Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christofascism

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 DELETE. Postdlf 06:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christofascism

[edit]

POSSIBLE COMPROMISE

[edit]

User:LeeHunter made a very wise suggestion on Talk:Islamofascism. His recommendation was to create a page titled Fascism as epithet, which would describe the use of the term Fascism as applied to individuals and groups who do not consider themselves Fascist. This would avoid all of the interminable arguments about which ''X''ofascism should have an article of its own. It would also help alleviate the concerns over the Islamofascism article becoming a POV platform. Firebug 07:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly disagree with the proposal. That would equate Islamofascism, which is a real word used by notable people, with Christofascism, which is not. Meelar (talk) 21:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually "Christofascism" is a real word used by notable people. See the talk page for a pointer I've provided to real use by a serious theologian. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The difference, to me, is how notable. Ms. Soelle gets about 200 google hits--maybe not bad for a theologian, but nowhere near 1.6 million for Andrew Sullivan. There's a clear distinction between the two terms in how often they're used and how prominent the users are. Meelar (talk) 02:52, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I may have been unclear. I'm not saying that every neologism needs to be mentioned in the Fascism as epithet article, nor that little-used terms must be given the same amount of space in that proposed article as ones that see a lot of use. What I am saying is that the use of the term "Fascism" to describe individuals and groups who are not self-identified Fascists is a very well-known phenomenon, and that it makes more sense to have a single article for the entire phenomenon than to splinter it up (especially when certain splinter articles, like Islamofascism, have become POV springboards to attack the groups in question, rather than to focus on the use of the terms as epithets). "Christofascism" isn't as prominent as "Islamofascism" as a term, but what about other uses of "Fascism" as an epithet? What about terms like "Feminazis" (certainly notable, it was coined and used by Rush Limbaugh), "Hitlery", and "Bushitler"? People have been comparing their political opponents to fascists ever since the end of the Second World War. I think we should have an article on the use of the term "Fascism" as an epithet, and have this article encompass all latter-day uses of such terminology, with article space allocated in rough proportion to the prominence of each term. Firebug 23:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, that makes sense now. Master Thief Garrett 23:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that does clarify things a bit, but I still must disagree. IMO, each instance of notable "X-fascism" should get its own article. The problems you're describing with Islamofascism are an argument for watching that article closely and editing it boldly. That doesn't mean we should get rid of the article. An article on Feminazi would make more sense than merging all these disparate articles together, although feminazi isn't as well-defined as Islamofascism. Meelar (talk) 01:37, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • You're a hypocrite. You say "IMO, each instance of "X-fascism" should get its own article." but then you vote delete for a very notable X-fascism term. People have written books and published articles, notable people have used the terms "christofascism" and "christian fascism". Stancel 23:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Firebug, and yet I also agree with Meelar. A bit of each. What I think we need is that if a REAL "-fascism" term (not this one!) comes up it can be merged, along with Islamofascism, into Fascism as (an?) epithet. Master Thief Garrett 22:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with giving each its own article is that you totally lose the historical context and perhaps the general commentary of people like Orwell re the use of fascism as an epithet. When you see how various groups have used the word to slander their enemies, it is more interesting and enlightening. By the way, the article has been created under the name Fascist (epithet). --Lee Hunter 15:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, as the original creator of this article, totally support this compromise. Somebody already created this article, it's called Fascist (epithet). Stancel 23:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS

[edit]

Self-admitted neologism. Probably also "disrupting wikipedia to make a point" Rmhermen 20:04, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure whether or not this is a vote or just a comment. Rmhermen, you can take out my "subcomment" here if/when you move this to a vote section. -t Tomer TALK 07:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I regularly visit the left blogosphere and have never seen this term, certainly not in the main posts. There's a huge differences between major commentators and people in the comments section at Democratic Underground. Meelar (talk) 07:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Meelar, take a look at the article as I have updated it. I included several citations of the use of the term, as well as the likely origins of the term. (Apparently it was invented by theologian Dorothy Soelle in her book Beyond Mere Obedience). Firebug 11:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A theologian who gets 178 google hits and the comments thread at Daily Kos is in now way comparable to George Will, Andrew Sullivan, or National Review. If notable people were using this regularly, I'd be voting to keep it. They're not. Meelar (talk) 06:44, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's also worth pointing out that you won't see many major commentators using terms like Nigger either, because they are considered to be highly offensive. But we still list them on Wikipedia. Firebug 11:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how some people voted to keep Islamofascism but they are so quick to delete this. Perhaps it shows their hypocrisy? If this article is deleted, all other -ofascism articles must be deleted or redirected to list of political epithets. That is my only compromise. - Stancel 2 May 2005 11:16 (UTC)
I removed the historical sections to make the article more about the "term" itself and not about what the term describes. I realized I should do this after I saw that Islamofascism now only concentrated on the use of the word. But if Islamofascism becomes more POV and full of bullshit, then I will concentrate on the historical Christofascism. - Stancel 11:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is it that you don't get about WP:POINT? What you're doing is swiftly becoming WP:Vandalism. As for your persistent insistance on calling people with whom you disagree "hypcrites", please read WP:No personal attacks again. Tomer TALK 22:32, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

