Talk:Islamo-leftism

Words, wonderful words, or, why I added this article

Reading the novel, I took this for a Houellebecq neologism, but googled it just to see. Turns out it has been around for a few years, but I am not certain who coined it, only that Pascal Bruckner took it up. The charm, for me and other word-lovers, is that the career of Houellebecq's hero (well, anti-hero), comes back to life when he is hired by a prestigous publisher to do edit standard edition of Joris-Karl Huysmans, and the fun part of that task for the character is the chasing down of Huysmans many neologisms to sift the true original creations from the many that turn out to have been fin-de-siecle slang.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• also, "Islamo-Leftism" googles well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please nominate this article for deletion

Please nominate this article for deletion. It is clearly a non-notable neologism. See WP:NOTNEO. Thank you. 63.116.31.198 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @63.116.31.198 and E.M.Gregory: If you want to point out that this is a non-notable neologism, you could have put {{Notability|Neologisms|date=November 2015}} at the top of the article to point this out. In terms of requesting deletion, I personally feel that it is sourced enough for it to not be deleted and a Google search for the term does bring up news articles from a few years ago, so I don't think it probably is a strong enough case for a proposed deletion at the moment. You could ask the page creator though, E.M.Gregory, to contact you (here) to talk about notability and if you still think it should be deleted, you could ask another user the same question (using the {{Help me}} tag again). In the meantime, I'll tag the page with {{Notability|Neologisms|date=November 2015}} and {{refimprove}}, but I'll encourage you to be bold and improve the article yourself! Hope I helped, thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  21:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability tag

The article was tagged for notability with a reference to WP:NEO. WP:NEO, a guideline, states that neologisms to be notable must be treated by secondary sources, "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept...", and "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Given that this article is a discussion of the definitions of this term by significant intellectuals, the guideline cited in fact strongly supports inclusion of this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As usual, you selectively read the source. Had you read the rest of that paragraph, you would have seen:

To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

In other words, what you have done here is insufficient to support an encyclopedia article about a neologism. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Contra to the assertions of this IP. The article cites at length academic sources and a newspaper Al Jazeera on the origin of the term, and - mostly - on questions of how it is employed and what it means. NONE of the books, journal articles or journalism cited merely "use" the term; each is "about" Islamo-Leftism; it's meaning and the way the term is used by significant figures (Marine Le Pen, Ali Shariati), and movements (People's Mujahedin of Iran).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed notability tag, again, after adding summaries of long discussions of this idea by (primarily) French intellectuals ranging from Bernard-Henri Lévy through Michel Houellebecq. Drive-by tagging with citation to guidelines that actually, as in this case. support the notability of a page is disruptive editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: The reason I tagged the article originally with {{Notability}} and {{Refimprove}} was because the IP, 63.116.31.198, had asked about the article's notability and accuracy, but had asked for the article to be proposed for deletion but I didn't think this was the case, so I added the two tags on behalf of the IP. I personally do not believe this is disruptive editing.  Seagull123  Φ  22:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Seagull123: I see, but remain puzzled. That IP is an experienced, skilled and aggressive editor, Why can't he add his own tags to a page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also, can you be more specific about the way in which the page fails to meet notability standards? I ask because I write a lot of pages on academic topics, and this appears to be a notable topic to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory and 63.116.31.198: I don't know the answer to your first question, it would be best for you to ask the IP probably. As for your second question, I again state that I only added those tags because the IP had raised their concerns but I do sort of see where they were coming from, a Google search does bring up results but not too many. Personally, I believe that the article is acceptable as it is, but if you want an answer for why it may fail notability standards, again, it would probably be best to ask the IP.

Having already asked the IP for policy reasons for the tag, and gotten invalid and circular responses, I will again remove the tag and suggest that if the IP or anyone else thinks that this term of art in political science is not notable, they should take it to AFD. However, with the sourcing from French intellectual heavy-hitters that the article has, I doubt that it will be deleted. As I said, in my opinion, this is mere Wikipedia:Tag bombing by a disruptive IP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: To be fair, you probably are right. It is well sourced and does seem notable. Hopefully the article will stay.  Seagull123  Φ  23:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have, once again, restored the notability tag. Somebody other than the article's creator and sole contributor ought to judge whether this neologism satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline.

