup as such. It's perfectly readable. There are no facts being excluded. The proponents of the original research into Islamofascism as a concept have been asked to source their contentions and have provided nothing. Grace Note 23:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Grace Note is the user who touched this whole thing off by vandalizing the article in the first place. REFERENCE. His/her contribution to any discussion of this topic ought to be deemed worse than meaningless.KaintheScion

• All he did there was revert to the last version by Jayjg, maybe you should go harass him.Yuber^(talk) 23:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• BULLSHIT, Yuber, and you're really one to talk. From the headers of the edits:

Revision as of 04:08, 3 May 2005

Fredwlerr (Talk | contribs)

restore last good version

Revision as of 04:12, 3 May 2005

Grace Note (Talk | contribs)

rv to Jayjg

Grace Note wasn't "restoring" anything; he/she was engaging in vandalism. Go read the rules: wholesale content deletion, without a consensus on the Discussion page (and there isn't one) is vandalismKaintheScion

You seem to know a lot about the "rules" for a new editor. It's only a pity you didn't read the rules on civility. Grace Note 00:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This KaintheScion guy is starting to sound more and more like an LGFer. He edits the Islamofascism and Rachel Corrie articles on a regular basis and keeps calling people Islamists. But I'll assume good faith :).00:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Yuber^(talk)

My problem with this word, and based on talks with a few users on the Islamist Terrorism is that there is no key definition of this word. People use fascist all of the time to describe activity that is being restricted or a situation is being tightly controled and enforced. As stated above, it is a political epithet since it combines a term that is associated with past evils and with a term that is normally used to describe a group. I do not disagree that this term is used, but mainly, as I also said, the term is being used in blogs. So what we (the people here) should decide is what to include in here. The "defintion" of this term is fine, though we should give a small background on it (who first said it, when it was first said, where it was said, where it is used now, different spellings, why the term was even coined). The quotes can be kept, since it is showing the users on how the term is used. Zscout370 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

No one has any problem with properly sourced material along those lines, given that the article survived VfD. What is problematic is unsourced speculation about a nonexistent political movement. There's no dispute that it is used, and I suppose there's some case for suggesting that it's notable that rightwingers abuse their enemies by calling them fascists (when they are not accusing them of being communists, of course), although I tend to agree with those who believe that that discussion belongs on a page about "fascist" as an epithet. The article you are suggesting would still not be about "Islamofascism", which doesn't exist, but about the use of the word "islamofascism" to label a wide variety of Muslims. Grace Note 01:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

However, will blogs be consdiered properly sourced material? Zscout370 (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

They are only sources for what they themselves have said. Grace Note 02:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I see too much logic on what is commented by all of you above, with a single exception -that of KaintheScion because of the fact that he/she is still not being clear about his/her identity. People who started this article are the same who call people with whom they disagree Islamists. I still remember Klominus claiming a win over Islamists (0-4). I still remember another one saying do not let islamists hijack WP, etc... These are hate messages and are a proof that you can call your opponent anything you want!. This shows that those people got an agenda behind! There is no islamists no x-ists, there are only WPdians.

I still believe that this term exists along with Christian fascism and American fascism. I still believe that it is an epithet (being myself who added the link to LeeHunter article called Fascist (epithet) on top of the article). And I still believe that all those me-you-fascism articles SHOULD be included together in LeeHunter article.

Between, I would not have an objection citing Hitchens in the article as being the one who coined and invented this term. Cheers and respect from Svest 01:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Hitchens didn't coin it. This is part of the problem. It suits the agenda of the POV pushers to suggest that Hitchens might have coined it and that it represents something cogent, but he did not. At first, he simply called the 9/11 terrorists "fascists". Grace Note 02:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The Hitchen's claim is what I see in the blogs. From doing a Google search, some people claim Michael Savage coined it. Plus, the idea Svest gave is not a bad idea at all. Zscout370 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I had a look at the first article of Hitchens after 9/11 arguing against Husseini and Chomsky. You are right GraceNote; he coined nothing. However, if someone else coined it than why not mention it. Again, I do believe that it is an epithet and future readers would believe so, whatever we include abour who coined it or not.

