Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamo-Leftism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.A weak nomination and per the abundance of French-sources, the subject is not surely fringe.The main/lone(??) problem with the article seems to be the varying definitions and perspective of the same topic in different sources.But this argument fails to justify itself as a sole reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamo-Leftism

[edit]
Islamo-Leftism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. TheDracologist (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject seems to be covered in multiple reliable sources. Why would it lack notability? Am I missing something? Smmurphy(Talk) 00:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per neologism. There are extremely few mentions of it in reliable sources, and insufficient detail to write a neutral article. Even worse, the term has been used by different writers with different meanings. These range from a "fringe" Trotskyist theory (that is fringe even among Trotskyists) that Islamists play a progressive role in resisting imperialism to a neo-fascist conspiracy theory that mainstream politicians (who by fascist standards are leftists) secretly take their orders from the ayatollahs. Rather than enlighten, this brief article is just a slogan. It attempts to conflate progressive politics with Islamic extremism without explaining why. TFD (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TFD. Is Islamo-Leftism a real philosophy or a nasty epithet with which to tar one's political opponents? After reading this article many times, I couldn't tell you. The various "sources" that use the phrase don't appear to agree with one another about what it is. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leftists do indeed describe the term as an epithet. That too can be reliably sourced:
  • "Islamo-Gauchisme Decrypted" August 2, 2016, Laurent Bouvet (Professor of Political Science at the University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines.) In this interview, he breaks the code behind the use of the term, islamo-gauchisme.[1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except Badiou never used the term. Buckner spent exactly one paragraph discussing the concept and a novelist's use of the term is only significant if secondary sources mention it. TFD (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just checked the Badiou book cited in the article, Badiou DOESNOTLIKE this term, but he does use it as an example of bad-mouthing Muslims. He asserts that the phrase Islamo-leftist "originates with the police." Here: [2]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just sourced Michel Houellebecq's use of "Islamo-Leftism" in Submission to the Tom Brass essay Houellebecq, Anthropologist? I was reading Submission when I created this article two years ago. I came across this phrase, and wondered whether Houllebecq had coined it. I searched, and found quite a number of notable intellectuals using the phrase, so I created this article. A look at the talk page will show that quite a number of editors JUSTDIDNTLIKEIT then, but acknowledged that the soruces are solid, and did not take it to AFD. I see that quite a few WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT now. Searches in French and English - try gBook searches on the term in both - French and English - will be will persuade objective editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced article plenty of sources especially in French.Meets WP:GNG.--Shrike (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LOL History repeats itself as farce: this is a Judeo-Bolshevism 2.0, but far less WP:NOTABLE than the original. The only adequately sourced section is Islamo-Leftism#History_of_term, which rubbishes the concept. I just checked the most imposing looking sources for kicks: The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, Princeton Uni Press(p. 25). This source tries to prove the existence of "Islamo-Leftism" with three footnotes: first one is about crazed hired-gun Carlos the Jackal; second is an obscure reference to a some Shiite "thinker" who allegedly mixed Islam with a "Marxist" and secular notion of history, somehow (no further elaboration is provided); the third footnote offers an abstract definition of Trotskyist entryism (footnote says nothing about Islam), and yet it is used in support of the author's specific allegations that Trotskyists had a strategy of embedding themselves in Islamist movements. Other source used here include a novel by Michel Houellebecq, together with some incomprehensible literary criticism of it. Fiction is not RS. This is the most retarded article I've ever come across on Wikipedia. All that's missing is a reference to "Leftist" Barack Obama being the "founder of ISIS". I appreciate humor though, so maybe my vote should have been "Keep LOL". Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop being obtuse. I don't like the theory of Judeo-Bolshevism either, but it is clearly notable by virtue of being discussed in numerous carefully-documented and non-fictional studies. This on the other hand is clear WP:NEO. The notability of Judeo-Bolshevism does not hinge on rants by philosopher Othmar Spann or the poet Ezra Pound, regardless of which academic Jew-hating institution printed them at the time. The sourcing here is skimpy indeed, with several basically saying: "WTF is this shit?" Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - covered by plenty of reliable sources. The reasoning for this AfD nom is weak at best.. Probably non existing considering the three word rationale. Drive-by? This article covers WP:NEO as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, Nom is a new editor who hung similar drive-by tags on maybe a dozen pages, none of which looked likely to be deleted. Seems to have been acting in good faith, appeared to be just new and over-enthusiastic.
