Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EDM (talk | contribs) at 04:13, 9 September 2005 (Non-vote comments moved to Talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

NOTA BENE: This is a direct quote from the WP guidelines: "Authors and writers are notable if they have released a book (other than through vanity press)." Perhaps the author of this article should read the relevant discussion of precedents in literature a little more carefully. Respectfully request that people voting "keep" consider changing the vote. BrandonYusufToropov 11:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A highly controversial book or author seems to establishes notability or "notorability," but the Wikireference you provide does not really say anything about this. --AI 20:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, this book by itself is unworthy of it's own page since it has no discernable influence on anything. Sufficient coverage would be a mention on the alleged author's page. I'm changing my vote to delete. --Zero 00:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mein Kampf, though loathsome, is of immense historical import. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though false, has been appealed to as part of an anti-Semitic political strategy employed by various politicians over a period of decades. This book's actual impact, in comparison to these two examples, is so minute as to be unmeasurable. Something can be both hateful and irrelevant at the same time. BrandonYusufToropov 21:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this books in completely non-notable... below 300,000 on Amazon charts... not that they they are representative, but, the author of this book is equally non-notable. I tend to be an inclusionist which is why I haven't voted delete, but one thing I am sure of is that this page better not turn any moreso into propagangda. I removed its linking from the see also of Islamic terrorism because, in the scheme of that subject this is unimportant. As far as I can tell it will only be important on something like a book list or on a page about the author. Also, I promote instant banning of anyone who attempts to portray this anywhere as anything but a book. gren グレン 10:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (copied from gren's talk page): If it's a real book it should be kept. Only keeping the article will cause no harm at all (and will be beneficial), but I think it could be a problem if somebody starts to represent it as more than it is. That's no basis for deleting an article though. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 11:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. When I first saw the article title, I was all, "Delete that puppy!" But when I realized that it is about a book of that name, an actual book purporting to be non-fiction, I chilled out. The topic may be offensive and the content of the book hateful BS, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about it, especially if more wingnuts start citing it (a few already have) and other people need some non-wingnut source to describe the book and put it in context. So, the article has to be NPOV (which in this case, means explaining how contested its claims are and where the book is considered to be biased and inaccurate by most reputable scholars who have heard of it) even if the subject in question is not. In order to be sure that the POV book title does not harm the NPOV aspirations of Wikipedia, the article title should be appended with "(book)". --skoosh (háblame) 11:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect, as per SlimVirgin, to to Amin al-Husayni. Book fails notability teast, is inherently racist and bigoted and actually blames Muslims for the Jewish Holocaust of World War II.. nice. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:39, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • POV is not a criterion for deletion. Being about a book that POV is even less so. And the book is notable enough to be verifiable. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 12:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because it is verifiable, that does not make it notable or worthy of inclusion --Irishpunktom\talk 13:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • But unverifiability is the main problem with 'non-notable' articles. And as this article is entirely verifiable, I can't see any reason to delete it. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 13:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, the problem here is that the Book verifiability comes from a Site which he writes for, and the book itself is non-notable. The questyion being asked here is "Is every book ever published worthy of a wikipedia entry", I would choose to think not. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The book being anti-Muslim and full of lies, is not a justification to delete the article. What could be a justification, is if the book is some unknown work, written by some unknown person. I agree with another user, the mention of book should be added. If the article is POV, then, let make it NPOV Fadix 14:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I can't help wondering if you read the reasons I suggested that the article be deleted. The book is an unknown work, written by an unknown person. The book manifestly fails the notability test. Or are we also supposed to write entries for the 300,000 books on Amazon that outsell it? BrandonYusufToropov 15:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the book is not some rare book published who knows when, and which no editor got interested to re-editing. It's one of Chuck Morse(who is a self admitted right wing extremist)published trash.(he is known to blow up out of proprtion insignificant references and reinterprete them, read his "A Massachusetts Conservative in the Cradle of Liberty : My Run for Congress in Massachusetts-2004" you'll understand what I mean), and there are more rare subjects in Wikipedia. Fadix 15:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't care if it burns the eyeballs off orphans and nuns when they read it, a book with large sales is notable. This isn't.
