Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington

Response to Chip Berlet's vote to keep as example of paranoid conspiracism.(--Cberlet 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

So anyone searching/finding a new target for a paranoid conspiracy merits having his work published here as well? And you want people believe in that because Wikipedia says it? I am learning everyday interesting new things in Wikipedia. I said hoax because if it was true the administration should have arrested the accused! Or else is it another failure of the gov't and the politics in the US? Svest 22:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The book is clearly described as an unreliable conspiracy theory. As such it is of value in an encyclopedia, which can serve to educate by refuting obviously flawed material. Anti-Islamic conspiracy theory is both bigoted, and at the same time crowds out legitimate criticism of terrorism by certain Islamic fundamentalist groups. --Cberlet 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I follow what you said than I'll be changing the category in the article. It would be categorized into Category:Conspiracy theories and Category:Hoaxes. Cheers -- Svest 22:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep book, enough with this attempt to purge wikipedia of books that are critical of Islam. Please please please, keep separate your distaste for the subject of an article from the merits of the article itself or its encyclopedic nature. Klonimus 22:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Klonimus, the book is not critical of Islam. Who says that? The book talks about a group or members or a group spying on/in the US with an objective to change the US constitution. It's a conspiracy theory and not anti-islamic. It is rather an anti-spying book. The community of spies around the world would be amazed of such powers behind spying that themselves don't know and only the author knows. Svest 23:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Klonimus, it is your obsession with adding these books with a complete disregard for their fame or notability that has made these AfDs necessary in the first place. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; a book needs to be well-known to get its own encyclopedia entry. These articles have no potental to ever evolve past a stub; there is nothing to say about any them beyond a brief description and a few notes about the author. A book whose only claim to fame is making it into the NewsMax or WorldNetDaily reading lists is simply not a proper subject for an encyclopedic article. Aquillion 00:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who would defend articles on these books if they are added to Wikipedia? --JuanMuslim 20:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

"The Holy Reich : Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945" by Richard Steigmann-Gall

"Unholy Alliance: A History of the Nazi Involvement With the Occult" by Norman Mailer

"A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair" by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen

"Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich" by Doris L. Bergen

(Moved --Cberlet 13:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]