Talk:Racist hate speech
Much better effort at this article. However, it includes all the inaccuracies, POV, and disputed material that was deleted from the other articles. - Texture 22:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Did you read this article? Claiming that "the Jews themselves are the most thoroughgoing racial supremacists the world has ever seen" is the height of POV. This makes Wikipedia look bad. Meelar 22:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- When I did get to read the whole article I added msg:vfd to it - Texture 22:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- He just got banned - does this at all qualify for fast deletion? - Texture 22:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I think the title is inaccurate; it calls for a quick move, at any rate. Got any ideas? Meelar 22:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
P.S., sorry about flipping out above, it was kind of a shock.
- I took the lead from a suggestion on VfD - I redirected to a valid article Hate speech (since the similar rant was removed from there) - Texture 22:39, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Well, that may not work... like to write an article describing real racist hate speech? I can offer my own father as an example... :( - Texture 22:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Votes for Deletion[edit]
- Racist hate speech - racist rant that was deleted when added to many other pages - Texture 22:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Almost a word for word duplicate of hate speech. Merge and redirect. Rossami 22:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Redirected - Texture 22:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- To one of the pages that has a link to it in the first place, I note -- Graham :) 22:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to say keep and and list on Wikipedia:Cleanup, for the sole reason that there's a Homophobic hate speech article, so there ought to be a racist one -- Graham :) 22:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Using this reasoning, since there are factual articles, there ought to be articles with made-up facts, right? Wrong. - Texture 22:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Huh? Where did that logic spring from? Things are said against lesbian and gay people, and things are said against black people. If you have an article on one but delete an article on another that's double standards. Either keep both or delete both, and don't put words into my mouth that I didn't say -- Graham :) 22:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, took me a few minutes to get your meaning. Good idea. - Texture 22:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Huh? Where did that logic spring from? Things are said against lesbian and gay people, and things are said against black people. If you have an article on one but delete an article on another that's double standards. Either keep both or delete both, and don't put words into my mouth that I didn't say -- Graham :) 22:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Using this reasoning, since there are factual articles, there ought to be articles with made-up facts, right? Wrong. - Texture 22:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Uncertain. This article doesn't IMO add anything to Wikipedia, although it's well written and does no harm other than wasting space in VfD. It's borderline IMO. There seems no good reason to list it here, but that's true of many other entries too. No VfD notice at present, just BTW. Andrewa 16:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, and Homophobic hate speech needs to be merged w anti-gay slogan, but thats a seperate topic. Sam Spade 08:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep according to the logic that homophobic hate speech should be kept so should this one. BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)