Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  no consensus. No overwhelming agreement here, and no policies or guidelines appear to deal directly with this situation. The subpage was created by a consensus discussion at Talk:Love jihad. If there is a desire to stop using the subpage, that should probably be decided by another consensus discussion at Talk:Love jihad.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 16:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This subpage was created as a result of. It is intended as a forum exclusively for discussing whether love jihad is a conspiracy theory (thus de facto for complaints from people who disagree with the article's characterization of it as such). I've raised my objections to this at (permalink), and been told that expressing concerns is disruptive, so I bring this here for review instead. A subpage like this is a bad idea for three reasons: As I've explained at the parent talkpage, there are a variety of remedies available to handle disruptive edit requests on talkpages for controversial articles, and plenty of talkpages, such as Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and (of late) Talk:Recession, are able to handle things using those remedies without resorting to this non-solution. This subpage should be deleted. (It could be first archived to the parent page's current archive if desired, but there's not much to preserve.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) If content is too disruptive to be included on the main talk page, it is too disruptive to be included on a subpage. Wikipedia does not have holding pens for disruptive editing.
 * 2) This subpage has nine watchers. The parent talkpage has 218. This is problematic both because vandalism and disruption is much more likely to go unnoticed here—see Special:PageHistory/Talk:Maryland/North (Mid-Atlantic State) vs South (Southern State) for what this page's future may hold—and because it removes most stakeholders from discussion: People who watchlist an article expect to get watchlist updates for discussions about it. They will not be aware of discussions on the subpage, and no "consensus" on the subpage could ever be binding.
 * 3) Editors here to push a love jihad POV are not in fact the kind of people who tend to listen to banner notices saying they need to do that POV-pushing on a different page. So this page largely goes ignored by the people it's intended to corral.
 * Keep. As far as I know, there are no policies or guidelines on how to use talk-space subpages. This one was created via talk page consensus, and I'd rather see talk page consensus develop to stop using it. If we're looking for project-wide consensus, I'd prefer to see a guideline on subpages in general. On Tamzin's reasons #1 and 2: I would support deletion if there were more of a problem with disruptive or vandalistic editing of the subpage, which I have not seen so far. Yes, there's the potential, but I don't favor deletion of pages based on the potential for disruption. Reason #3: newer editors are likely not reading the banner, but it's useful as a statement of consensus on how to deal with the repetitive posts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Firefangledfeathers, can you please link to the talk page consensus you mention? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Discussion started at Talk:Love jihad/Archive 3 and continued at Talk:Love jihad/Archive 3. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The discussion leading to the creation of this page was carried out in good faith, but I find its conclusions erroneous. If a talk page post is a generic discussion of whether Love Jihad is a conspiracy, it violates WP:NOTFORUM, and should be removed, not placed in a holding cell to languish indefinitely. If it includes constructive critique of page content, then it needs to be discussed on the main talk page: consensus-building on a poorly-watched sub-page is difficult if not impossible. The FAQ section in the talk page banner is sufficient for informational purposes. As such I can see no valid use case for the sub-page. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look at WP:NOTFORUM. I think you have misconstrued this. WP:NOTFORUM states please do not take discussion into articles.  Admittedly, it hedges a bit and says it's not a place for "general discussion" about the subject of the article... but that is referring to the standard article talk page.
 * If there's some content that would tend to detract or interfere with the operation of one page, that is best pushed off to another page. While WP:NOTFORUM prohibits discussions which are counter-productive to the purpose of a page, the actual guidance it provides is that discussions should be consistent with the goal of maintaining an encyclopedia. Not only is the Conspiracy theory subpage  not inconsistent with that, it actually serves that purpose. Fabrickator (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. What seems to be missing is the recognition that there can be two overlapping yet distinct definitions of what constitutes "love jihad", and that neither group can claim exclusive ownership of the definition.  Definitions are not true or false, they just are!  The existence of "love jihad" may by one definition be quite implausible, while by the other definition, its existence may be virtually unassailable. This separate discussion area will eliminate the efforts to crush the other side and perhaps enable each side to more easily recognize the point that the other side is making.  Fabrickator (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * None of that argument addresses why such discussion cannot happen on the main talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My recollection is that attempts at such discussion on the main talk page have been generally met with a harsh response and were typically reverted. The situation is quite polarized with conflict to be expected.
 * A separate page can be expected to help keep the peace. Perhaps people will identify sources that you find objectionable because they suggest that love jihad is real, but it's not in the article, so there's no real cause for objection, helping to keep the main talk page free of claims that "love jihad" is real. What are you afraid of anyway, that an angry mob could form? Fabrickator (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason not to have a separate page is the same reason posts on the main talk page are removed; because we are not a forum for general discussion. Discussions that are not discussing specific issues with the page just do not belong on here, regardless of whether they're on a sub-page or not. I'm not afraid of mobs, I'm interested in enforcing a fairly basic policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that this basic policy (at least, as you are interpreting it) is counter-productive. The goal should not be to inhibit reasonable discussion, but to avoid having a discussion which, by its nature, tends to interfere with other discussions. Restricting that discussion to a subpage makes it easy for those who aren't interested in it to ignore it.  The restrictive policy that applies to normal article talk pages sensibly attempts to avoid ongoing (and perhaps lengthy and repetitive) discussions that frustrate day-to-day usage of the article talk page.  Such discussions can occur on an issue-specific subpage without causing any disruption of the ordinary article-specific talk page. Fabrickator (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you take issue with WP:NOTFORUM, this isn't the place to raise it. If there's discussions that are not in violation of NOTFORUM, then to be useful to anybody they must occur on the main talk page; parallel discussions on a subpage cannot reach meaningful consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ... to be useful to anybody they must occur on the main talk page; parallel discussions on a subpage cannot reach meaningful consensus ...
