Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Muhammad/Summary of the essays written on the images of Muhammad


 * 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 debate was delete, should be userfied if Aminz requests it. This was a very difficult debate to close, and IMO "no consensus" would poorly describe the situation. The delete arguments mainly focus on this as a POV fork. While policy tends not to describe POV forks other than in article space, the reasoning behind deleting them in article space makes just as much sense in any other namespace. (Talk would normally be an exception but this page was not a discussion.) On inspection, Aminz's efforts at editing Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, before the creation of this page, consisted of efforts to push his own new argument onto the page despite the objections of others. So, indeed, this page does seem to have been created in order to dodge consensus at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ rather than discuss. The remedy for POV forks is deletion (although I can see no harm to Userfication if it is requested: no one would have objected to this in user space).

The keep arguments focus on the idea of what this page could be: a summary of arguments relating to the images on Muhammad including both those accepted by consensus and those not generally accepted. Talk:Muhammad/FAQ does already summarize those arguments, but not necessarily in the best way. So I see some consensus here to have that coverage expanded. But, no arguments have been presented that this needs to be a separate page or that its purpose is significantly distinct from the FAQ page.

Anyway my interpretation of policy as it applies to the consensus here is that the page should be deleted. Expansion of the FAQ is reasonable, but the keep arguments have not countered the point that this is a POV fork, and indeed many of the keep arguments seem to be made in ignorance of the existance of the FAQ page. Not deleting this would send a message that it is okay to create an alternative page rather than build consensus on the main page, and that is certainly at least very poor practice. Mango juice talk 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Summary of the essays written on the images of Muhammad
Blatant soapboxing from an editor objecting to images of Muhammad in the Muhammad article. Content is mostly pasted from Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, minus answers or counterarguments, plus new arguments from the editor; as such, the non-copied information is not a reasonable "summary". Aminz has added a link to this page from Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Muhammad image. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a summary of the essays written on the topic. If you know of another essay that answers to any of the arguments raised on any side, feel free to add that (together with the link to the essay). Of course there are other responses to the points raised there, but the editors who were making these arguments have not bothered themselves to write an essay. I did not try to gather all the available arguments and responses but only the ones mentioned in the essays. So, that's why it may appear POV. But of course that problem could be very easily solved and I didn't mean the article to stay as it is now. All the arguments could be well summarized there. The article IMHO is not a fork because many of the essays are on the userpage spaces which differs from the one here. Lastly, Edgrade, please be careful in your accusations. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. The correct link to Signpost is this . --Be happy!! (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it serves as a useful page for helping those who may object to seeing Muhammad's image to understand why wikipedia continues to show it, as User talk:Jimbo Wales showed not 24 hours ago (note: I know "Jimbo said" is not an arguement, but it just happened to be on his page) someone objected to having images of the prophet, and this page was linked to to illustrate the discussion. SGGH speak! 10:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It was posted there by the user who created the page. For those users who want to know why the images are kept, there is Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which is linked prominently from Talk:Muhammad and is a page arrived at via consensus. This page exists almost as a POV fork of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which contains the actual consensus of editors arrived at via policy at the bottom, with the top two-thirds of the page suggesting that instead of going off our policies, we should go off whatever other Encyclopedias are doing, and by "Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense"", which Aminz appears to be particularly fond of. It should also be known that when editing the Signpost article linked above, he included the following sentence:
 * "Others argued that Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense" should guide Wikipedia's choices."
