Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FayssalF (talk | contribs) at 15:16, 9 June 2006 (→Move: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article survived two votes for deletion. An archived record of these debates can be found here and here.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages: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?

• Archive 2: May 9–August 11, 2005
• Archive 3: April 13–November 29, 2005

Veiled censorship

Stop re-directing this article with neo-fascism or other non-sense

Blogs as sources

Please Stop Edit War!

Juan Cole and the 'F' word

• Archive 4: November 29, 2005 - 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Archive 5

Criticism of the term

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you propose to do? I see three options:

1. Remove the quotation because it's biased. If there's controversy surrounding Sobran's credibility, I'm all in favor of giving him the boot. But, unless you can find a suitable replacement, this is not an acceptable solution by me because it leaves one of the primary criticisms omitted.
2. Remove all the quotations because they're all equally biased. None of them are from respected, peer-reviewed, non-biased sources. As a source, Sobran is no less legitimate than the others. In my opinion, this solution is even worse, although it's not as one-sided as #1. Remember that the WP:V standard is verifiability, not truth.
3. Label Sobran an "anti-Semite" and maybe a "Muslim sympathizer". This solution violates WP:OR and, even though it's not his article, possibly WP:BLP.

Any other ideas? As I mentioned above: considering the quotations are presented as perspectives, not facts, I personally believe these are all unnecessary. -- bcasterline • talk 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic fundamentalism

The article Islamic fundamentalism seems to be along similar lines to this... Maybe the two should be merged? Or is there some big difference about where a muslim nation stops being big on religion and becomes islamofascist I'm missing?--Josquius 19:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Move

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

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

For what it's worth, I also oppose the move. CJCurrie 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd oppose it but I think he's already done it. --Coroebus 06:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He did, but I moved it back before calling the current vote. CJCurrie 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that move would really only be merited if there existed a version of this word that wasn't an epithet. Netscott 08:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Per article-naming conventions, parentheses are only used to disambiguate between identically-named articles, not to clarify an article's meaning or topic when there's nothing else to confuse it with. Hundreds of Misplaced Pages's articles are about "epithets"; if we used (epithet) at the end of every one, it would be unmanageably cumbersome, and if we didn't use (epithet) at the end of every one, only for this one, it would be horribly biased. The italicized "This article is about..." notice is more than sufficient for clarifying exactly what this article is about. -Silence 09:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Just put the pertinent information in the intro summary, rather than the article title. If there is a problem with the "Islamofacism" title, adding qualifiers doesn't solve this (a better article, however, would). --Vector4F 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I am wondering why nodody voted at a similar case Israeli apartheid (epithet). Humus's suggestion is interesting in a sense that whether to follow one rule (or guideline) or none. Cheers -- Szvest 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)