 * It's good to have your assurance that you would tolerate such discussions on the main talk page, but others might not be so tolerant. A subpage could be used to develop something that would be suitable for presentation on the main talk page. Fabrickator (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete such pages are very hard to keep up to date and aren't always noticed. Fabrickator's argument is that we need parallel talk pages, and that can't be done. Vanamonde is correct and I point to Talk:Adam's Bridge where we consistently have editors wanting us to rename the page and handle this through the usual means. They work well and don't cause confusion. Doug Weller  talk 10:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Questions - The main talk page says that whether Love jihad is a conspiracy theory must be discussed only on the sub-page. So deleting the sub-page would either leave a link to nowhere, or would also require that the link be deleted.  I don't think that MFD is the right forum to delete the link or to reverse the consensus (if there was one) to use a sub-page.  So this would seem to be a request to reverse a decision that was made somewhere else.  Is it proposed to leave the link, or to delete the link?  When was the link ordered?  Are we using MFD to reverse an Arbitration Enforcement decision?  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe there has been any admin involvement under the aegis of arbitration enforcement on this page. Updating the link is easy; better yet, removing that message altogether, and just leaving the FAQ. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for using a talk subpage to help manage discussion content, starting in 2007. I don't see any indication that there have been any particular difficulties in managing that talk subpage, and I can only theorize that it has been maintained because it serves a useful purpose.
 * The talk subpage is at Talk:Muhammad/images. Over 25 archives have been created over this time, and I presume some useful activity has occurred while generally helping to make things work more smoothly on the main article talk page. Fabrickator (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Talk:Love jihad: Deletion is not required to solve this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect as a method to archive. Remove the talk page header to the subpage, but do not de-link it from the talk page posts or the talk page archive.
 * Agree that consensus is against this subpage, contrary to the article talk page implying a consensus for. If I’ve missed the consensus for setting up this subpage, it should be linked from the talk page header pointing to the subpage.
 * This is not a proper use of MfD as an appeal against a stubborn single editor on a talk page. The claimed need for deletion is contrived to make it fit MfD.  An RfC should have been used, or maybe a simple appeal at ANI against the stubborn single editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Question for User:SmokeyJoe - You say to redirect the subpage to the main talk page. Does that also imply deleting the link?  If not, the link will be a looping link.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not following your hang-up about the link. If the subpage is deleted or redirected, any links directing people to it will be removed per standard practice, no? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Tamzin - Now that you have said that the link should be removed if the subpage is deleted, the link should be removed if the subpage is deleted. My basic concern is that there are a number of MFD's which seem to be attempted end runs around a decision made somewhere else.  If a decision was made to divert those discussions to the subpage, is MFD the way to appeal that decision, or a way to run around it?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It was my intention in creating this MfD to subject a local decision to review by a broader audience, much as a WikiProject's decision to create an article might be reviewed at an AfD. So yes, an appeal. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Tamzin's points sums it up for me. I had thought about raising this issue back when the first discussion for its creation had appeared but never got to it. But anyways it has been tried now and as it stands the page has no utility; no one uses it as the FORUMy comments just appear on the main talk page which are sometimes removed and sometimes moved to the subpage. We should just monitor the talk page as any other talk page of articles on conspiracy theories and the related disruption they get, none of which use this kind of awkward management through subpages. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, you suggest that instead of moving the comments from the main talk page to the subpage, the repudiated comments would either be responded to on the main talk page or would be addressed and removed or would just be removed. Whereas if the subpage existed, then hopefully, the comments would have been posted to the subpage to begin with (it seems like this happened for a brief period, but for some reason, after a couple of weeks, there was some kind of "sublimation" of the subpage and the objectionable comments were back to being posted on the main talk page.
 * So I am perplexed as to how it is that encouraging the objectionable posts to be posted on the main talk page (since there's nowhere else for them to be directed), then responding to such posts each time with the explanation that such communications are banned, how is that preferable to just explaining to them that these communications should be directed to the subpage, and hopefully, we won't need to do that because we'll somehow make this page-specific policy more conspicuous. Fabrickator (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Where are you seeing this? It appears to have no basis in reality- it certainly doesn't match up with the page history or how this page is actually used. From its creation last august until June of this year the only edits made to this page were copying discussion threads from the main talk page to this subpage, where not a single one received a response or any further comment. The remaining 4 edits consist of you asking what the page is for, Tamzin nominating it for deletion, and an IP reposting a rant that was deleted from the main talk page. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm? If you look at the activity on the main talk page since the subpage was added, and you exclude the recent content discussing the use of the subpage (or lack thereof) along with talk page maintenance activity (e.g. messages moved to archive), that leaves something like 20 edits. Virtually all of those posts are claims that love jihad is not a conspiracy theory and the deletions of those posts.
 * Why wouldn't you want to just get all of this activity off of the main talk page, leaving it free for pertinent discussions, which is what we should reasonably expect to happen, providing that posters are effectively alerted that disputes about conspiracy theory belong on the conspiracy theory subpage? Fabrickator (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree completely with Tamzin here, this page is just not useful. I don't see the value in a redirect or archive here - the entire history of this page consists of content that was deleted from one page for being inappropriate being dumped on another page. The content is already available in the history of the main talk page. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - But only because it's generally a bad idea to delete talk pages. That doesn't mean anyone should use this talk page, but that deleting it isn't the right approach. Similar to Firefangledfeathers, I guess. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.