Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamonazism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islamonazism[edit]

POV essay attempting to prove a connection between Islam and Nazism based largely on the actions of Amin al-Husseini and a few other Palestinians, some tendentiously-presented photographs, and the theories of a few right-wing cranks. —No-One Jones (m) 04:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I've seen the term used by right wing cranks before, maybe it should have a page, just one that it is encyclopedic ("Right wing cranks use the term Islamonazism to indicate that they consider various extreme forms of Islam to be morally or functionally equivalent to Nazism under Adolf Hitler" etc). The biggest problem with this article (and theory) is that it confuses two completely different aspects of Middle Eastern politics (as I understand it): Pan-Arabism (which is functionally similar to Fascism, i.e. the Baath party in Iraq and Syria) and Islamism (radical Islamic rule, i.e. the Taliban, or Iran). The problem is... the ideologies are generally mutually incompatible (hence the divisions between Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Iran, Al Quaida, etc.). Which is really here nor there on the VfD page, but I guess maybe this could be turned into a real article, but you'd have to start by blanking the current version. Actually, nevermind: redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism. --Fastfission 04:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Kill it. Kill it dead. Kill it dead dead dead. Also the redirect Palinazi. Kill that one dead dead dead too. Bearcat 05:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • My gut reaction is to delete this irritatingly stupid jab at all of Islam, but a redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism is more appropriate and is more than this topic deserves. --Ardonik.talk()* 05:11, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:17, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism as suggested, but also delete the history. This page is thoroughly disgusting. --Zero 07:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) Don't worry about Palinazi, it was an obvious fast delete and I did it already.
  • Agree with redirecting and deleting the history. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Livajo 09:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on, not this again? We deleted Islamonazi per VfD recently! This ought surely to be speedied as a mere reposting of that. I so vote: Speedy delete. Bishonen 12:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete JFW | T@lk 12:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect: Make Islamonazi a protected redirect per all the suggestions above, but the way to delete this one's page history is simply to delete it outright. Delete also Palinazi, with no need for a redirect there, as it is unlikely that another orthographically challenged person will mistake PalEstine for PalIstine. Geogre 12:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This article is an anti-Islamic witchhunt, suggesting that Islamism = Islam, drawing connections about as strong as, say, that the KKK is representative of the United States. While it is possible to collect data, as Iceman has, that provide a bare semblance of an argument, this tie is only there because of his selection, not because of an actual underlying regularity. Ahh, the joy of kooks with an agenda. --Improv 16:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • "Keep this article". I see no reason to delete an article that is factual in every respect. A policy of deletion simply because the facts are unpleasant is a poor policy for a reference source.
  • I showed the history and modern days of Islamonazism based purely on facts and nothing more. Not only that you call a balanced and honest article a "biased and disgusting" basing your statements on absolutely nothing, but you want to delete it along with its history. Iceman 14:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anybody like to prove this article wrong with facts other than feet stamping.

  • This article is based on fact and history. There is no reason to delete it. You can't change history by ignoring it, or pretending it didn't happen. Tony Sopranostein
  • It's a must stay factual article.
  • An article should NOT be deleted because of "Political Correctness" Hurt feelings and ethnic pride must not come ahead of the truth. An article should only be judged on its factual content. Mephisto 4535
  • Delete. Loony [vote by User:Xed ]
  • Some of the history in this article could reasonably survive under a suitably neutral title like Arab support for Germany during World War II, but not this article, which tries to draw a conclusion from insufficient data and is factually wrong in several places. Delete. Author: see talk page for why this article is wrong. DJ Clayworth 15:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yet you didn't show what data is insufficient and where I was factually wrong... Iceman 15:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I show exactly that. Read the talk page. Skorzeny, for example. DJ Clayworth 15:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Otto Skorzeny article will show you that I am right.
    • Don't argue here, go to talk page. DJ Clayworth 16:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • *KEEP* as is. This is a comprehensive well done piece that is not a point of view, but a factual history that is certainly worth keeping in Wikipedia. If "neutrality" of information means facts are not acceptable, then Wikipedia is doing itself a disservice. Truthseeker0001