    brenneman(t)(c) 16:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: As others have said, whether or not the book itself is racist or dishonest is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether we have an article on it. As for "confusion", the article states very clearly that it covers a book, rather than a phenomenon...but if others are concerned about this, then change to the new title with "(book)". There's that problem solved. As for Brandon's claim that it is "utterly non-notable", that's just bs: the author is a syndicated columnist and a writer for a very heavily trafficked political website. We have movie articles on infinitely less notable films. This is just another "I find this topic distasteful, let's bury it" VFD. Babajobu 16:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to expand focus -- a single non-fiction book is not reason enough for an article, but the topic is accurate and notable. There is a historical and ongoing context to the "Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism" that can be discussed in full without using this book as the sole source. Take for example this article, reprinted a couple of months ago from the Wall Street Journal: "A mosque for ex-Nazis became center of radical Islam", which discusses the recent release of papers which document the connection of former Nazis in the establishment of the what became the "European embassy" of the Muslim Brotherhood, "Never before made public, the material shows how radical Islam established one of its first and most important beachheads in the West when a group of ex-Nazi soldiers decided to build a mosque." LeFlyman 18:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect -- upon further consideration that it's the book and not the subject that the article focuses upon, I'm changing my vote to delete/redirect as per SlimVirgin, above. As noted, I am not in favour of every minor book, no matter how controversial the scholarship, getting an entry; that road leads to excess. There are untold numbers of book titles in the world, and Wikipedia at present isn't the place to record them all (that's . However, I am in favour of an article, which doesn't exclusively reference this one book, since the topic is historical and accurate. LeFlyman 23:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might add how incredible it is the meme of this not being a credible book is taken as fact by several wikipedian's as the result a single comment on VfD. Klonimus 19:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The book is not credible because it makes false claims and is self-published. For reliable scholarly sources see Mattar, P. (1988). The Mufti of Jerusalem. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231064624 or Elpeleg, Z. (1993). The Grand Mufti: Haj Amin Al-Hussaini, Founder of the Palestinian National Movement. Frank Cass Publishers. ISBN 0714641006. These sources don't support the absurd claims made in this book. --Ian Pitchford 19:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable self-published work by non-notable person --Ian Pitchford 18:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its a book alright, and the ties of Al Husseini with the Nazis and Arab involvement and cooperation with Nazi officials before and after the war is an encyclopedic topic. For example, Syrian and Egyptian intelligence harbored half a dozen notable Nazi war criminals (but so did Uruguay and other countries), and Islamic terrorists do have ties to Nazi groups. Personally, I don't know how notable this book is, nor do I know if this book should be kept. So I will stay out of this vote. Guy Montag 20:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of a long list of highly-questionable, single-POV, proselytizing articles from a self-described 'anti-idiotarian' . Patently unencyclopedic. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "prosthelytizing?" I guess I support the use of wooden legs. You ought to vote of articles on the merits of their content and encyclopidic nature rather than on your opinion of thier creators. I think if you reexamine each article you will find them to be an NPOV treatment of a subject which has a POV. The Articles's themselves are NPOV and about verifiable subjects (Books) that are encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. Klonimus 00:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per SoothingR and ulayiti. Carioca 01:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear - you'd support an article on Wikipedia for every book ever written whose existance could be verified?
      brenneman(t)(c) 01:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • For non-vanity press books, why not? Nobody has yet given any reason as to why this article should be deleted other than that they don't like it. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 01:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that's your position, I can respectfully disagree. I just wanted you to be explicit. ^_^
        • Several people have said it should be deleted because it's not notable. While I respect your opinion that every (non vanity) book is notable, my vote has nothing to do with the content of the book in question (see nun's eyeball's above.)
