Talk:Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a previous vote for deletion. An archived record of the discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy 2 POV/NPOV 3 Vandalism is a personal attack 4 Infiltration 5 Books for Possible Addition 6 AFD

[edit] Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy

Extract from Appendix A,

"The first fact is that a significant Communist conspiracy was in place in Washington, New York, and Los Angeles, but in the main those involved systematically denied their involvement. This was the mode of Communist conspiracy the world over. George Kennan would write in his memoirs:

The penetration of the American governmental services by members or agents (conscious or otherwise) of the American Communist Party in the late 1930s was not a figment of the imagination . . . it really existed; and it assumed proportions which, while never overwhelming, were also not trivial. (Memoirs 1950-1963.) [1]

The articles assertion that,

"Classic books representing the conspiracist genre in the United States (that cover an alleged communist conspiracy to take over America are: A Choice, Not an Echo by Phyllis Schlafly, and None Dare Call It Treason by John A. Stormer.

is contradicted by the official published findings of a Commssion established by Statutory law to establish the facts as whether or not a "conspriracy" existed within the U.S. government and is placed here for revision. nobs 15:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd nonsense. None of the ultraconservative books listed have even a passing relationship to legitimate critiques of Soviet espionage, of which there are many. Nobs, this is more evidence of your cyberstalking of me here at Wiki. --Cberlet 16:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[ Note: In repsonse to the above conspiracy propounded by Mr. Cberlet, the record shows [2] my editing history in the Phyllis Schlafly article and an ongoing discussion with Mr. Griffen Fariello inclusive of "None Dare Call It Treason"
(Talk:History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States#More_right-wing_garbage), the two citations in question]. nobs 16:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Your defense of ultraconservative anticommunist conspiracist hysteria is not a useful addition to this page.--Cberlet 18:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

And you made your edits on the other page in July. Nice try.--Cberlet 18:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, duh, that's the point. It's ongoing & grandfathered in. nobs 19:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory that the gubmint is engaged in a conspiracy needs sourcing. (See, I can make a point without resort to inflamitory words like "hysterical" or "paranoid", which may be misconstrued as a personal attack). Kindest regards. nobs 19:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You make no sense. I have no conspiracy theory about the government. I described the books as "ultraconservative anticommunist conspiracist hysteria" and it is not a personal attack unless you wish to claim that description for yourself, in which case it is hardly a personal attack.--Cberlet 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV/NPOV

Ericd says this article it's a POV one. You mean the opposite? I don't care about the article but I do care about the book verifiability. Look at the title! It says Muslim spies and my ignorant mind cannot fathom how the content of the book talks about wahhabites while the title is general!!! Are there any moderate chinse muslims being involved or only wahhabites? Did I miss something? You got what I mean about the POV stuff? I hope you understand why I presented it to the Afd. Cheers Svest 22:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

It was very discourteous to list the article in a VFD before even attempting to engage in a discussion here. The article clearly describes the book as unreliable and part of a long history of conspiraism in the U.S. Did you actually read this entire article before posting the VFD?--Cberlet 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I did of course, Cberlet. That was the reason why i did afd it. There are thousands of books of the same nature and i don't believe they merit a place here. There are on the other hand notable conspiracy theories books that may merit that honour but they are not here. We have articles about conspiracies and those books can be listed there as sources. Svest 23:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have read the book. The Title is very sensationalist. The text/body of the book is less so.--Purpleslog 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism is a personal attack

I'm not a vandal. As I don't say think article is POV. However, I suspect some people have to an agenda about Islam there. If "Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington", I'm free to believe that they're smarter than the US governement, thus the category "Books critical of Islam" is highly POV. Ericd 22:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean NPOV? Indeed, it's not critical of Islam! Spies are everywhere. The issue is that the book fails dramtically to be accurate and notable when claiming that those spies want/have wanted/wanted to change the US constitution! How the hell can spies change a constitution? Svest 22:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

When an article is being voted on, it really is vandalism to delete a category and insert a fictitious category. It damages the article and creates a bias during the vote. --Cberlet 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The main bias is the category. Ericd 23:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If you believe so then discuss it in its talk page and present it to Cfd. Svest 00:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infiltration

The title, "How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington" can be a simple reference to a lobbying organization, as "Washington" does not necessarily mean dah gubmint. And with money, lobbyists can infiltrate, penetrate, and subvert, I would suppose. None of this is new, news, or surprising. nobs 00:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This book is probably about Rep. Cynthia McKinney's donor list [3]; now that may qualify as infiltration & penetration. Now if it can be shown were McKinney cast a deciding vote on legislation, then a case for subversion may possibly be made. nobs 02:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

See also Daniel Pipes, Cynthia McKinney's Arab and Islamist Donors. nobs 02:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Books for Possible Addition

Who would defend articles on these books if they are added to Wikipedia? --JuanMuslim 20:22, 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

I don't know people yet here who are considiring to dedicate their time to create Category:Books critical of whatever I don't like. Cheers -- Svest 20:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

IMHO, the creator of a book article should at least have read the book first. Creating the article based upon published book reviews is questionable, to put it mildly. I am amazed this is not Wikipedia policy (unless I'm mistaken). Thank you. nobs 20:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I am amazed as well, nobs. The creator hasn't stopped wasting our time here. I am sure he's getting amazed by the titles. I explained to him that the title of this book is too general and the content of the book focuses mainly on Wahhabites. In other words, the book notability is missing and however his aim drives him crazy to just fill out (according to his own words) the Category:Books critical of Islam. I therefore presented this crap to Afd. Indeed, he knows better than me that he could have added (Book) at the title of the article but still he didn't, trying to win the minimum possible out of this. I don't have anything against that category but I'm surely agaisnt bias and nonesense and the non-respect of a policy that unfortunately doesn't exist. Cheers -- Svest 21:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

So what do you suggest as a fair resolution? --Cberlet 21:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Short of proposing a policy (which should be highly encouraged), perhaps an RfC specifically asking for someone who actually has read the book. nobs 22:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

A very good question and a very good answer. I appreciate the hard job you did for the fascism articles Cberlet. We are facing almost the same situation here. However, here we are dealing with notability (books) and categorization. The answer of nobs sounds pretty interesting and I am supporting it. That would avoid us wasting our time here judging, discussing, debating, shouting, kicking, etc the notability of every newely created article about a book (including notable and nonsense ones). Cheers Svest 22:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] AFD

This article has survived an WP:AFD...sorta. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington for more information. And by the way, if there is anything that can be done to shorten that title, please do it! --Phroziac ^(talk) 22:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Phroziac?!!! I think you are being mistaken. 13 votes for delete against 7 to keep! Please recheck the Afd! Cheers -- Svest 22:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

That's 65%, which is not generally considered a consensus. The usual number quoted is around 75-80% (and I voted to delete). This sort of outcome is why I support Pure Wiki Deletion. Aquillion 22:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)