Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Christian fascism

Deletion

 * Delete The entire article is one big POV, and should therefore be deleted. Reason is quite clear, especially when the ones who want to keep it argue more about my userboxes then the actual article. No doubt because its impossible to defend a POV article such as this one. Itake 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A defense of the article is not required. A defense of your request for deletion is, considering you cite POV as the reason for deletion, and considering your well-documented inability to accept opposing viewpoints. You see the article as a POV because it speaks of FACTS that are the opposite of *YOUR* POV. Get over yourself. If POV were your REAL problem with the article, and you actually believed any of the crap you claim to on your user page, you'd be requesting a re-direct (perhaps to Neofascism), not a pure delete. But no; like many of strong, immovable beliefs, you'd rather destroy that with which you do not agree than allow any opposing viewpoint. It's as if you don't believe the words of your own religion, about turning the other cheek, about walking in another's shoes. Wow. You're an atheist, Itake. Fascinating. Weirdoactor 02:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again my point remains, complete inability to defend the article. And when there's no defense, the opposing side turns to slinging personal insults and the likes instead. Still Delete. Itake 05:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me try and understand this…you call me a retard, and I'm the one slinging insults and the "likes" (sic)? Interesting. Seeing the enormous groundswell of support you have for this deletion, it's easy to see why you're so confident. Good luck with that!

Here is my defense of this article. Enjoy -

1) The term gets a huge number of search engine hits (47,300 at 0908 CST on 09/27/06)

2) The Christian Right Wing has fascist elements (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan, the Westboro Baptist Church, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson). These are not fascists in the epithet use of the word; one definition of fascist is "a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views". As fascism is "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism" and more the point of this discussion, “a political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government”, and the examples mentioned before are fascists by that definition (as judged by their actions and statements), and all are Christians, the term is legitimate, and not solely an epithet.

3) Epithet vs. Legitimate Term: One example of a word that is both legitimate and an epithet: liberal. Conservatives use this word as an epithet to inspire their base. Should we delete the liberal article as well? How about redneck, which is also both a legitimate term (often used by those it describes in a positive way) and an epithet? And let us not forget nigger, which possibly the gravest insult a white person can call a black person…but a word used over and over again in rap music, performed mostly by blacks. It’s both a legitimate term, and an epithet; should we delete that article as well?

4) If the term is legitimate, and not solely an epithet, the article is legitimate. If the article is legitimate, it should not be deleted. At most, it might be redirected/absorbed into Neo-Fascism, a move I would agree with more than a pure deletion. Thank you for reading. Weirdoactor 14:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias?
Itake, who has nominated this article for deletion, is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. I think that's hilarious; above and beyond the SEVEN references to Religion and Christianity on Itake's user page. Not agreeing with an entry's existence is not reason enough for that entry's deletion. Especially if one wished to be taken seriously as an "inclusionist", as well as claiming to "reject all forms of Marxist thinking". In a user-edited system, there will be many entries one does not agree with. If Itake feels so strongly about rejecting any articles he/she disagrees with, perhaps he/she should start their own online user-edited (or not) encyclopedia.Weirdoactor 23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)