 * As far as I am aware, User:Aminz is the only one who feels that way, and any attempts at getting it mentioned in the mainstream FAQ have been met with resistance by most other users, including at least one admin. This is his way of getting his own personal views "set in stone", so to speak, against consensus. Dreaded Walrus t c 10:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If User:Aminz (whose sig, for those who haven't figured it out yet, is Be happy!!) wants a personal manifesto to link to User talk:Jimbo Wales and wherever else, that's his business. This page should not be in Article or Wikipedia space, nor should it be linked from WP:SIGNPOST as a summary of anything but his own position. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per my comment above. Wouldn't be entirely against userfication. Dreaded Walrus t c 10:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with making a page summarizing the essays written on this topic? --Be happy!! (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not too much, when it's in Userspace. By including it as a subsection of the Muhammad talk page (or in any namespace other than Userspace), and linking to it from the Signpost article, it suggests that it was a group work, arrived at via the consensus of multiple users, as is the case with Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. I also feel your page underrepresents Wikipedia's official stance on it, and the consensus of many users, in favour of promoting the viewpoints you agree with, such as the whole "Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense"" thing, which is a viewpoint held singularly by you, but takes up more space in your "summary" than the entire space dedicated to Wikipedia's official policies and our consensus on the issue. Dreaded Walrus t c 10:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, name two other established users who argue for the images? You are talking as if there are many such people. There are very few editors and so I am, as one, notable among them. It was a summary of the essays and I have tried to fairly summarize all of them. . I find it completely fine to make a summary of the essays. If something is missing there, you can create your own essay and we include your points as well.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By posting the same arguments to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, User talk:Jimbo Wales, WP:SIGNPOST, you are forum shopping instead of working toward consensus. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are completely mistaken about my intentions. I am trying to represent the views of a minority and let people know about existence of such views. The current consensus is something else that is already formed and I have never removed images against it.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "minority" that argued Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense" is very small indeed. Until today, I have never heard of this Muslim leader. It seems more that you are advancing your own arguments and claiming to speak for others. Is this possible? / edg ☺ ☭ 11:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Muslim leaders do not edit wikipedia and are not aware of its policies. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (in response to Edgarde) To be fair, a bit of Googling around a couple of days ago found that there is such a thing as this "offence principle", and Aminz has been using it in his arguments since August, so it's not entirely new. Dreaded Walrus t c 11:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * you have not "fairly summarized" anything. You have posted blatant misconceptions about "freedom of speech" (doesn't apply on Wikipedia) and "non-consenting readers" (a nonsensical construction you keep coming up with) on the "contra" side, and blatant misrepresentations about "inaccurate images", and the particularly hilarious "we need to see Muhammad picture to imagine the man" on the "pro" side. It has long become clear that you do not want to understand the situation. When I have shown you the stony path towards a change in consensus regarding disclaimers, you have stated "I am however decided to leave the image issue altogether". Yet less than a week later I find you still filibustering about the image issue. Why don't you follow your own advice and just let it be now. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a well-known Hadith reports, "war is deceit". rudra (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering for a time whether absurdities and bullying deserve a reply. Yes, I left the image issue altogether and don't talk about the issue much. So what made you think I should not post on this AfD and respond to users. --Be happy!! (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork, not arrived at by consensus, and having it in the Talk namespace implies it is accepted by the community. This kind of material should be in userspace. Hut 8.5 11:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus for what? This is not creating a new thing but rather making a report as a summary of the essays. If a user thinks something significant is mentioned in the essays but is lacking from the summary, he/she could make a change that makes all happy. So, the consensus forms and may change over time.--Be happy!! (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have a page which summarises the consensus at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Why do we need another one? Hut 8.5 19:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That page only includes the questions asked by many people (almost all of which are non-established users). None of the established users however argue that way. They write essays. And all I have done is summarizing the points of those essays. I have not added anything of myself there that requires consensus. --Be happy!! (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact it is in the official talk namespace of the article implies it has been arrived at by consensus, which it hasn't. It isn't an unbiased summary of the debate either - it's clearly biased against the images. And why do we need a summary of arguments which have already been rejected as invalid? Hut 8.5 18:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The summary is simply reporting in a brief manner what has been said. We can of course report what the consensus resulting from the discussions has been. Of course if someone writes an essay arguing against the points mentioned, we can summarize it there as well. The title of the article does not inherently make it POV.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork created by editor who is unhappy that the community is not letting him have his way and has repeatedly rejected his censorship. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * POV fork of which page?--Be happy!! (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * delete per move back to his userspace. Current location is clearly unacceptable because it implies a communal consensus behind it. