Talk:Manifesto: Together Facing the New Totalitarianism

message: Added  and I suspect would help support an AfD if it came up. (See previous AfD here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MANIFESTO:_Together_facing_the_new_totalitarianism (which I only just found out). I'm removing the text; we have links to it anyway. Ttiotsw 08:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible copyvio on text of the manifesto.

message: :(please see also older discussion)
...went up for deletion, and was merged into this article. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Islamic totalitarianism]]

message: I would like to add whole of part of the manifesto text here to the article. I'm guessing this is not a copyright problem since its a manifesto, which is a public statement? If there is, we could atleast add some part of the text. Any comments? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not add the whole thing. A few excerpts with analysis should be fine - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all, and encyclopedias typically do not have entire texts. An external link to the manifesto should allow readers to read the document if they so desire. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Want to add whole or part of Manifesto text 

message: The AfD discussion back in September ended with the (rightful at the time) decision to merge this article with Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. However, yesterday I improved the article and I feel that it now merits standing on its own with the improved referencing. That is why I have left a message with you, the users involved in the AfD discussion, in order to discuss these changes here. Anyone else who wishes to be involved in this discussion may feel free to do so. In short, should this article still be merged or has it been improved enough that it can stand on its own? SilverserenC 22:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article can not now stand on its own, and it will probably never be able to stand on its own, for it is not independently notable. I am not sure it should be merged to this particular article, or to a more general one, perhaps on Islamophobia--and my merged, I mean one or two sentences. Yes, the letter was provoked by the controversy over the cartoons, but it is not actually about the controversy or the cartoons. In the Wikipedia article, there are only three relevant references, the last three. Of these, the Belien opinion piece merely uses it for an attack upon secularism from a far right-wing Christian perspective.  the second is an inclusion of it in the preface to a book on Islamaphobia (but not in hte actual text), and 3rd,a general article on Cultural Relativism in a good academic source,  does not mention the Manifesto--I read the full text-- nor does it  justify what the Wikipedia article claims, that it was "a response to the subject matter of the manifesto and who the signatories were. "   --there is no such indiction in the article, nor does it even mention the names of any of the signers or cite any of their work.   DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying that this, this, and this aren't talking about the manifesto? And what does it being in the preface have to do with anything? It's clearly discussing it in a fair amount of detail. SilverserenC 00:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, The Daily Dish is a blog, which in and of itself isn't enough to prove notability. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And the rest? SilverserenC 05:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a question of whether of not to mention the manifesto--there's enough sources to do so. It's a question of whether to have a separate article. I think it would need a good deal more than this to overturn the merge result. Even for those who rely most on 2RS= notability, 2 RS means we can have an article, not that we should have an article.Whether or not to split is a matter of judgment.    DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I think other users should be involved in this discussion. Because of the sources that I have added, I feel that the merge decision should be reevaluated. Obviously, this is something that should be discussed and just the two of us discussing it isn't going to get anything done. SilverserenC 23:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm going to remove the tag for merge on the basis that what would be merged is not what was agreed to be merged thanks to the editor SilverserenC over a year ago. If someone wants this gone or merged then they need to AfD it again. It's an encyclopaedia - it's trivial to have as many pages as you like as long as you don't end up with a mass of stubs and no references. This isn't that.  Ttiotsw (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on whether to overturn merge result