Talk:Islamic fascist
RFD[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- 19 November 2006: Request for deletion (no consensus)
It strikes me as odd that there's a request for deletion and no disucssion here. But then I found it on the request for deletion page. Leaving this comment here in case others are wondering where the discussion is Ccrrccrr 13:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
RFV-sense failed[edit]
See this discussion. — Beobach 05:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
- NB, I request verification of all other senses, and will start a new section for that at the bottom of this page. — Beobach972 04:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The sense defined as "(pejorative) Islamic fanaticism, fundamentalist or fundamentalism". What does that have to with fascism politically, and what reputable sources, if any, have used it this way? (I'd question the other senses too, as SOP, but that's another matter.) Equinox 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- We're descriptivist; our quotations don't have to be from "reputable sources". If we ignore our entry's failure to distinguish "fascist" from "fascism", it otherwise seems to be accurate; the American Right Wing really does use these terms this way. (At least, I think so. The Right Wing might only use "Islamofascist". google news:"Islamic fascist" gets two hits at the moment, and both are potentially ambiguous.) —RuakhTALK 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with facsist or fascism. It is used by the U.S. "Right" because it is a dirty word, which doesn't need to be understood, it is just intended as a slur. (Although is especially effective as a deflection of noting that the present administration of the "Right" does have fascist characteristics.) Many (perhaps most) pejoratives are not literal. But I haven't heard or seen this form, just "Islamofascist". Robert Ullmann 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- 75 Books' hits [1], mostly contributive, AFAICT ambiguous about whether the speaker meant our sense 2, 3 or 4. I wonder if senses 3 and 4 might be merged, but the greatest fault I found about sense 4 is that it defines fascist (a person I believe) as fanaticism and fundamentalism - only fundamentalist doesn't seem out of place there IMO, the others should be at Islamic fascism, if anywhere (269 Books' hits [2]). And finally - it shouldn't have too much to do with real fascism, like our sense 1 does, for that would just be asking for deletion as a SoP, wouldn't it? --Duncan 09:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't have a problem, with the definition as it stands. WritersCramp 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- However, if you do a google web search you get Results 1 - 100 of about 24,100 for "Islamic fascist". (0.48 seconds) WritersCramp 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Clocked out without attestation other than single G W Bush quote. (That wouldn't seem to count as "well-known work".) DCDuring TALK 16:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, widespread use. Perhaps send to RFC as the definitions are unclear and/or overlap. I'm not sure there are three different definitions of this term. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not widespread use AFAICT.—msh210℠ 19:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, widespread use. Perhaps send to RFC as the definitions are unclear and/or overlap. I'm not sure there are three different definitions of this term. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. I have struck the header above, and deleted the tagged sense. — Beobach972 04:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello msh, may i inquire why you are removing cited information "quote", which provided the verification requested in the +tag? WritersCramp 14:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was probably because you formatted it incorrectly. You should read Wiktionary:Quotations first. —Stephen (Talk) 15:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was terribly formatted. I also reverted the removal of the rfv tag, which may not be done until the RFV is closed.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you ahve a question for me in the future, ask me on my talkpage. I wasn't following this page, and just happened to come across it. I may well not have.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
RFV discussion (2)[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
One sense of this word was already found to be unattested outside of one quotation; I request verification of both other senses, but particularly the adjective. (The noun is the sum of its parts.) — Beobach972 04:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can the "adjective" be shown to be an adjective and can all the features of the wordy definition be attested? DCDuring TALK 06:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can the term be attested at all, with any meaning (coherent across three citations) other than the SoP "adherent of both fascism and Islamism"? — Beobach 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not seeing it. Lots of cites for a non-SOP noun, not much else. - [The]DaveRoss 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, at least one cite for "intensely Islamic fascist", ie, supporting SoPitude. DCDuring TALK 01:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not seeing it. Lots of cites for a non-SOP noun, not much else. - [The]DaveRoss 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Adjective RFV failed, removed. Noun moved to RFD: a bunch of citations have been added, but they just drive home the SOPitude. —RuakhTALK 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
RFD 2[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Sum of parts as currently defined. A number of citations really back up the sum-of-partsiness, by speaking of other types of fascists in the same breath. In the past the entry has had various non-SOP definitions, or at least less-SOP definitions, but they've all failed RFV. —RuakhTALK 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, delete. Ƿidsiþ 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to keep it, but it's used in such a range of ways it would be very difficult to explain. And I think they ways it's used roughly correspond to the different ways that fascist is used.
Reluctant delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)- Just realized we have Islamic fascism. Keep and reword the definition to link to Islamic fascism (a proponent of Islamic fascism). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Though hard for me to justify. It just 'feels' like an idiom, but I can't back it up with 'evidence'. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just realized we have Islamic fascism. Keep and reword the definition to link to Islamic fascism (a proponent of Islamic fascism). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to keep it, but it's used in such a range of ways it would be very difficult to explain. And I think they ways it's used roughly correspond to the different ways that fascist is used.
- Urge proceed with caution, be wary of rush to judgement.Geof Bard 07:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- DELETE. Are we going to let Fox News rewrite the English language? There is absolutely nothing that the entry informs readers of which is not already explicit in Sum of Parts. Rick Santorum doesn't know Jack about either Islam or fascism. The former is a revealed religion of the Abrahamic tradition which has a long martial tradition which in its current phase is engaged in tenaciously opposing Western powers and one might find them mean or scary or reprehensible - but that is not "fascism". The latter is a phenomenon of a mass party, a single charismatic dictator; idolatry of the State; State ownership of the means of production. Islam rejects idolatry of State and dictator; it has the umma but no mass party; nor does it entail fascist corporativist ownership of the means of production. Furthermore, the futurist-vitalist element of fascism contradicts the absolute idealism of Islam. The Holy Qu'ran is a pre-existing transcendent, much like the "Word" in John 1:1. As such, it is Absolute. Mussolini took the exact opposite view:"From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology."
Just because Rick Santorum likes to string two words together, that does not make them idiomatic, but even if it "feels" idiomatic - seriously, this is not a flame, at all- or even becomes idiomatic due to Fox New$ et al, it would still be Sum of Parts. It's just name calling.
Geof Bard 07:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I genuinely have no idea what this means. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion, keep Islamofascist, but delete Islamic fascist as SOP. — Robin 03:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - fried egg and plenty of citations and quotations to support its usage. WritersCramp 23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- How does it meet the fried egg test? Surely any fascist that's Islamic is an Islamic fascist, or no? -- Prince Kassad 23:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
deleted -- Liliana • 13:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)