For me, that is not the story. My point is that, -as explained loudly here as well as in Americofascim and Islamic fascism, I am against hypocrisy of some WPians. They apply their POV which is based on Anti-muslim agendas. They think that this is a podium for their hate comments; no wonder they created another one called Islamic fascism and voted an extreme delete for both articles they feel bothered with. If they can't agree this is an epithet than there would no concensus about this article.

For me, the ideal scenario for this article would be to merge it with other x-fascisms into Fascist (epithet) of LeeHunter. If not, than the referal on top of this article to the epithet article SHOULD REMAIN and than there would be no big deal saying that the term is used mainly in blogs by X people and that it was coined by Y. Cheers and respect from Svest 03:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Oh look, here goes Yuber trying the usual tactic - try to associate your opponent with someone you don't like. And then a bunch of POV pushers show up going "hate speech, hate speech." This looks either like an LGF or Indymedia board now. The fact that a user named "Fayssal" is trying to hide this by signing as "Svest" is just icing on the cake. Fayssal, you obviously have a POV you're trying to push here rather than being interested in seeing a vandalized article put right.KaintheScion

Look my friend. I am not hiding anything since you know everything. There is no magic about that I suppose. I didn't kill Caligula. I've been signing as Svest since my first day or if we can put it straight, since the day you got to know me. I think my only POV is about other people's POV. They are swearing that Islamofascim exists and not American fascism. If you are familiar with all the discussions we have had, than you would understand what I am not icing on the cake.

We are not here to attack eachother. I gave facts that people are attacking others personally as this is documented. I don't care if someone is a new or an old user as long as she/he is welcomed and free to change accounts and participate in a civilized and responsible way. The thing is that I rarely enter in those kind of discussions. I try to stick to the subject that it is the article. But since you insist in knowing about my feedback than I'd tell you that I don't care who you are but I may care about what you say and contribute. People are concerned about you because you are new and you know a lot of things and if someone looks at your contributions he may question your agenda (Saudi Arabia, Edward Said and this article). If you are not happy with what I am saying, please let me know and explain better your concerns. Cheers and respect from Svest 06:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

From what I notice here is that everything is boiling down to is attacks against users, not the issues of this page. The next section below us is a good start on how to tackle the various issues of this article, but the personal attacks are getting us nowhere. If you guys have some really serious issues between each other, then I would suggest try to get some outside help on Wikipedia, like an abritation/intervention. Until then, let's focus on what the topic at hand: trying to make this article NPOV as much as possible. Zscout370 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Lists of undisputed, disputed and rejected information

Here's an experiment which hopefully will clarify what, if anything, could be added to this article without sparking a revert war. To this end I've created three subheads here: undisputed, disputed and rejected. If there's some factual, sourced information that you think can be added to the article without argument put it in the "undisputed" section. If there's something that should be in the article but there is controversy over how it should be worded or whether there should be some qualification, put it in disputed. If it's something that you think is flat out unacceptable and which you personally would automatically revert, put it in "rejected". You can also demote information, for example from undisputed to disputed or even to rejected, but please don't move anything back up. In other words, if someone says they're going to dispute it then it belongs in the "disputed" section etc The object here is not to argue whether anything is particularly right or wrong, just to see get a feel for how we could move forward with an unlocked article.

Undisputed

• the word is a neologism
• it is used mainly by right wing commentators (columnists and bloggers) in the US.