        • Finally, I note at least one comment above that this is self published, but am unable to confirm that at this time.
          brenneman(t)(c) 01:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm thinking along more general lines here: even if it's 'non-notable', it's not vanity, and I don't see how having articles on non-vanity 'non-notable' books harms Wikipedia. (Since WP:NOT paper.) Furthermore, many of the delete votes seem to focus on the content of the book, which is doubly irrelevant (as I've explained above). - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 02:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article should be kept for the same reasons that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion should be kept. I think one important way of updating the article in question would be to include a section called "Criticism" then list the various problems with the book to explain that the book is completely ignorant. lol. And the article should mention (book) to avoid confusion. Have you seen the books and the authors listed on Wikipedia? Based on the popularity criteria, we could easily delete at least 75% of all the book titles. If there is better criteria regarding 'notable' works and this doesn't not fit it, then my vote is delete.--JuanMuslim 05:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but Rename per Klonimus. Redirecting to Amin al-Husayni seems somewhat inappropriate to me, as doing so strikes me as an expression of a WP acceptance of the contents and title of the book. If the article ends up being deleted, the relevant information could probably be fairly easily incorporated into Islam and anti-Semitism. Tomer TALK 05:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it seems to me that it would be a senseless destruction of valuable information to delete this article. I think it would be great if Wikipedia had an article about every book ever published. This would require us to, at times, rely on disambiguation pages, but when the need for a disambiguation page arises it has never been a problem on Wikipedia. --Zeno of Elea 06:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --AI Husseini 07:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. -- Karl Meier 07:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would favor keeping an article on just about any nonfiction book, even one that was offensive and dishonest, because I agree that the subject's POV isn't a basis for keeping or deleting an article. A self-published book, however, is in a different category. It amounts to a blog on paper. Although an article about a blog would be verifiable, we don't have articles about blogs unless they're objectively notable, which this book isn't. JamesMLane 09:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable book, listed by known VfD artist BYT. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Briangotts (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete No need to create an article for every book especially since this one is not well-known. I think I should start a new book, the Nazi connection to Christian terrorism, but it's not like Christians had anything to do with the holocaust. ;)--Anonymous editor 16:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The issue isn't that this book is a racist pile of garbage. The real issue is that Wikipedia shouldn't devote articles to vanity publications. Unless the book is notable, this article belongs in the trash. --kizzle 16:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment again what I find to be amazing, is that somehow it's become accepted that this book is racist or not serious because a single person said so. I imagine that at most (n-1) people in this VfD saying that this book is racist have read it Klonimus 17:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-published books ar erarely notable. And we do not have an article on every film. We have consistantly drawn the line at student films and independent films that have only been seen in one theater or at one film festival. This is the equivalent. Zoe 18:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per Zoe. Same would apply if ever the book "The Pope helps Hitler to world-power: How the cross courted the swastika for eight years (Great freethought reprint series - edited by E. Haldeman-Julius) (Unknown Binding) by Joseph McCabe" [1] would have an article in Wikipedia. You can notice that Joseph McCabe is more notable than Chuck Morse whose article has just been created today!!! -- Svest 19:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
    • Comment: You may also find these other articles created by the creator of this article, all of an 'islamofascist' bent, under VfD. [2], [3]. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already advised the same creator months ago to publish himself a few anti-islamic books. At least, he would have been a notable publisher by now. Anyway, as long as the creator is very keen to make the Category:Books critical of Islam larger than the size of all history books about Islam ever published, I am offering him a new title The dark side of Islam [4] leaving him to check if the author is notable. -- Svest 19:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
  • Delete people who cant sell their silly books & sites are now adding articles about them on WP for publicity, & the trend is going quite well with every thing Islamophobic . Farhansher 20:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Toughluck, Wikipedia is also used for propaganda and Jimbo Wale's friends support the propaganda or refuse to address the issue when it deals with subjects they oppose. Wikipedia is inherently hypocritical and biased and you can consider me as an infiltrator that will do everything to destroy Wikipedia when the time comes. Until then I contribute only what I want to. My vote to keep this article is above. --AI Husseini 23:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are all shaking in our boots from your threats of Wiki-terrorism. Umm, maybe you need to go outside and get a life so that a website doesn't cause such bitterness in your life. --kizzle 16:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep* Very interesting book, article highlights existence of such book and should therefore be kept. I could ask for the deletion of pages relating to Michael Moore because they are offensive to right wing americans. To argue that it is racist is disingenuous; the book refers to the religion of islam, not a race of people.
