User talk:66.2.146.96

66.2.146.96 - I have deleted the 'Islamonazism' page as it doesn't really fit with the SourceWatch charter. Suggest if anywhere it is more appropriate for Wikipedia. If you haven't kept a copy of the text/markup drop me a line at bobATSourceWatch.org (substitute @ for AT) and I'll send it to you direct. --Bob Burton 16:57, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT) -- As I'm deleting the talk page with the original article as well the comments from there may as well go here - bob

Hmmm. A few queries about this pages: 1) there are a large number of images and there is no way of knowing what the copyright status of them is let alone whether the captioning is accurate. 2)The 'article' is more a polemic - as reflected in the title - with a large amount of unreferenced assertions. 3)Even if points above were addressed I am not sure this article really fits comfortably within the SourceWatch charter given its primarily 'historical' focus. I'm inclined to think it is more approprate (as with the article last week on the Federal Reserve Board) for Wikipedia where there is likely to be more people with sufficient background/interest to review and edit it.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?--Bob Burton 04:32, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I was about to make the same observations and suggestion. I endorse deletion here. --Maynard 07:43, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)