Disputed

• Whether or not the term is "solely" an epithet.
• Information into the actual definition and use of the term link
  • Please, be gentle signing your entries and comments. An anonymous or a registered user, just sign please! Cheers from Svest 19:58, May 10, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ™}

I note that the supplied link is to a writer who apparently believes that Islam is incompatible with democracy and that any system that is not democratic is fascist. This is an extraordinary viewpoint and would be rejected by at least myself and probably others. --Lee Hunter 20:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Faithfreedom.org is heavilly anti-Arab. The host of the website claim Muhammad is a pedophile, murderer and other things. Zscout370 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you're engaging in "shooting the messenger." Whether or not YOU claim the site is "anti-Arab", the fact remains that the site is one of those that uses the term, and that the article clearly shows that the term is not merely an epithet.

Second, your attack on the "claims" of the group is suspect, because each of those views of Mohammed can be (and is) borne up by Koranic quotations. That is a subject of controversy that has no bearing on the other part of this discussion.

Third, while Wikipedia is NPOV, there is a prior requirement that material in an encyclopedia needs to be FACTUAL. Sins of omission are just as POV as sins of untruthfulness or sins of poor wording. Therefore, I will INSIST that this material MUST be included, otherwise the article is INCOMPLETE. ElKabong

Again -- you appear to have a deep, impassioned familiarity with this debate. How is this possible? Aren't you a brand-new user? Why didn't you want to answer me the last time I asked you this? BrandonYusufToropov 19:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Looking up the page, it appears you asked KaintheScion this question and not me. As for me, the situation isn't hard to understand: all it takes is a little time reading back through the discussion page and the page's previous revisions to see your edits and those of your friends for what they are: a transparent POV-pushing attempt to kill through content vandalism an article you couldn't kill by VfD. What appears to be the larger problem is that those who voted in the VfD assumed good faith and didn't keep an eye on you afterwards. ElKabong

Ah yes. KaintheScion. Another impassioned proponent. My mistake. How long have you been following this debate, anyway? And why doesn't any information show up on your user page? BrandonYusufToropov 20:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I (as well as a dozen of people in this discussion) insist that this material should not be included. ElKabong, following your logic, you would be accepting that people would start American Fascism and bring materials of a kind of Faithfreedom.org? There are plenty of them online. So you want to bring all internet garbage into WP just because you insist? We all agree that the term is an epithet intended to put down one's opponent. For everyone there is an opponent, and for everyone there is a fascist somewhere! No garbage in WP please. No government, no institution; be it academic or political, recognizes Islamofascism. Cheers and respect from Svest 19:52, May 10, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

Fayssal, if I could imagine for one minute that an article started by YOU on "American Fascism" would be properly factual and NPOV, including the bona-fides of the sources and the multiple sides of any argument made rather than just "oh it's just an epithet", I'd say to go ahead. But it's obvious from the comments of you and BYT that that would never happen, just like you are determined to make sure that this article remains gutted of factual information and as POV-biased as possible. ElKabong

The Internet is full of gay-bashers, Moslem-bashers, US-bashers, Jew-bashers, white supremacists, black supremacists and a million other howling voices. And they all have their rambling rationales and manifestos for hating whoever it is they hate. I suppose we can note that these sites exists and that they use certain words to describe their enemies (nigger, kike, running dog of capitalism etc. etc.) but we do a disservice to the reader if we present pure frothing hate speech as if were somehow mainstream academic discourse. --Lee Hunter 20:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Then quotes and usage by true Academics like Daniel Pipes should be put in, shouldn't they? It is no worse than an article on Israel having quotes by Edward Said. Once again, stop moving this to "Rejected", because as long as the article claims that the term Islamofascism is "only" an epithet, it is factually incorrect.ElKabong