  • Comment, I really think that we need to go by (maybe create) a wikipedia standard on this book. We can't have this article staying but more notable books slipping through the deletion craps because they can't create the controversy that this has. Is there an attempt at a policy on this yet? gren グレン 22:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, you can discuss the policies. Maybe Jimbo will pay people, but I think "contributors" will continue to be used as a Wikislaves up until the end. --AI Husseini 23:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a sort of precedent, listed here. It says that "Books are notable if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not." Unfortunately, that still leaves it to us to determine what 'well-known' is. I'm a reasonably well-read person, so my standard is that if I haven't heard of it, it probably isn't well-known enough to deserve an encyclopedia entry. Remember, Wikipedia is not a collection of random information; we shouldn't have every book at your local library or everything on the Newsmax reading list here. The 'well-known' standard for books should be fairly high... In particular, given that Wikipedia editors in general are probably fairly well-read, a book that 80% of our editors have never heard of is certainly not well-known. Therefore, outside a few special cases, I think the "have I heard of it" test is generally perfect for judging books. Aquillion 01:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understandable... but, in an online environment hacks like Ali Sina become well known to us because we have to be engaged in debates about their legitimacy. This looks like it's going to be kept... and I have no problem if this is because wikipedia is developing an inclusionist policy... at least it's standardized. However, if I create a book article say one on something like, Jews: How Zionists Orchestrated the Holocaust for World Pity and Won Israel, or something along those lines that you see in trashy Arab magazines... I would not want that to be deleted if something like this can stay (supposing they have a much notoreity as Morse... which isn't too hard). I am just worried that this is going to cause policy fissures. If this is kept and then some of the other relatively non-notable books are deleted that shouldn't happen. I think we need firm policy on this because when it comes to books of religious contention each side has a tendecny to vote for their point of view on the issue. If you look at voting here (at least from the editors who work on Islamic articles) this breaks down right along the lines of their viewpoints on the issues. Those accused of always trying to demonize Islam want this kept and those accused by the former of apologetics have voted delete. This whole debate should be about notability standards and I fear it isn't... and we need standards. If this book can have a page then so can any Jerry Spinelli book which I'm sure all sell a lot more and are known by more people. I urge each editor here to created dialog for consistent book notability standards and not voting just because of your POV on a subject. Slim, Irish, BrandonYT, etc.. I'd hope you'd vote for the deletion of all vanity press... and Klonimus, Babajobu, Zeno, etc. I hope you'd not vote for deleting trash novels bashing other religions. Help wikipedia develop standards, and not just digress into POV battles for each book. gren グレン 10:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an equal opportunity inclusionist: see my very vigorous campaign to keep Religious persecution by Jews. I'll have to see it happen to believe that Brandon and company would vote to delete a non-notable Islamophilic entry. None of that religious fanboy behavior from me. Babajobu 11:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, Wikipedia is not simply a list of everything that exists. The guidelines state that for a book to get its own encyclopedia article, it must be well-known; this book manifestly isn't. Aquillion 21:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to this guideline ? Ericd 21:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here. Aquillion 03:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE VOTE ABOVE THIS LINE

Non-vote comments moved to Talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Nazi_Connection_to_Islamic_Terrorism&oldid=22888367"