Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad (no images)

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

The result was delete (just housekeeping here) Will ^(talk) 23:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who deleted it. I closed it as such, and this early, since it is no need to drag out with such an obvious decision. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad (no images)

This is a POV copy of an existing article - it is a version of the Muhammad article that confirms to Islamic thinking on the viewing of images of the prophet - how many and where is an important question – but it’s not answered by throwing every element of good practice we have out of the window! . A precedent cannot be allow to be set, where does it end - a copy of the penis article with no pictures? maybe copies of articles that mention G-D rather than God. This is a redundant article and should be speeded out of existence. Fredrick day (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further comment by nominator the other problem with this article, is that unless we abandon NPOV, NOTCENSORED etc, then it is impossible to stop somene adding the images and acting entirely with policy and good practice behind them. And when you add the images, the article title needs changing to em.. Muhammad. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reason we don't allow "G-d" to be mandated in article space, we can't do this in article space. NPOV is non-negotiable, even for major religious topics. Lawrence § t/e 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NPOV and NOTCENSORED are non-negotiable, and this is an article fork created to circumvent those policies. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear delete as per Fredrick •CHILLDOUBT• 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:NOT#CENSORED, WP:POV, WP:POINT and WP:SNOW. This has been brought up numerous times, and rejected every time. Reso lute 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dangerous POV fork precedent. Quenn (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is a technical hack that works by transcluding the main article Mohammad. Images on the Mohammad article have been placed inside <noinclude> tags. I forsee technical problems with maintaining this article (which should clearly be deleted per nom). I suggest that the noinclude tags be removed from the main article as well. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I do believe this to be the best effort so far for having an actual article without the images (not requiring the readers to change their browser settings or something similar) but with identical text, I still oppose it as a principally wrong decision. We can't stop people creating a fork of Wikipedia where they implement this, but it is contrary to the neutrality and scientific approach that should be fundamental to Wikipedia. An encyclopedia should never care if it offends anyone, as long as it contents are accurate, factual, neutral, ... Fram (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep/~~Delete Oh crap. I think there is a valid reason for this in that everyone in the world comes to Wikipedia to look up their favourite subjects; Muhammad will be an article of interest to Muslims; this site will give everyone on the globe the best NPOV overview of that person's life; and the only hangup is the issue of "depictions of the prophet" which is not an issue because it may offend people, it is an issue because it may keep people from reading the article at all. People may not read this because of the very fact that it contains those offending images. It doesn't seem too tough to cut them out in a linked and identical article that makes it pretty easy to answer concerns with "click this link". I don't really see this as a big slippery slope, I think it's singular, a one-off, based on respect. Nothing is being lost here. -- That said, I specifically noted I was being bold, whosever god you pray to, lets pray this doesn't explode. I thought it was a good shot but I'll vote whichever way is quietest:) Take it as my honest attempt at compromise and be nice to each other! Franamax (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your intentions but the problem with the article is two-fold - a) it breaches pretty much every much policy we have and b) those policies means that it would be impossible to stop anyone adding the images. The deletes should not be taken as judgment on your good intentions because they are not - they are simply reflecting editors application of policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with respect to the author's intentions, it's a bad idea. We might as well as (PBUH) and (SAW) to the article now. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete POV fork. Wikipedia is not censored. Period. --Mhking (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOTCENSORED. This was done in good faith, but would set a terrible precedent. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My edits to the base article are reversed. Agree with speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Franamax (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCENSORED Doc Strange (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW and Wikipedia is not censored. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is essentially a duplicate, and would amount to censoring, which Wikipedia does not do. BalazsH (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article violates an a huge way WP:NOTCENSORED. -Djsasso (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Editors can turn off images if they want to. This is censorship. Icestorm815 • Talk 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTCENSORED is NOTNEGOTIABLE. Jfire (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not censored, POV forks are a very, very bad idea, and this sets a very undesirable precedent with other articles containing potentially offensive images or content. This should be deleted per WP:SNOW as waiting the full five days is really not necessary. Hut 8.5 17:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One can have a POV on whether we should show those images or not, but the images themselves don't change the POV of the article, therefore it is not a POVFORK issue. And btw. not showing the images is not about confirming to Islamic thinking, it is about respecting people of all creeds.--Raphael1 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