And please keep up the personal insults, E.M.Gregory. Your POV-pushing is not going unnoticed. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the notability tag for cause. Consensus lies against its inclusion at this point, with only the IP editor staunchly in favor. Scr★pIron^IV 20:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ScrapIronIV. All I asked was for somebody other than the notorious POV-pusher who created this article and has been the sole contributor to it to make the judgment whether it is notable. 63.116.31.198 (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Islamo-gauchisme

Hi,

Kingsindian left a message on my talk page. I am native in French and live in Belgium. I can confirm you that this ~"néologisme" is widely used in French ([1], [2], [3], ...).

It is used to denounce alleged links or alleged convergence of interests between the Far-Left and the Radical Islamism. Some talk also about the alliance "brown-green-red" ( fascism - islamism - far-left ). The same are denounced to be allegedly antisemites and I don't know any that would not be "opposed to Israel" (antisionists).

When you refer to France, never forget that what is seen in the to be "left" ("Far-Left") in the US is seen a at the center (Left) in France. Here we are talking about the "Far-Left" from the French point of view, so that is "radical and extreme Left" that is denounced, ie some movements linked to communism or equivalent, which are still existing in Western Europe.

I don't have any mind about the pertinence of this article.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As of April 2023, it has been conclusively proven that the "proposed Vidal inquiry" was nothing more than a rhethorical device and never had any existence. No idea how to put that info in the existing subcategory. It seems important to keep those two paragraphs to demonstrate the lengths government official went to to lend credence to their theory but it should absolutely be corrected with current info by people far more uptodate with wiki editiing than I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:861:51C3:7BE0:BD34:4C35:C708:C841 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Question

Gregory, two last examples here (e.g. PFLP), yes, they are obviously leftist and claimed to be Islamist, but were they described directly as "Islamo-Leftist" in sources? If not, they should be probably removed from the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

PFLP are not Islamo-anything: they are a secular Marxist-Leninists and Arab Nationalists. I suppose their on-off cooperation with Islamist groups could be described as "Islamo-Leftism," but I am not aware of any source that does so. Note again that Islamo-Leftism has been used in two very different meanings: flesh and blood political actors with "Islamo-Leftist" ideologies one the one hand (used by Iran scholars), and the narrative about alliances between Leftists and Islamists/Muslims (pushed by polemicists and politicians). I tried to revise the section on Iran to make that crystal clear. Any given term can have very different usages (as in WP:DISAMBIGUATION), and they do not belong in a single article. Any given article is not about the fact that a term has has been used (per WP:NEO), but about one particular meaning of that term. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion

Non-sense like this does not belong on Wikipedia, it belongs on right-wing neonazi/conservipedia

Agreed -- this frame is an attempt at political spin, not a description of an actual political alliance that exists in real life. The example from the US is a great indictment of this concept -- black activists allying with a mainline organization for the civil rights of Muslims, the Council for American-Islamic Relations, is not an "Islamist and leftist" alliance and anyone who has made that claim should be considered an unreliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, on this and all other topics. BLM and CAIR are both within the mainstream of US political discourse and, although BLM is more amorphous and its members should not be pigeonholed WRT their reconstructive visions, engage primarily in the context of liberal discourse ("liberal" of course here used in the same sense as in the sentence "conservativism is a dissident branch of liberalism").

In short, this is all a hamfisted smear by intellectually dishonest pied pipers trying to manipulate folks' fears for personal gain, and has no place in Wikipedia. --158.106.194.122 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this article looks much more like a pathetic far-right rant than an encyclopedia article. Yet, I believe that deletion would be unproductive. In France, the wording is now very popular in the mainstream media, but what this Wikipedia article lacks is the characterisation that the term has no categorisation value at all. It is quite simply an insult used by the conservative press (and officials) to delegitimize antiracist activities or movements. There is actually a lot of writing about that witch hunting issue in French (see for example this piece). This article cannot be considered neutral unless some serious writing about the uses of the term is undertaken. I am considering putting a POV banner in the meantime. Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with deletion. This is not a coherent concept but can mean different things depending on the author. Anyone can add "Islamo-" to another word. It doesn't become a proper term unless there is agreement on its meaning. TFD (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether anyone decides to nominate this article for deletion or not, it must be noted that this article is about a specific neologism called "Islamo-leftism." It is not about, and should not be about Islam, Islamism, and leftist politics in general. That would be possibly appropriate for a completely different article. This article is only about the neologism. A similar neologism is Islamofascism. The article as it currently stands seems to misuse sources to push original research, as I state in my comment below. Laval (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICT. This article should either be made NPOV instead of acting as a far-right soapbox, or, if that's not possible, be merged or deleted entirely. Red–green–brown alliance has analogous problems. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke, we need help improving it, especially if you speak French. There is an abundance of sources available to make it NPOV, so a WP:BEFORE search will clearly disqualify it from deletion. I just don’t have the bandwidth for the research to make the necessary improvements. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree this needs to go or cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's standards (for comparison, look how Jewish Bolshevism is framed in the article - it treats it properly as a conspiracy theory and not a legitimate concept.) Dan Carkner (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Source check and verification