Note also that User:MShabazz, who argued for delete above, has previously edited the article, but had not tagged it for sourcing or notability, let alone brought it to AfD until that newbie did. He gives a weak, highly POV argument for deletion - the sources defining the term do not disagree is any substantive way. Leftists hate and wish to dismiss the term in a manner similar to the comments of User:Guccisamsclub, but the fact that intellectuals who DONOTLIKEIT nevertheless discuss it at some length supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pot, meet kettle. E.M. Gregory, please re-read and try to follow WP:BLUDGEON. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Leftists hate and wish to dismiss the term in a manner similar to the comments of User:Guccisamsclub" Of course you yourself are not politically motivated in any way, unlike those "Leftists." Thanks for the laugh. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People self-identify as "alt-right". Islamo-Leftism appears to be little more than an epithet. So not really comparable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is wholly irrelevant.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you bring it up? Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant that its an epithet. I'm sure some alt-right type people think that term used for them is an epithet as well. The point being, both are a name of a sub group of the political party. Good luck going forward.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 19:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Article is along the line of Alt-right" My point was that it's not. "Alt-right" was coined by ... the "Alt-Right" — it is not an epithet in any way shape or form. Alt-right refers to an actual political movement that has been discussed at length in hundreds of RS. "Islamo-Leftism" more "along the lines of" Latte Liberal (the latter term being far more WP:NOTABLE). Note that both epithets have very close synonyms: Regressive Left and Champagne socialist, respectively. Both articles already exist, and summarize the underlying concepts. So IMHO, it's not just case of NOTNEO, but also NOTDICT as it applies to synonyms. I'll also note that — due to a lack of decent sourcing — the article is forced (as predicted by WP:NEO) into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The almost all of the sources in "Examples" section, do NOT actually use the term Islamo-Leftism. This is like starting an article titled "Dirty Commies", and then using Peat Bog Soldiers as an example of the relationship between Communists and dirt. To summarize the issues: WP:NOTNEO; WP:NOTDICT; WP:OR; WP:NOTABLE. The very few WP:RS's that discuss it (like Liberation) aren't even sure it is a real thing. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After questioning of the sources, some editors have presented a use in a single sentence in one book, a footnote or two in another, etc. In order to write accurate and balanced articles we need reliable secondary sources that describe the topic in full. Certainly a scholar can look for all the references "islamo-leftism," determine what they meant, how popular the term is, whether there are alternative names, whether the term means different things, whether it is used by left or right, mainstream or fringe, whether it is politically correct etc. But until that is done, we can only rely on the original research of editors. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and until adequate sources are available it is more appropriate to Wiktionary. TFD (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This subject for sure is not fringe, there are considerable amount of published (particularly in French) material on the topic. On the other hand, I think we might be finding a better title than Islamo-Leftism. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thing is, Islamo-Leftism the neologism is just part of the broader subject (and more notable) in many political spheres (one example is Turkey, but there are plenty). An article on the neologism restricts the subject considerably to a tabloid level. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but those are opinions and interpretation of rules which your opponents above will certainly disagree with. There is a reason why the neologism is distinctly covered in a restrictif circle in the European French speaking world, it does not resist its broather context lets say of the Turkish or Kurdish leftist population of Germany (someone could be accused of original research by even suggesting it). Such an article isn’t stable in time because it was arbitrarily scalped to follow a neologism which either way could be muting for all we know. Maintaining the stance imposed by its title require considerable amount of resources due to its instability generating conflicts and edit warring. We should be concentrating on content rather than forms here, and for the long term I don't see any other options than relabeling it with a more appropriate title. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not for convictions contribute considerably (particularly in conflict generating articles) in name-space anymore. I can however help you in talkpages in providing sources, materials and criticism and it would be up to you and others to settle what goes or doesn't go where and why. