Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Criticism of Islam task force


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 keep. ( Radiant ) 10:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Islam/Criticism of Islam task force

 * Delete : The group is explicitly created to promote articles with a certain POV (i.e. "Criticism") Wikiproject:Islam already exists for all topics regarding Islam to be discussed, a separate group for efforts promoting a negative view is inappropriate. Taskforces directed at advocating for articles that violate NPOV (eg articles that can be seen as criticizing Islam) is unprecedented. "Criticism" is usually a subsection of an article, and occasionally they get forked off into separate articles. Creating projects around pushing criticism is POV-guided from the start, and therefore violates Wikipedia rules. If this is okay, then I should be allowed to open a taskforce for articles promoting or admiring Islam, or a taskforce for articles that criticize Israel.Just examples. Shams2006 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... Yes, you should be able to. You also can. -Amarkov blahedits 04:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes you can create a taskforce that improves articles that put Islam in a positive light - these taskforces are actually already there, if you saw the project's main page (Muslim scholars, e.g. - this is actually what this new taskforce was based on). I dont see whats the alarm about this taskforce. Its created to improve articles of a certain type (which are critical of Islam, e.g. Criticism of Quran, of Muhammad, of Islam (the last is the main article). Improving articles is not against the law.--Matt57 14:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Does Criticism of Islam also exist to promote a negative view of Islam? It does not and therefore, a collaborative effort to improve articles on the main theme of Criticism of Islam is not promoting a negative view, rather it is striving to improve these articles which is a noble purpose. If "Criticism" looks POV to you, lets rename this taskforce to "Islam and Controversy" taskforce. --Matt57 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A dishonest response. The taskforce mentions 'articles related to criticism of Islam", not the article "Criticism of Islam" itself. Therefore the purpose of this group is to promote anti-Islamic articles. Such discussions can be held in Wikiproject Islam itself, but your intention is to create a meeting ground for those with this POV bias.
 * So what? Articles about anti-Islamic things deserve to be well written, too. You would have a claim if this were being used to promote adding anti-Islamic bias, but it isn't. -Amarkov blahedits 03:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So what? There is one "Criticism of Islam" article, so what "articles about criticism of Islam" is Matt talking about? Wheres that category of articles listed? What Matt is talking about is articles with a theme that critisizes Islam in his own view. What he means is articles with a clear anti-Islam POV. He wants Wikipedia to feature articles that arent unbiased but critisizes Islam. That kind of promotion of one POV is unprecedented here. Would you be ok if I made a taskforce on topics criticizing Israel or America or Christians? No you wouldnt. Shams2006 03:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So they want to improve that article. If you're going to complain someone is an evil POV pusher, you had better have evidence to back that up, not just an assertion that the project is intended to push anti-Islam bias. You have no evidence. -Amarkov blahedits 03:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Shams, you wrote: "He wants Wikipedia to feature articles that arent unbiased but critisizes Islam." - Wikipedia doesnt ALLOW articles that are biased - thats called POV. The main article Criticism of Islam is not a biased article. If it was, it would only be showing Islam in a bad light. Instead it is supposed to show and it does show both sides of the story. You have to know first though what goes on in these Criticism articles - continous edit wars. If the articles are well polished and structured, the edit wars can be reduced, thats one thing I hope that comes out of this. I dont know why you feel alienated. Is there anything that can be done to make you believe that this is an effort of which you and other like minded people are also to be a part of equally? Do you want to rename it to a Controversy and Islam taskforce? In that case its fine with me. I'll tell you what, other users like Striver dont feel the same. They are even a part of this taskforce (he said he'll leave if it goes sour, which is not the purpose). Here's the thing: you must think of ways of how you and others can participate in such a taskforce positively, and for example defend the Criticism in those articles. A better article can thus be built on a whole if we act together rather than against each other. --Matt57 05:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The project's goals as stated on the page and talk page are not contrary to Wikipedia policies. I think the nominator misread the intent, so perhaps a different name would help.  Also not sure if deletion is the right avenue to discuss an active project. —Doug Bell talk 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Matt57 and Doug Bell are right. Arrow740 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, it is to promote pages about criticism of Islam. So what? Those pages deserve to be well written, just like anything else. -Amarkov blahedits 00:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep it clearly states that they the purpose is to improve the quality of a narrow (though there are a fair number of pages) topic. Can you demonstrate that they are doing something other than that? Koweja 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a statement made by the person who created this taskforce: "I believe the WikiProject Islam is not enough NPOV. There are many places on WP where people non-critical of Islam have grouped together, but there was no place there people critical of Islam could group together for collaboration." Firstly that statement is incorrect, there is no grouping for people with pro-Islam view. If this taskforce is allowed, a taskforce for articles promoting Islam should be allowed as well. Realistically I think we need a taskforce to address anti-Islam activism on Wikipedia. I trust you will all agree with that taskforce too? Shams2006 03:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A blatantly dishonest quote, Shams, since Matt57 struck out that quote two days ago after I pointed out to him that it was phrased incorrectly: . - Merzbow 18:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The dishonesty is all yours actually, you asked him to strike that out so the arguement against this group wouldn't stand. That doesnt change the actual purpose for this group which is for islam-bashers to have a meeting place to push articles critical of Islam. Shams2006 