Given the controversial nature of this article, obviously it is important that sources not be misused to push misinterpretation or original research, such as a source discussing Islamism and leftist politics in general, but not using the specific term "Islamo-leftism," which is what this article is about. Shireen Hunter's articles, for instance, do not appear to use the term "Islamo-leftism" nor does she appear to be known for this neologism. Her articles and talks discuss Islamism and leftist politics, but I've never read anything from her using this neologism. If this is correct and she is not using this neologism, to connect her with this neologism is original research. Same applies to the rest of the article. Laval (talk)

Agreed. If anything, the topic of this article should be about the uses of this neologism, and a critique of these uses, and nothing more. Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree. And I would guess, but don’t have that book to check, Olivier Roy is talking about something else entirely. I think the Iran section should be removed–the uses of this neologism, and a critique of these uses, and nothing more is exactly what I think this should cover. Meanwhile the critiques are conspicuously missing... Innisfree987 (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Per Laval’s comment, I am at least going to trim the SYNTH based on Hunter. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Restored partially, changed wording. In the first source she states Mahmoud Taleghani is 'islamo-leftist', but uses 'leftist islam' latterly. This is important distinction, but she does state the neologism 'islamo-leftist' which is important for the integrity of the article giving that she is a reputable scholar.JJNito197 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I agree that this article is not relevant enough for its own page. For me the solution is simple, most of the article should be merge with Islamic socialism as a subsection and redirected. Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree, Islamo-leftism doesn't just apply to islam, but the 'political alliance between leftists and Islamists'. To have it merged with Islamic socialism would imply that is solely a muslim issue, which is categorically untrue as leftists can be of any background. For me, politics aside, this article is necessary standalone as it neither fits in a sole 'leftist' bracket nor a sole Islamic bracket, but both. This warrants an independent article not primarily tied to one or the other. JJNito197 (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• It’s hard to tell that this concept is wiki notable because right now the entry only presents one side of the media debate over it. Including other views would make clearer why it isn’t best covered by Islamic socialism. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Innisfree987 I agree more viewpoints should be added, this would make it clearer. But this shouldn't invalidate the integrity of the article, seeing as the term is primarily used by the right, not the left. JJNito197 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The left view tends to be critical of the term, but the criticism is a significant point of view on this subject. A neutral viewpoint that presents all significant views on a subject is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, so entirely lacking one side of a debate published in reliable sources is a fairly fundamental flaw in an article’s integrity, as you put it. I would suggest trimming some of the currently overlong list of examples of uncritical usages in favor of a summary with pertinent examples, and a summary of the criticism with some examples. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree Innisfree987, but if we remove more cited examples from this article, the more we validate the opinion that the term is not in 'reliable sources' or has fallen out of use, even though the term is in public discourse as this recent article (november 2nd 2020) by opendemocracy.net can attest. This also doesn't invalidate the article if no contributions from the left are on here; even though there is some opposition to the term, it's not the articles fault that there isn't any counter views if there hasn't been any added, that falls more on the public to contribute. JJNito197 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree Islamo-leftism is a neologism that appears to have fallen out of use. There is so little information about it in reliable sources that it does not warrant a separate article. While it isn't the same as "Islamic socialism," a brief mention of the term in that article would seem more appropriate than a stand-alone article. TFD (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Separate topic that mentioned scholarly books [4] Shrike (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree / Oppose. The concept of "Islamo-leftism" has nothing at all to do with Islamic socialism. It refers to the sympathy expressed by historically secular far-left movements in the West towards (non-socialist) islamism. Whether or not it is a concept reflective of reality is immaterial: It's a word now widely used in French politics and media, and therefore merits an encyclopedic article explaining its use. Aridd (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References