Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments 2

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 Archive. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments

OK, let's try this again: I nominated this talk page for deletion back in early February, and it was kept, many people citing the need for someplace to put the arguments but recognizing that the page would need to be deleted eventually. The controversy has died down significantly now, and no one has edited the talk page in over a week now. Thus, I'm re-nominating this talk page for deletion for the same reasons that I cited in February:

This is a subpage of the extremely controversial Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy talk page; its purpose is for people to argue and discuss the issue, not the article. Jimbo stated on the main talk page:

"This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc. Not only is this talk page not the right place for it, Wikipedia is not the right place for it. Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably good in the world: write and give away a free encyclopedia.

Now, there are legitimate questions on both sides regarding this particular article, and I want to encourage a discussion of that. But please, do it with the very strong assumption of good faith on all parties to the discussion, and stick directly and purely to the editorial question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate."

While I recognize that moving all the arguments from the main talk page to the subpage is an improvement, I don't think we should be having this at all. As Jimbo stated above, we're here to write an encyclopedia and discuss how to improve the article, not the subject or topic of the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, free host, blog, or webspace provider. We've got other places where people can discuss the actual issue, such as the POV Wikicities. This simply isn't the appropriate place to do it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify something: I'm only nominating the subpage of the talk page for deletion, not the whole talk page. Discussion of how to improve the article should go on the main talk page; the creator of this subpage said that it was to be used for "arguments on the underlying issues (Islam, free speech, blasphemy, etc.)", and it has now turned into a "venue for the discussion of these ideas". Wikipedia isn't the place for this; talk pages should be for improving the article, not discussing the topic. To quote Jimbo again: "[Wikipedia and the talk page are] not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc." I urge everyone to consider the goal of Wikipedia to write an encyclopedia and not be a discussion venue. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Flcelloguy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it was probably a good idea at the time but in the long term, Wikipedia is not an Internet forum. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete now that we don't need it. Johnleemk | Talk 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've been involved in this debate for some time and I agree with Sam Blanning and Johnleemk that this is no longer needed. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This article and its talk page have been the subject of international attention, including a book which reprints much of the content from the talk page, claiming it demonstrates the institutional biases of Wikipedia. What are people going to think when they try to check its primary sources and find someone has wholesale-deleted the discussion? Some may feel they no longer "need" it; fine, don't read it. (Ironically, that's exactly what was said to people who objected to the cartoons being reprinted on the page.) What possible gain can be had from removing it? What are you trying to hide? Wikipedia is not paper, and deleting historically important documents such as this is so easily portrayed as Stalinist revisionism that it can only add fuel to the fires of anti-wikipedians like wikitruth.info. — JEREMY 10:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• We're not deleting the talk page, just this unneeded subpage. We're not trying to hide anything, we're trying to show that we're an encyclopaedia and not a glorified Internet debate forum. If anyone uses a constantly-changing website as a primary source for anything, that's their problem. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The content of the "unneeded subpage" has been sourced primarily from the talk page.
2. There is no need to "show that we're [...] not a glorified Internet debate forum"; vigorous discussion on talk pages is entirely normal for wikipedia.
3. Wikipedia is not a "constantly-changing website"; that's why we have edit histories.

— JEREMY 11:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It should have been deleted in the first MfD, but it was kept to avoid debates on the main talk page. Now that things have cooled down a bit, this page is no longer needed. — TheKMan^talk 13:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a archive of edits done to the talk page, we dont delete talk page archive. Only reason presented to delete this is that the contributions where archived shortly after being writen, and that is not a valid reason to delete the archive. Agree with JEREMY in that it is perfectly normal with heated debate regarding such topic. --Striver 14:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. as above. Azate 14:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP. The page is now part of Wikipedia's history. Any attempt to delete it would be an attempt to whitewash history. Valtam 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but Archive if necessary. The whole "Arguments" page can be locked to prevent it from further being a place to "argue" (which of Flcelloguy's above arguments I agree with) but I concur with others who say that it's of historial significance and has/will have scholarly significance. Already see this site for example. Also know that there is still a quite active Arguments subpage. Netscott 17:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I cannot see how philosophical discussions on freedom of speech, religious tolerance etc, can be irrelevant to the editors of an article about an event concerning these very same principles. People have complained that although you can follow the history entries, wiki-editors are, unlike a newspaper or politician, anonymous with unknown agendas. These archives are the only place one can find this kind of background information MX44 04:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or archive. It is very interesting and probably should be saved. --ReptileLawyer 05:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and archive. The principle is that we keep discussions on the contents of pages. David | Talk 13:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Archive bogdan 16:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or archive. -- Avenue 01:17, 16 April 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.