let me get this straight - setting up an article specifically to address religious concern and provide an article that is acceptable to followers of one faith is not a POV folk? it conforms to our NPOV policy? really? --Fredrick day (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would lead to censoring articles not compatible with Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, etc. creeds and beliefs. That would be incompatible with NPOV. Lawrence § t/e 18:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys don't seem to understand, that it is not about addressing religious concerns or being compatible with creeds. It is about WP not excluding editors because of their creed. You might not want to exclude them on purpose, but it is going to happen, if you enforce your "No censorship at all costs, rub it in the Muslims' faces ..." policy. --Raphael1 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about editors to whom pornography is offensive for religious reasons, or depictions of the human body? Do we clean up Penis and Vagina there? Lawrence § t/e 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't found any complains on those talk pages. The last complains have been, that there are only white penises and that the vagina seems to belong to a teenager. You argument is a straw-man argument. --Raphael1 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia is not excluding anyone from editing here, as long as they choose to follow established policy. If a person feels that the rules are not to their liking, then they choose to remove themselves from the project. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is not true. Take a look at Talk:Muhammad. I.e. the first pink box violates WP:Consensus_can_change as does the hidden comment in Muhammad. Soon editors will be blocked for removing the images under WP:VANDAL even though it states, that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.". --Raphael1 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite true, actually. Removing the images because of religious restrictions calling for such removal does not at all qualify as a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia". Thus, your position pretty much falls apart. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are many different reasons to remove those images. WP doesn't have religious restrictions so that's an invalid reason. Other reasons are valid though. You can find many reasons on the talk pages, and I've stated a reason in my previous comments. --Raphael1 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not-censored and not POV. --Borgarde^talk 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Painfully obvious violation of policies regarding content forking and censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)
Delete as a censorship-inspired POV fork. Majoreditor (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Why is this POV fork page even getting a vote? Jmlk 1 7 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per User:Resolute. If people really want an image-less mirror of the article, let them do it on their own dime.—Chowbok ☠ 19:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not censored nor do we bow to some off-site petition. This shouldn't even run 5 days. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork of Muhammad. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we shouldn't compromise our content to meet religious concerns that don't meet our core values and principles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV forks go, they don't come a lot more POV than this. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of any other concerns or arguments this is a POV fork. We don't do those and that's just how it is. And yes, I'm Danish. We don't do this to please those who want to pressure us with petitions, we do this for those who need free access to information. Censorship is not compatible with that task. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CFORK. People are free to switch off image loading client-side. dab (𒁳) 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a POV fork and would be a dangerous precedent. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see all the delete votes above but my personal view is expressed in User:Aminz/images. In my mind, if the users are given the choice to see the picture or bypass them, it will not amount to censorship. Censorship occurs when with reasonable amount of energy you can not get access to the information you are looking for. Is this a POV-fork? It is. But this can be viewed as an exceptional case (because it really is) and thus "Ignore all rules".--Be happy!! (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is exceptional about it? you've admitted it's a POV folk, so you agree that it's a breach of core policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you type "Muhammad" into Google now the first article that comes up is the current Wikipedia biography. When this changes to Muhammad (no images) because people spam Google links or Google ranks both articles equally, people clicking a link to get an unbiased, NPOV biography on the subject won't get it...they'll get the lite version. This could quickly become endless when every group wants their own article. Episcopalians, Catholics, Mormons, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain all have been the subject of controversy recently and possibly have legitimate reasons to complain about their recent articles on Wikipedia. This isn't an exceptional case. Where NPOV advocates should discuss change is in their articles, not in a fork sub-article. 71.176.231.129 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are all imagined cases, not real ones; and one can always find aspects of this issue that are not shared by the others. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that they are all imagined cases is because, fortunately, we don't fork articles. 71.176.231.129 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:IAR says to ignore all rules if they prevent you from building a better encyclopedia. Creating a censored fork of an article does not create a better encyclopedia, thus I would not consider IAR to be applicable here. Resolute 21:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The spirit behind the POV-fork policy is important and not its letters. And WP:IAR basically encourages being practical. Here, it prevents you from building a better encyclopedia because the article is locked most of the time. It also reduces the usability of wikipedia if some countries block wikipedia. In any case, that's my vote. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Forking the article would just make those problems worse. If users feel they can hold an article hostage until the administrators give up and fork it, Wikipedia will grind to a halt. Better to fight this today in one article than in a thousand articles tomorrow.71.176.231.129 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Metaphors one uses shapes the way the matter is conceived("hostage", "fight", etc etc). In any case, that was my personal view. Others have their own view. The matter will take its natural order and I don't care where it really goes because in either case any decision neither benefits me nor harms me personally. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and close AfD as WP:SNOWBALL. Violates many core policies, all listed above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. As per all above. Even the creator has admitted he was only trying to be bold. Let's put this experiment in POV-forking to sleep. rudra (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't censor 2 Girls 1 Cup and we don't censor images either. RFerreira (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete actual thoughts censored in light of WP:CIVIL. JuJube (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. GlassCobra 23:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.