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that in response, I have started an "Examples" seciton. the Iranian example is supported by scholars using the term "Islamo-Leftism." The Belgian and Palestinian are formal, if shot-lived, political coalitions formed between avowed Marxist political movements and avowed Islamist political movements. Article will, of course, either develop in the direction suggested by User:Yahya Talatin, or retreat to a narrower interpretation of WP:WORDISSUBJECT; I have no WP:CRYSTALBALL. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the sources in the Iran section do use the term to refer to a group like People's Mujahedin of Iran, but that is quite different from the way the term is used in the rest of the article. Iran's "Islamo-Leftist" groups were not the products of any "Red-Green" alliances, but were merely characterized by ideologies that combined Socialism and Nationalism with appeals to Islam (like the FLN in Algeria). There was a de facto red-green "alliance" between Tudeh and Khomeinism in the sense that they did not see each other as enemies during the Iranian Revolution. So if you can find an RS that calls it "Islamo-Leftism", it might fit in with rest of the article. But at the moment, all you are actually doing is creating a COATRACK article about the "relationship between Islam and Leftism," because the term "Islamo-Leftism" is both hopelessly vague and rarely used. Don't you see this as problematic? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leftists in Iran formally supported Khomeini's Islamic fundamentalist revolution; Leftists in Europe, particularly in France supported Khomeini's Islamic fundamentalist revolution. An enormous literature exists on this particular Islamo-Leftist alliance, some of which uses this phrase retrospectively (phrase was not coined until ~ 20 years after the Khomeini's revolution.) Just fyi, many phenomenon exist decades or centuries before a word for them is coined, see: bureaucracy, which the Byzantine Empire had even before Max Weber.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: Chronology has nothing to do with it. My point was that: (a) your sources are referring to disparate phenomena when they use "Islamo-Leftism"; (b) The stuff about Palestine and Belgium is OR in that none of the sources use the term at all. (On Europe and Iran: The most prominent defender of Khomeini's revolution (Khomeneism proper, not the broad anti-Shah revolution) in Europe was Michel Foucault, who an anti-Marxist and an anti-Communist at the time. Marxists and Socialists around the world generally hated Khomeini after he assumed power.) Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guccisamsclub, I think (opinions aside) it would be relevant if you could comment on the way the material could be addressed. Would you be accepting relabeling the article? What conditions would you be setting? How the content (not the form) survives is what interest me. A broader article which covers left and Islam would be in my opinion a good approach. Most similar conflicts are due to forms which require inclusions and exclusion criteria specific to editors and their different backgrounds. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Here's the problem: a hypothetical article that explicitly (with title change) covers the "relationship" between Islam and the Left clearly fails WP:SCOPE. That's why there are no articles about overlaps between two huge categories, like Jews and Leftism or even Jews and Bolshevism (though Jewish Left is a legit topic — note the difference in scope). Currently, this article covers the "relationship" between Islam and the Left implicitly (in the examples section), creating a poorly-scoped WP:COATRACK of an article, wherein editors tack on "examples" of "Islamo-Leftism" via WP:OR. This is just unambiguously wrong, no less wrong than someone trying to tack on — Metapedia-style — "real-world examples" of the relationship between Jews and Bolsheviks to the Judeo-Bolshevism article. So the only possible option seems to be to list the various usages of the term. The problem here is that the term is typically used as a vague shorthand for different kinds of overlaps between Islam and the Left (depending on who's using it, and in which cultural context). But here you come up against WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what RS say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." The fact that French politician Manuel Valls has used this as a polemical shorthand for some Western Leftists' sympathies with Islam, while a couple of English-speaking scholars have used it as a descriptive shorthand (for the ideology of certain political groups in Iran like the People's Mujahedin of Iran) does not speak well for its encyclopedic value. All this simply demonstrates the term's underlying shallowness and inconsistency. It's just a one of thousands of multipurpose hyphenated shorthands, which typically fail WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Based on the above, I think the article should be deleted, but if it is kept it should stick strictly to the term, preferably to one more or less definite usage of the term (either French polemical usage or English descriptive usage, but not both). Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a random google search, with little regard for what the term represents. The meaning is not consistent across your sources and it is also relatively shallow. Novels are not RS, and half the sources you cited are already in the article. Since wikipedia articles are not aggregators of google search results, I'd like see how you'd actually go about integrating these sources into the article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not simply a google search, but links to specific sources. No, if anyone cares to look at these books, there is essentially only one meaning, and the sources can be used on this page. Note that the books are secondary sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source refers to a Trotskyist theory that Islam would become "the spearhead of a new insurrection...against global capitalism." Your second source refers to left-wing supporters of the Ayatollah such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK). Your third source refers to "the partnership between leftists and Islamists." Those are three entirely different meanings. TFD (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TFD: I basically agree, but #2 refers to People's Mujahedin of Iran who fought against the Ayatollahs for decades, so it's totally and irreconcilably different from the others. MVBW: #5 is WP:FICTION; #1, #4 are both Bruckner's polemical essays, and the idea that "Islamist Revolution" is a significant tenet of modern Trotskyism is WP:FRINGE (maybe there's a tiny sect with a dozen members that actually believes something approaching this); #6 is a brief and offhanded dismissal of the term; #3 is a brief mention. You need sources that actually try to flesh out the term (that's a policy requirement(!)—see WP:NEO, usage is not enough). The only source you've offered that meets this requirement is Bruckner's polemic. I suppose that, after you add the Liberation source, one could have an excuse for an article, but the article will be very short, uninformative and WP:FRINGE. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not an expert, but I think the meaning of the expression is essentially the same in all sources, namely, fusion between the left and religious radicalism - as was said here. OK, let's check another RS. It tells:
"Bruckner doesn't see the problem as French-only, noting that Islamo-Leftism emanated from the British Socialist Workers Trotskyites and fanned out Europe-wide. They saw Islam as a process to "spearhead a new insurrection in the name of the oppressed". To the Left Wing intellectual, who no longer knows how to understand the world and whose Communist gods have all died, there is no more hope. Their current focus now is the devil incarnate – the US and its pariah Israel.
I do not see the People's Mujahedin of Iran as something entirely different. They are actual Islamic leftists in flesh, which only makes this subject (as opposed to merely a neologism) even more interesting and notable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the first definition, the ayatollahs and the MEK are part of the Islamo-leftist narrative, but neither the Trotskyists, the ayatollahs or the MEK are Islamo-leftists, since Islamo-leftism is a left-wing theory about Islam, not a political group. Under the second definition, neither the Trotskists or the ayatollahs are islamo-leftists, but the MEK are. Under the third definition, all of them are islamo-leftists, but only when the Islamic groups are working with the Trotskyists. (Note: I realize the MEK oppose the ayatollahs, but the author mentions them when they supported them.) If you think there should be an article about actual Islamic leftists in the flesh, there already is. (See Islamic socialism.) As someone who thinks left-wing refers to anyone who didn't vote for Donald Trump, you should appreciate the more precise term of "socialism." TFD (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary is not RS, and you just quoted an unscholarly and bombastic review of Brucker's book. Too much hinges on Bruckner, himself a bombastic polemicist who has no expertise on either Islam or Socialism. TFD has done a very good job describing the obscene category errors. Bruckner's usage designates narrative about the Left and Islam. Hunter 's usage (Iran scholar) designates specific political parties which had, as a matter of historical fact, explicitly combined Socialism with appeals to Islam. Likewise, some political philosophers and ideologues have written about Judeo-Bolshevism, while professional historians have written about the Bund. Both are ostensibly about the "fusion of Jewishness and radical Leftism", but only the latter refers to definite political movement. They are NOT the same thing, either politically or scientifically. And for the record, saying that MEK are "radical Islamists" and that the Trotskyists are Islamisms' fifth-columnists is WP:FRINGE (if you disagree, try inserting this stuff into the relevant articles and see how fast it gets reverted). Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guccisamsclub Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. You have used a series of arguments, meeting opinions that you DONTLIKE with mockery and by calling editors who disagree with you "obtuse." When a point you make is refuted, you introduce new objections. You are so set in your dislike of the idea of an Islamo-leftist alliance, that you seem unable to WP:LISTEN to fellow editors. Note that none of us is obliged to WP:SATISFY all of your ideas of what this article should be. Articles evolve under consensus and the work of multiple editors, as this one may. At present, however, WP:WORDISSUBJECT and you should put down your WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory, considering that you have made the most edits to this page, it is likely you who is bludgeoning the process. Why not take your own advice? There's no need to refute every comment on this page. Multiple times. (But I know you will reply to this because you seem unable not to get the last word in.