Daniel Pipes is very controversial and accused of the same of what Lee is talking about. Pipes and his POV associated some notable academic profeSsors from Columbia, Harvard and Berkeley with Suicide bombers, just because they are against Israeli occupation! [2] Can we trust Pipes? He is accusing everyone who is being against Israeli occupation. No wonder why he can love a term like islamofascism. The entry of his article in WP states that He is widely criticised as an Islamophobe. Read this again: In August 2003, news leaked of Pipes' imminent appointment to the U.S. government-sponsored U.S. Institute of Peace. Soon afterwards, a broad array of Arab-American, American Muslim, and other groups, vehemently denounced the appointment, claiming that Pipes was a racist, anti-Islamic extremist. Several Democratic senators, including Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), expressed opposition to the nomination and delayed a committee vote on it, though President Bush bypassed the Senate and proceeded with a recess appointment. This incident was the latest in the series of confrontations Pipes has had with various U.S-based Islamic groups, especially the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR maintains that Pipes is an anti-Islamic bigot, while Pipes in turn charges that CAIR is an apologist for Islamist terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas (see external links). Pipes is also controversial in academia, where his neoconservative positions — especially his strong support for Israel and his argument that Islamism is a threat to the West — conflicts with the views of some Middle East scholars, such as John Esposito, who describes Islamist movements as political forces leading to democratic progress. Pipes was also criticized by Edward Said, a critic of Orientalist scholarship. He got an agenda, period! Svest 21:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

He's got an agenda? So do you, obviously, or you wouldn't be using a POV-laden term such as "Israeli Occupation" (remember, there wouldn't even BE Palestinian "refugees" had Egypt, Syria, and Jordan not held onto the land they overran in the 1948 war, or if they had signed the offered nonagression pact with Israel). And of course those who are denouncing him have an agenda as well. The article would be better served by covering BOTH sides of the argument rather than leaving tremendous amounts of information out. The article that's locked in right now is a travesty, a one-sided POV joke. ElKabong

Deja vu all over again department: Exactly how long have you been following this debate, anyway, ElKabong? And why doesn't any information show up on your user page? Is it my imagination, or are you avoiding these questions? BrandonYusufToropov 21:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

No, POV-pusher, I'm deliberately ignoring you because your MO is to sit around and hunt for ways to make ad hominem attacks, and you're not worth dealing with. ElKabong

My agenda rhymes with what LeeHunter commented above. This is not a place for hate speech. I don't care about Israel or Egypt or Syria or Jordan or Palestine! I care about that Islamofascism is an epithet. Pipes can call whatever he wants as whoever can call him whatever they want. Pipes and his opponents can't go teach what they preach in universities or apply what they say in a government policy. It is a POV. This is what we comment here. There are thousands of people accusing in newspapers and books others for being the evil. Do we have to give them a room here? Svest 21:24, May 10, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

But the article is here, and you POV-pushers are giving space only to the POV of opponents of the term. And it survived a VfD. Leaving it with the claim that the term is purely an epithet is POV, and that needs to be remedied. ElKabong

Dear friend, I will not comment your judgements about me and us. I will just say again that nothing's got to be remedied. There are more people who are against the term than people who are with. Hitchens, Pipes and others cannot be compared with the quantity of others who are against. That's why you think what you think above. Svest 21:40, May 10, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

Rejected

Information that one or more editors would insist on removing:

• The Orwell quote about "fascism": this is purely prejudicial POV and has no relevance to the article.

First, it's a quotation from a well-known and respected writer; to claim that it's PoV is irrelevant — read Wikipedia policy. Secondly, to what is it prejudicial? If you actually mean "prejudiced", what is your justification for claiming that Orwell prejudged the matter rather than examining the evidence and then reasoning from it? Thirdly, how can a statement about the use of the term "fascism" be irrelevant to an article on a use of the term "fascism"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• The Orwell quote properly belongs in a discussion on the term Fascist (epithet), not in an article on the term Islamofascism. Likewise, the quote on Islamofascism re: Michael Medved properly belongs in THIS article and not in an article on the term Fascist as an epithet. Speaking of which, I'm going to correct that right now. ElKabong

• relevance of contacts or communications between fascists/nazis and various Moslems.

This has been consistently removed from the article by a number of editors.

• information that tries to provide a justification or rationale for the term or ...