Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result of the debate was withdrawn. Acalamari 19:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5

Mecca is a sacred site of pilgrimage for Muslim; its entrance requires a specific visa and the visa is not granted to non-Muslims. This is similar to the ban on Gentile's entering within a border of Jewish residents and the particular sensitivity towards the holy temple. Restrictions on foreigners entering a sacred place is not specific to Islam and many examples of it could be found whenever a conception of sacredness exist. Now, we have an article that is supposed to present 5-10 most notable examples of discrimination and this image is being kept added through edit-war as a prime example of "discrimination". I thus nominate the page for deletion because it strikes me as picking specifically on one religion and also lack of reliable sources discussing this or mentioning its notability in the article. Be happy!! (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Note:This AFD for the page that puts this image on the 5-10 of the selected pictures. It is not and AfD on the image itself. (added at 00:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)) Withdrawn nomination. It seems there is a consensus that other channels should be used for this instead of MfD.--Be happy!! (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep There is nothing wrong with the image. There are enough reliable sources mentioning it. And just because the message is opposed to a particular religion does not make it non-notable or non-discriminatory. Yahel Guhan 23:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I can not see any reliable source discussing its "notability". Can you please quote from the best source you have on this. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that non-Muslims are barred from Mecca and that there is a road sign that backs this up makes the pic notable. Whether or not the pic belongs on the portal page in question is up for debate, but the pic itself should not be deleted. Dincher (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not an AfD for the image. It is an AfD for the portal --Be happy!! (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If this isn't an AfD for the image itself, they why is the discussion taking place under a "deletion" heading? Perhaps this conversation should be moved elsewhere. Where? I don't know. Dincher (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It refers to deletion of a portal selected picture page and not an image page. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
But no good reason for the deletion of the page has been given, other than that it does not conform to the nominators' POV. Suggest Speedy keep as per WP:POINT, although it is evidently a well-intentioned effort, and suggest the nominator instead, perhaps less forcefully, request the maintainers of the portal, or the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination, to remove the image. Otherwise, I see no valid reason for the deletion of the page has yet been given. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but what is to keep another user from re-creating the same page with a different image, as has alread been done numerous times. I think that the debate should be about which image is to be presented and not whether or not Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5 should be deleted. Dincher (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of course I believe I have provided good reasons for it. No reliable source are provided for its notability. I can find thousands of other images that are much more notable and more discussed in the news. Aside from these, legally a country has the right of issuing visa for others or not. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that the image is what is being debated. We need to be discussing this somewhere else. This particular portal picture page need to be deleted. A consensus on which image to include is the issue at hand. Dincher (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Dincher, I, the nominator, have added AfD tag to the page Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5. If the result of the debate is delete, only that page will be deleted and not the page used inside that page. I certainly don't think the image used inside that page should be deleted. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I must be misunderstanding something here. I know that you aren't nominating that the image in question be deleted. I simply question deleting the portal page instead of simply reaching a consensus on what image should be placed on the page. Dincher (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you have a point Dincher in saying that the image could be replaced with another one. On the other hand, I should add that since this page in placed under a sub-article of Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5 (not the article itself), it could be very well deleted or blanked. The "/something" articles could be created whenever someone adds a new picture. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nominator has made it clear that he knows himself that discrimination of a type is involved in the subject in his own opening statement here, and it is apparently common knowledge. I can and would argue that the phrasing of the caption should be delicately put, but I can't see how it fails to meet, according to the nominator's own statement, the requirements for religious discrimination. And, certainly, the possibility of inclusion of one image in a portal is far from being sufficient grounds for the deletion of a portal. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is the AFD for the page that puts this image on the 5-10 of the SELECTED PICTURES. It is not on the image itself. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - No, not "again". You have up until now not made it at all clear that was what you were stating. As it is unreasonable to ban a portal from including images of any kind, which deleting that page would be, because of a POV objection to the inclusion of a photograph on grounds which the nominator himself acknowledges to be factually accurate, I cannot see how this request has sufficient basis for being considered. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What reliable source do you have that what is called "discrimination" here is notable for inclusion in portal? What makes it notable? Can I simply add a random picture of something called discrimination? How many scholars have ever written on this? --Be happy!! (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTABILITY. If it is attested to in third-party sources, as you yourself seem to imply, then it is notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. Portals do not have different notability requirements than any other wikipedia space, to the best of my knowledge. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The sources provided as far as I can see is that a journalist has called it discrimination. But that does not establish notability. This is clear to me. Suppose a specific person X is discriminated against. Can I add his picture to this article? No. I need a reliable source telling me why this case is significant. If every arbitrary image is notable by the virtue of somebody calling them "discrimination", then the list of selected images will have thousands and thousands of images. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment just to be clear, you have no problem with the picture in question, Image:Christian Bypass.jpg, being used in the articles Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia or Mecca (as it currently is used in these articles)? Also, if for example this other picture Image:Temple inscription in greek.jpg of a stone from the Second Temple was used in the portal, would that be OK? It is of an "inscription from Herod's Temple, late 1st century BCE. It warns gentiles to refrain from entering the Temple enclosure, on pain of death." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with the usage of image in Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia but I have to think more closely about addition of the picture in relation with WP:UNDUE when it comes to Mecca as the city is an ancient one with a long history. I would be inclined to discuss this issue on "Mecca" article in a paragraph that generally discusses the religous regulations of entering Mecca; Muslims have to do pilgrimage whenever they enter it and should not to treat it as a tourist place, non-Muslims should not enter it.
Regarding the portal image, if the notability of either of the images for the inclusion is shown they can be added. I brought up other-religions-argument to undercut the particularity of this case and thus its notability. Of course similar argument can be made for Image:Temple inscription in greek.jpg ; reliable sources are required for establishing its notability. And notability is always relative. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If the Mecca Road sign is not an example of discrimination, what is do you call the policy of excluding non-Muslims from Mecca? Discrimination can be legal under the law(s) of the land - for example, the Jim Crow sign was part of a policy that was legal for decades (unfortunately). I would love to visit Mecca, but understand as a non-Muslim that I can not. If I had a time machine, I understand that I would have still been excluded from parts of the Second Temple as a non-Jew. Aren't all of these examples of (legal) discrimination? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point but if someone wants to visit the land owned by another person or by a group of people, he/she may be legally prevented from it. The consensus of people living in the Mecca is not to allow others entering their land without permission. They think that the presence of non-Muslims, in the long run, will disturb and transform their native culture by turning Mecca into a tourist place. This change of attitude towards Mecca from a pilgrimage site to a possibly tourist site will in turn unfold its implications in the long run on the citizens of the city.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. MfD is not a good way to resolve content disputes. Clearly the image is an example of discrimination. Agree examples should be diverse. Agree there's a case to be made that using the image here may not be ideal, or should at least be given the most balanced presentation possible. Disagree deletion is the way to go -- instead, consider WP:RFC or other aspects of dispute resolution, to better establish consensus that use and presentation of the image in this case is or is not appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The argument brought by Dincher that the image could be replaced with another one makes sense. On the other hand, since this page in placed under a sub-article of Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5 (not the article itself), it could be very well deleted or blanked.
Whether it is a clear case of discrimination is a POV something I don't agree with as I believe the term "discrimination" is a heavy word for it. In many places people are required to have membership card to enter the place; it would be discrimination if the possibility of membership is not given to a race or gender. Anyways, these discussions are not irrelevant to the article when no reliable and non-political source is yet provided to show the notability of this alleged discrimination. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I do agree you have a legitimate cause to object, and that those objections should be hashed out and addressed, but I don't really feel an MfD is the best way to accomplish that. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I see and respect your view point. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, okay, so discrimination is typically used as a pejorative... and I don't know the editorial standards of the portal... but, it clearly is discriminatory. But so are restrooms that distinguish between men and women, or a sign saying "senior citizen discount". The point is it is obviously discrimination in some sense... and we can argue the merits of what discrimination is legitimate... but MfD is not really the place to address a Portal's editorial policies. So, maybe you should press for the inclusion of "benign discrimination" (typically used in connection with affirmative action) and then users can decide where each case falls. gren グレン 14:45, 20 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.