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, pot meets kettle. The personal attack here are largely come from you (the false accusations above are yet another example). Right after I cast my vote, outlining several reasons for why the article may be unencyclopedic, you immediately dismissed it nothing more than IJUSTDONTLIKE, without addressing most (if any) of my substantive points. That's why I said "don't be obtuse" (linking "obtuse" to WP:LISTEN). You later said that my argument was nothing more than politically-motivated ("leftist") IJUSTDONTLIKE-ism. You have taken a similar tack in responding to the arguments of other editors. That's not a "refutation". In point of fact, I actually WP:LISTENED to and though about the points brought up by others, and think my comments fully bear that out. I have my doubts about whether you've done that. That's why my replies do not consist of saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. This does not mean that my points have been "refuted": debates develop, unlike unlike monologues. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As written on the page, Hunter classifies the People's Mujahedin of Iran an Islamo-leftist organization.[15] I can't check the source (the book), but assuming good faith here, this is actually a proof (in WP:RS sense) that People's Mujahedin of Iran belong to the subject of "Islamo-leftism". My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for significantly improving this page and the sourcing [8]! Now I do not have any doubts that the page should be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory:*Can you please share a direct quote from Hunter? AFAIK, Hunter describes some Iranian groups as because Islamo-leftists because they had (opportunistically or otherwise) incorporated Islamic ideas into their Leftist ideology (and vice versa), not because they were in a temporary "alliance" with Khomeinism (they actually took up arms against it). That's why Hunter makes a distinction between Islamists, Islamo-Leftists, and the secular Left. If Islamo-Leftism refers to taking part in a revolution where Islamism played a major role, then they would all be "Islamo-Leftists", including Tudeh (which I've never heard described as "Islamo" anything). Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, I think a good approach would be that those (particularly Guccisamsclub) who believe the article should be deleted propose an alternative which would maintain the information somehow or somewhere for those who think the information should go somewhere. I am under the impression that too much resources is put into the form rather than content here. I personally believe that in anything as long as there is just one opponnent it means that it isn’t yet stable. I do not adhere to the majority rule but the one of a true consensus.
Guccisamsclub, since the vote isn't achieving consensus (by brute numbers of votes), it would be constructive to propose an alternative which would be more acceptable for you. The wrong approach would be that everyone attempts to enforce their number 1 choice… a solution would be that each present a second alternative… their number two (and search for an overlap). A more heleocentric approach which places at the center the concensus (monotheistic-like) rather than our own personal opinions (polytheistic-like). I do realize however that this would technically go against the purpouses of a ‘’request for deletion’’ vote. This is in my opinion the only possible option in the long term. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yahya Talatin: I'll just quote myself: " if it is kept it should stick strictly to the term, preferably to one more or less definite usage of the term (either French polemical usage or English descriptive usage, but not both)."Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC) (Polemical usage refers to Bruckner, descriptive usage refers to Hunter). There is no consensus that they are talking about the same thing at all when they use the term. At the moment, only TFD and myself have actually tried to argue this point; others have merely asserted that they are the same without much evidence. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 23:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added additional search-bars (top of page) to assist editors in seeing the scope of this WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Note that Wikipedia's established rules and procedures do not include reaching a compromise solution that satisfies every opinion voiced. I hope to have time later this week to improve article using sources in English, French and other languages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems well referenced and fairly well written. I see no reason to delete this. The bizarrely enthusiastic argument taking place here only serves to highlight interest in the subject and should probably be taken to the talk page. Mortee (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the relisting was done by a relatively inexperienced editor (User:J9476) whose talk page contains requests from fellow editors to cease closing and/or relisting AfD discussions until he gains more experience.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamo-Leftism&oldid=1068868493"