To whoever is stacking up sockpuppets to vote on this page: Please don't. It's really, really, really obvious that a new account is a sockpuppet when it makes its first edit to an obscure VfD page, and sockpuppet votes are not counted. —No-One Jones (m) 16:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is showing up elsewhere on the net. As a user of wikipedia, though a new registraton here, I see no reason for *certain* votes to "not" count. It smacks of censorship and control of information by virtue of how long you have been registered Truthseeker0001 16:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Some criteria are necessary to make votes legitimate, otherwise this page could be mercilessly abused by anonymous cranks. . . Lacrimosus 22:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • So long as there are criteria for how votes count, it's not a problem. The reason new accounts count less is that it's too easy for someone either to make new accounts for the purpose of multiple-voting, or for someone to go find a bunch of their friends to vote their way. Suggesting that people hang around for awhile and make some contributions before their votes count is a good guard against these problems. --Improv 16:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Delete, Delete, and Delete. That is actually just one vote, btw, and not the attempt of a single person to vote multiple times, like the sock puppets above. Oh, or Redirect to the pejorative thing, whatever. func(talk) 17:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - do not redirect - even if you accept the terms as slang the content is rubbish when applied thus. - Tεxτurε 17:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: POV rant nonsense. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 17:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, some of the info can be merged into pan-arabism and islamism, if NPOV-ified and factual, but the problem with this is that it is just an NPOV rant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Speedy delete because islamonazi was already VfDed. -Vina 18:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unforunately the votes of sock puppets and one-issue new contributors are sometimes counted when a sysop wants to keep an article. Jallan 18:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Right. Which is why we need a strict policy on not allowing votes by users who registered after the vote commenced. func(talk) 19:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I'll second that. The VfD vote counting process is too arbitrary! Bishonen 19:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Adding one more Delete to help the count against the sockpuppets. RickK 19:12, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • (Ineligible anon vote): Keep this page. It should be clear by now that there exists a radical version of Islam, which is rapidly becoming mainstream (unlike the KKK), which is the modern, murderous equivalent of Nazi fascism. Sorry to disappoint the ultra-liberals among us, but this is an accurate portrayal of a large number, though far from all, Muslims.
  • Has anyone said "original research" yet? Delete for that and all other reasons already stated. - KeithTyler 21:19, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with comments made by DJ Clayworth. If the original author is interested in salvaging the article, (which does contain useful information) he or she needs to read and understand NPOV. --Viriditas 22:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This misuse of the VFD process here is deplorable. Lacrimosus 22:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, not POV at all. Its simply informing the readings of an important topic. -- Old Right 23:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Old Right has a great user page.--Xed 23:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • (I've already voted) On the question of delete vs redirect (obviously keep is a ridiculous option for anybody who isn't a sock puppet or an extreme right-wing crackpot), I think redirect is probably best. I've seen people use the term Islamonazi and leaving it open will just encourage someone else to think it doesn't have an entry. I don't see the purpose in killing the page history -- who cares? Anybody who is seriously looking up the term here will find similarly nonsensical and hate-filled things if they have typed it into Google first, I could care less, personally, if they read that at one time a crackpot had once again filled up Wikipedia with hate-filled nonsense... --Fastfission 23:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree...Old Right's user page is kinda cool. Speaking as a lifelong Republican-voting, Drudge Report-reading, Sean Hannity-watching, LA Times-hating conservative who would greatly enjoy the opportunity to give Dan Rather an atomic wedgie, I have to give this horrific rant as emphatic a delete vote as I have ever given. There are conservatives and there are crackpot, extreme, hate-filled individuals who wrap themselves in the flag while spouting their vitriol all over this site. This is almost worse than the damned kiddie porn apology articles! Lacrimosis hit it on the head. Just get rid of this thing and the sockpuppets that go with it. - Lucky 6.9 04:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to [[List of Perjorative etc.. and delete. There is obviously a history of association between the Nazis and Moslems but that belongs on the appropriate pages, not as a aseperate article. You could probably find a similar connection between the nazis and any other historical opposition to British rule. Presumably we don't have an article on IRA-Nazism, and yet there was definitely some contact between them. Similarly, in more recent times, there may have been contact between the IRA and Libya, are we to expect an article on Irish-Islamism?

Furthermore; articles like this are by their nature contentious and involve Wikipedia in unnecessary acrimony. ping 09:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: Why are we even letting this go on and on? Anon votes count zero. As for the people being reasonable and trying to find content to merge, let's remember one of those really basic truths: Islamic and Arab are not the same thing. If someone wants to talk about Arab tribes that supported the Nazis, well, whatever. That's not Islam. Secondly, if we do decide to trace that out, then, as Ping says, the IRA supported Hitler, and so did Prebscott Bush (current president's grandfather) and so did Charles Lindbergh. So? There is a big difference between a realpolitik supporter of the enemy of one's enemy and ideological agreement, and therefore there is a big difference between, say, a sheik and Ezra Pound (or, pre-war, Prebscott Bush). Delete the article, no redirect. Make a new Islamonazi as a protected redirect to the ethnic slurs article. Geogre 13:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: agenda promo. Redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans and protect the redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV garbage. Jayjg 16:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Islamo-fascism Shimmin 17:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't create redirect that only goes to a redirect. (See Ardonik above) - Tεxτurε 17:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this junk POV page. Is there a Judeonazism page? Or is that synonymous with Zionism?Alberuni 17:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I could—but am not going to—write such a page, which would be just as valid as Islamonazism. —No-One Jones (m) 18:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Now that you ask, yes, on the List of pejorative political slogans page there are gems like Judeofascism and Zionazism. Whatever happened to just using adjectives? --Fastfission 23:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I dunno, but you could ask whoever came up with the term Wikipedia. :) - KeithTyler 23:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this logic-free garbage. Binadot 19:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I might support a short entry that says something like this "This is a term used as a pejorative, etc."--iFaqeer 20:29, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect, protect. SWAdair | Talk 07:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • You probably won't believe this, but I vote Strong Keep. Why? We've dealt with this kind of thing with people like User:WHEELER, and we can do it again. Change the article title to something non-godwin inducing, and then NPOV the thing to pieces to see what remains of it. Things may or may not remain, but I'm curious as to the result. Kim Bruning 13:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Change vote to neutral. If it is a verifiable historical and current phenomenon, crop article to those provable NPOV facts. Remove baseless insinuations e.g. Islam==Nazi or Arab==Nazi, etc. Priority cleanup. If, say, Arab nazism is the more accurate explanation, then do the same cleanup, and move article to Arab Nazism. And so on. KeithTyler 16:43, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 04:19, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete - Nothing but liberals and towel-heads wanting deletion so keep it for purposes of objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.8.188 (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamonazism&oldid=1137936023"