Talk:Islamonazism

uh....this is not appropriate for the wiktionary. it is too long, too involved and oh how can i forget utterly political. wikitionary is not an encyclopedia let alone a propagandistic one. editorials are fine, just not on this site.

Agreed--this is not a dictionary definition.


 * The word is attested, though not widely. Google turns up 59 hits from various sources.  May still want to delete and reinstate to flush history.
 * Please cite your sources. I do not consider Google to be a reliable source by itself.  Whether the term (but not necessarily the idea it represents) is legitimate depends mostly on it having been published somewhere.  Even an extremist publication can be proof of how the term was really used. Eclecticology 07:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The National Review article was about the 11th Google hit. Whatever its merits, TNR is a long-established and widely published periodical.  Given that the other hits were predominantly perfectly good and mutually independent usages of the word in context, I don't see any justification for rfd.  The TNR article also uses the related term Islamonazis in a different sentence.  Shall we also add that, complete with quotation and link to the article? -dmh 14:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion moved from rfd page

 * Islamonazism This same crap also ended up on wikipedia. some idiot is making propagandistic editorials and putting them up. Ampersand
 * He should cite his source for the term. Google is not a reliable reference by itself. He should be ready to cite a published source.  Even if the term is used in an extremist publication, that publication is evidence of the terms usage beyond someone inventing a term just for the dictionary.  It would be so much better if contributors used quotes instead of trying to make up their own sentences. Eclecticology 07:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * See the present text of the article. It's not a term I'd use or condone, but it is attested in (among other places) The National Review, a long-established US conservative publication.  Please remove it from rfd.  It really is used.
 * One cautionary point: When I replaced the original propaganda with a real definition, I had hoped to do so quietly -- I checked to make sure it was used, but didn't include any links or quotations.  Thanks to Eclecticology's challenge, I then ended up bringing in a quotation and a link, therby providing that extra bit of promotion to both the concept and TNR (not my favorite publication).  Next time, please google first, then challenge.  -dmh 19:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks dmh. The TNR quote is just the kind of evidence that we need for this.  I do not fall within TNR's part of the political spectrum either, but I do not consider the article to be a promotion of either the term or the magazine.  It reports the fact of the word's usage in a findable publication.  That's what NPOV is all about.  Fortunately debating the ideas expressed in that article are beyond the scope of Wiktionary.  Eclecticology 16:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Objectively speaking, the article is the stronger for it (a "good" quotation :-). (hmm . . . does the include usages like "the stronger for it"?) -dmh 21:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It does talk about the use of "the" with a comparative. :-) Eclecticology 21:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2011–February 2012
This does seem to be extremely rare, not sure if our one citation is 'durably archived' or not. It could pass as Islamo-Nazism. Islamonazi also might make the grade. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks easily verified via Usenet. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited. - -sche (discuss) 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)