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a summary of essays. It is not saying that most of wikipedia editors agree with those arguments. It provides simply a report of the arguments. --Be happy!! (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And it can still serve that purpose if it ends up being moved to your userspace, as has been suggested. Dreaded Walrus t c 06:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no reason to delete the article. In fact; it is a good idea to document the arguments against the images in one place, instead of them being repeated over and over again in Muhammad talk page. A rename of the title might be appropriate though. Imad marie (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * but that documentation should be a product of the community arrived at via discussion by the community - as it currently stands it's the work of one editor and just has the illusion of community support. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The essays are all available. If you think there is something that needs to be added feel free to do so. This is exactly what we are doing with other sources; someone reads the sources, summarizes them and adds them to the wikipedia. The community does not get together to write an article. Same thing applies here.--Be happy!! (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh please, look at the laughable POV language you use "typical muslims" what on earth is that beyond special pleasing based on your inferences. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Imad marie: Talk:Muhammad/FAQ already serves that purpose. The page in question is one editor's POV fork, and is being inserted into other articles as if it were a consensus written document. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What kind of POV Fork is it? Are the contents or even the purposes of the pages the same? --Be happy!! (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Edgarde and Fredrick day: the FAQ page does not include the arguments against the images. For example, User:Itaqallah has argued (at least 10 times) in the different Mohammad talk pages that the images are undue weight. In my opinion it's better to document those arguments instead of repeating them endlessly in the talk pages. Imad marie (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * However I do believe that a rename of the title is necessary. A title like "Arguments against the images" or something like that might be appropriate. Imad marie (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a reason it does not contain the arguments against. Read the introduction of the FAQ, and you will see its purpose is merely to reduce the sheer number of people making the same arguments on the talk pages again and again, forcing editors to address those same arguments again and again using the same policy pages, and frees up time for the editors to, you know, edit. Dreaded Walrus t c 06:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm tired of the soapboxing and forum shopping on this already. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: hardly a "summary," but rather a blatantly POV soapboxing routine. - Chardish (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to userspace. Here, it's a POV-fork of the FAQ and WP:SOAPBOX.  rudra (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * delete − It is a POV-fork in which it biases the editor's arguments rather than building consensus as stated by its current namespace. Also the page is subjected to soapboxing. – NHJG 23:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Lets users understand what and how this issue has been argued quickly without the need to look at several dozen posts and many pages.Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have a page which does that at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which also shows what the outcome of those discussions has been. Hut 8.5 18:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, centralized discussion is useful. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia should not censor minority views.--Goon Noot (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. POV fork. If kept, it would need rewriting to better represent wikipedia's views (and the views of all editors).  Yahel  Guhan  07:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Yahel,
 * The article tries to summarize the available essays. Of course there are other responses to the points raised there, but the editors who were making these arguments have not bothered themselves to write an essay. I did not try to gather all the available arguments and responses but only the ones mentioned in the essays. So, that's why it may appear POV. But of course that problem could be very easily solved and I didn't mean the article to stay as it is now. All the arguments could be well summarized there.
 * The article IMHO is not a fork because many of the essays are on the userpage spaces which differs from the one here. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Userify (move to user space) as blatant soap-boxing and WP:POINT of the by-now familiar Aminz variety. dab (𒁳) 12:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a Talk page subpage on one very widely discussed relevant issue big enough to be covered by international media. Talk:Jesus has 11 Talk subpages covering specific active subtopics that have outgrown the rest of the Talk page.  -- M P er el  07:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam.   Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral, I really don't know or care but I just want to make sure we give Aminz time to userfy instead of delete if the consensus is delete. gren グレン 08:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like a POV fork of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:Muhammad/FAQ only presents the arguments of one side. It is designed for a different purpose, that is to answer the questions asked by new editors who do not anything about wikipedia.
 * If you think it is POV, please be bold and correct it just as other POV articles are corrected instead of deleted.
 * If you think it is a fork of the FAQ page, please note that its content is not fully covered by the FAQ page. And because of the purpose FAQ page is serving, it can not possibly cover its whole content either.
 * If you think it is a fork of the essays, please note that the essays are in user space, while this summary is placed on the Muhammad's talk page.--Be happy!! (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep saying this is a summary of essays - but where are those essays? who wrote them? when? you include links to two user pages, one is to your own userpage, when I find an unfinished start of an essay but that's it. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Userify and unlink from prominent places like the header of the article's FAQ. Categories can be used to help people find user essays, not links on pages that explain Wikipedia community consensus. If the authors of the two essays want people to see summaries, they can include them in their essays. --Para (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2008 (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.