LIST KEEP VOTES HERE

[edit]
  1. KEEP! until Islamofascism is deleted. I am completely justified in creating this article if Islamofascism is allowed to exist. If you delete this, then you are a hypocrite. - Stancel 16:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stancel, you're entitled to your opinions, but calling people hypocrites just because you disagree with them is neither professional nor productive, and is unwelcome on Wikipedia. Tomer TALK 07:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Do whatever is done with Islamofascism. Just as that term has been often used in the right blogosphere, I have often heard terms like "Christofascist", "Jesofascist", and "Jeebofascist" in the left blogosphere. If these articles are kept, they should focus on the epithet itself, not be a list of bad things that Muslims and Christians have done. After all, the ZOG article isn't a list of bad things Jews have done, nor is Nigger a list of bad things black people have done. That's where I think a lot of the problems with the Islamofascism article lies. I can't speculate as to the creator's motive for this article, but it could have been in good faith. This isn't an extremely well-known term, but most people who regularly visit the left blogosphere will have heard it more than once, and a reasonable argument could be made for keeping the article. Firebug 22:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firebug, I put your vote here, since the Islamofascism VfD failed. Tomer TALK 07:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I see no reason to delete given the existence of Islamofascism. --Axon 15:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I see nothing here to indicate this word is anything other that a term used by extremist opponents of Christianity. If this is true then it no more deserves an article than "commie traitors" should be a redirect to the Democratic party. HOWEVER this is a very young article. I suggest that this article is given time, say a couple of weeks, to see if anything substansive is found. If not it should be renominated for VFD. DJ Clayworth 16:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Do whatever is done with Islamofascism. This article is an excellent way to point out the fact that the Islamo- one doesn't belong here, either. Ketsy 19:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Keep, unless Islamofascism is deleted. Having one but not the other to me smacks of hypocrisy. JamesBurns 01:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Keep until Islamofascism is deleted. Agree with Stancel. Iam 11:49, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Keep and rename it Christian fascism. Unless all me-you-fascism articles are delated or merged all together in Fascist (epithet), this one should be kept. There are books as references to Christian Fascism more than Islamic fascism or Jewish fascism. Svest 12:13, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

LIST DELETE VOTES HERE

[edit]
  1. Delete all my comments over at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Americofascism apply here as well. Dalf | Talk 20:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete as non-notable neologism. I don't see the parallel with Islamofascism, a term that gets 350 times more hits on google; by your argument any ___fascism article would be allowed. If the term becomes notable, then it will deserve an article. Brighterorange 21:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Delete, by now it's obvious that this is disruption. Gazpacho 21:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Delete WP:POINT —Wahoofive (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Delete. A neologism and a disruptive point. — P Ingerson (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. delete this and islamofascism and any other articles with "ofascism" which would be created.DeirYassin 22:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Delete. WP:POINT does seem to apply to X (or Y or Z)-o-fascism stuff in spades. "He's not the Messiah, he's a VERY NAUGHTY BOY!" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Delete. WP:POINT. RickK 22:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Delete Islamofascism VfD Controversy cruft WP:POINT. Right now the Islamists are batting 0/4 having lost/losing on (Islamofascism, Judeofascism, Americofascism, and now Christofascism). Whats next, Wikifascism? Klonimus 01:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Klonimus: I took out an extra initial "[" in your wikilink, and it appears to be broken...Tomer TALK 07:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Delete, neologism with minimal Google hits. Now, I'm off to write Wikifascism. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 22:56, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Delete This is ever so slightly boring--Doc Glasgow 23:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Delete. Neologism that few if any actually use, and definitely falls under "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point." Isomorphic 23:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Delete, reasons as per above. This crap will just cause edit wars and such if it stays. Master Thief Garrett 23:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Delete. Non-notable. Utterly non-notable. --Mrfixter 23:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Delete--show me some notable commentators using this term and I will change my vote. Until then, don't compare this to Islamofascism. Meelar (talk) 07:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Delete as neologism. Capitalistroadster 10:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Delete or redirect to epithets, WP:POINT. The term is barely used; even the article has little but references to a single author using the term. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Delete Same as above. DMTsurel 22:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Delete WP:POINT ObsidianOrder 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Delete KHM03 20:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Delete WP:POINT Tobycat 03:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Delete. WP:POINT. And on the question of "Islamofascism" vs. "Christofascism" or "Judeofascism", on Google Islamofascism gets 64,000 hits, Christofascism gets 190 hits, and Judeofascism gets 156 hits. Out of interest I popped over to the second most popular search enginge, and on Yahoo the difference is even more pronounced: Islamofascism gets 82,200 hits, Christofascism gets 99 hits, Judeofascism gets 86 hits. On top of that, Islamofascism is used by a number of significant writers, whereas Christofascism and Judeofascism are used by unknowns and/or cranks. Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Delete. Wikipedia is a quagmire of unnotables.--Silversmith 17:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Delete. Just because the offensive term "Islamofascism" is notable, doesn't mean that "fascism" must be attached to every other religious group quid pro quo. There are plenty of other equally offensive yet notable terms applied to various religious and political groups, and it's not up to Wikipedia to create novel terms to even some popular culture "score". --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Delete this shite. Grue 18:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Delete. This discussion need not turn on whether "Islamofascism" is a tool of anti-Muslim propagandists. That's irrelevant. What matters is that said term does exist and is used often by notable publications while the same cannot be said for Christofascism. It is not for Wikipedia to make value judgments or back one side over the other. Non-notable. Period. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LIST REDIRECT VOTES HERE

[edit]
  1. Redirect to List of political epithets where it should have been to begin with. Tomer TALK 06:56, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Redirect to Christian fundamentalism. --BD thimk 19:55, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Unfair? Not really - anymore than my earlier vote to redirect Judeofascism to Zionism... it's not necessarily about what the thing is, but about what people are really looking for in the encyclopedia when they type it in the box. -- BDAbramson thimk 06:21, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  1. Redirect to List of political epithets. El_C 13:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Redirect to Fascist (epithet). Anilocra 13:31, 5 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/Christofascism&oldid=1140204133"