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... you can make it if you want, although I doubt it's necessary. -Amarkov blahedits 03:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, their mission objective is "This is a project aimed at increasing the quality of the articles related to Criticism of Islam and its related articles, elevating the articles to "Good article" standard, and then all the way to "Featured article" standard" which is a perfectly acceptable goal. Now, as for the creator, I don't know, it does sound like he might be agenda pushing based on that one statement. Or he might not be and actually mean what he says. I read the talk page and that discussion was going nowhere and not revealing anything. Wikipedia requires us to assume good faith so I will for now. Should he prove to be a POV pusher, then he, and he alone, will be dealt with according to policy. Now, if it turns out that the taskforce is in fact pushing an anti-Islam agenda, then we can get rid of it (and the involved users). However, the group as only been around for about two days and doesn't seem to have done anything good or bad yet. I'm still going to remain as "keep", but if they do start problems I will be more than willing to change my view. Koweja 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. - Merzbow 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Sefringle 10:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm a bit afraid that project my evolve in a negative way, but we presume innocence and WP:AGF... even if I, as a fact, know that intent of at least one of the people there does not merit such assumptions. ie, The project goals and nothing wrong with, and my illusionist stance rather keep it even if it is aimed at promoting criticisms. I am still so very angry that they deleted WikiProject 9/11 Truth Movement! Even if a bigoted consensus killed that, i am not going to retaliated by killing this project, even some part of me wants to revenge. But if this project evolves in a negative light and starts to push for non-reliable sources to be included, i will be the first one to vote delete for this. --Striver 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I should mention how WikiProject: The Muslim Guild was redirected to this now present much more NPOV title. The same is true for the 911 Conspiracies Guild which was also deleted. Their titles seem to be pushing a POV. If the title of the project itself has a POV, then that leads to it being deleted. If 'Criticism of Islam' was a POV article, it wouldnt exist. The aim again is to improve these articles. If you think anything is wrong, just remember the basics: there's nothing wrong with wanting to improve a group of articles. Keeping that in mind, what do you think is the best title of the project? "Islam and Controversy" taskforce is one option. I definitely do not want one POV to be active in these articles. Ofcourse even you and other like minded people have an equal interest in improving the Criticism articles. --Matt57 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I view that "Criticism of Islam" and "9/11 truth Movement" are just as fine project names as "Judaism" or "Cristianity" or "Religion" for that mater. "WikiProject Judaism" is most certanily as pov or npov as "WikiProejct 9/11 Truth Movement". --Striver 16:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the project is to improve articles covering criticism of Islam, not to change articles so there is more criticism of Islam. In order to ensure a balanced coverage of Islam, we need to have articles covering criticism of Islam, and any drive to improve them should be welcomed.  Hut   8.5   15:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I see no reason why those who have critisised Islam shoulden't be mentioned on Wikipedia--Boris Johnson VC 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to Anti-Muslim Brigade as a more catchy title. Gharam Samosay 20:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC) — Gharam Samosay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * Weak keep. i totally sympathise with what User:Shams2006 is saying and there are indications from both intra and extra-wiki evidences that such a task force may be abused. the best way to avoid that situation, i think, is to join yourself up so that you too have a say. if this taskforce is true to its cause, hopefully we can see the stamping out of all the excessive spam and below-par sources currently plaguing the criticism articles.  ITAQALLAH   21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.    ITAQALLAH   21:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep - keep it, as long as the article is not criticizing Islam, but writing about the critism of Islam. Yuser31415 01:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the actual arguements presented by Striver. It's hard to see how either this project nor the 9/11 project could be WP:NPOV, while WikiProject Judaism could cover any articles about Judaism.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Matt57. frummer 04:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Anyone who wishes to edit articles about criticism of Islam is more than welcome to simply become a member of Wikiproject Islam. There should not be subprojects for every single aspect of Islam (Sawm task force, Muhammad's life task force, Islam in the 1800s task force, etc. etc. etc.) It could go on forever. This is a pointless endeavor. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you saw on the project's page, there are many other task forces (or sub-projects as you said). Also, Criticism of Islam is not just one article. Its an area under which many articles fall. --Matt57 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, and I say delete them all. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Whats wrong in making a taskforce to focus on a certain group of articles? This is helping improve Wikipedia, is it not? --Matt57 03:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You edited the "Dhimmi" article to add it as one categorized under this "criticism of Islam" task force. Dhimmi is a historic practice and event, why ad it here? Because YOU want to push a critical POV on that article? That's exactly what I feared with this taskforce. Wikipedia shouldnt have taskforces that push activist prejudice-driven agendas. That is what this is. You want to promote a negative take on all things related to Islam. And no, that is not helping improve Wikipedia. Shams2006 04:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am against it because I am against the taskforces in general. I think they cause too much division. Everyone in WikiProject Islam should be working together, not in individual groups dedicated to specific parts. What's the point of even having a WikiProject Islam if each of the taskforces is going to be independent of each other? Wikipedia is not just a collaboration among similar-thinking people, it should also be spread to those who disagree as well. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  05:50, 20 December 2006 (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.