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

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. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

I have to say this- this was my idea. My page got deleted (it was called Temporary Discussion Forum: Islam) and replaced with this. Voporak 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. We should be discussing the merits of the article, not the merits of religion or anything else. Wikipedia is not a message board. — TheKMan^talk 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have some sympathy for this, as I could see a philosophical discussion leading to improvement in the article in some case; but overall, this is too dangerous a precedent. Xoloz 17:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I created this so that the arguments that were already taking place on the main Talk page could be sequestered. Several people on Talk had suggested something of this nature. I then removed as many obvious arguments as I could find from the main Talk page to here. The idea is that it's better to give some outlet for these arguments so that they can be kept out of the way of productive discussion. The situation we have with this article is unique and sensitive, and really shouldn't set precedent for other articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The outlet for those arguments is to be removed and tell the participants to go elsewhere. Discussions/arguments of that nature do not help build the encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. I understand the motivation, but we shouldn't be hosting this or setting this precedent. Jkelly 19:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think this page should be regarded as a sandbox where we can move all these discussions that are not related to the article itself, because it seems like people will continue to start that kind of discussions no matter how many times other users, admins or Jimbo Wales tells them not to. (Entheta 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC))
• Keep This page is invaluable. Whenever an event that takes place which stirs up strong emotions in a very large number of people, there is a need to process these emotions in a peaceful way. Offering a public forum for this process allows people not only a chance to vent, but more importantly, it allows people to become exposed to multiple viewpoints. Neutrality cannot be maintained if the various POVs are ignored. Indeed, NPOV cannot exist until all POVs have been analyzed. The truth always lies somewhere between opposing viewpoints. We cannot report objective truth unless we look for where that truth is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.32.67 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. What to do with marginally related comments on the actual talk page? Keeping them adds junk, and deleting them will further aggravate people who already have trouble keeping their cool and may have unfortunate ways of venting their anger. Keep this until the worst dies down, then reconsider. Weregerbil 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above anon. You can't just "discuss the article" without discussing the merits. Of course, if people go too far then they should be notified, but otherwise the talk page serves as a reflection of the various POVs which can then be gathered and eventually included into the article. I believe what we're observing here is just a very intensive process of evolution. --Misza13 ^(Talk) 23:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  Hey, sure, feel free to discuss the merits of the article. I'm just saying, there isn't any need to get into discussions about, say, whether Islam really is a religion of peace. — TheKMan^talk 23:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but blank - don't allow the Internet forum discussion to continue, but Talk pages get sidetracked like this all the time so there's no reason to destroy the whole thing. Ashibaka tock 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, rename but moderate. Remove inflammatory discussion, but general inquiries about the issue and such could be permitted just like we do for the Reference Desk. The idea is not only to write an encyclopedia in prose format, but give people the sum of human knowledge about the issue - we should rename it to "inquiries" and moderate it like a reference desk discussion, because eventually someone could look over these arguments, inspire another piece of editorial discussion or generally help improve the article. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctantly Keep - Unfortunately, people are going to continue to post comments irrelevant to controversy; people are going to continue to express their philosophical opinions on Islam, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. So there are really two options: just keep deleting these comments and let them repost them again or move them to another page where these rants can continue out of view of what's really important. I'm, reluctantly, going for the latter. joturner 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Archive to talk page history. In future interested parties can dig these comments from there. No need to remove anything permanently nor violate WP:NOT by hosting this debate page. jni 07:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Pragmatic keep. These discussions indeed don't belong on wikipedia talk pages. But I'd rather have them here than on the main talk page. This talk page seems necessary to keep the main talk page to the point. In doing this, the page benefits content discussions. When the fuss has died down and the emotions are less, I won't object to reopening this MfD. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--Greasysteve13 01:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Archive to talk page history per Jni. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that it really should be deleted, but we'll have arguments creeping back into the main talk page in no time, if the sub page is removed. I think we should keep the debate concentrated, and away from the main talk page, so if someone wants to give their opinion and discuss with fellow wikipedians they can, with minimal effect to the workings of the article and talk page. Agent Blightsoot 09:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I wholly agree with User:67.50.32.67. This serves as a peaceful outlet for the very intense emotions released by this controversy and allows people from many sides of the debate to better understand and appreciate the sentiments and feelings of other parts in the debate. Of course WP should not be a blog or discussion forum per se, and when this whole thing has blown over, the page could be deleted as its primary function had been served, but till then - I say we keep it.
• Keep This page was not created as is, these are comments from the talk page which have been MOVED here, by people other than the authors, so at most send the comments back to the talk pages if you want, but you don't delete them. Elfguy 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete and delete offtopic comments from the talkpage as with every other article. WP is not a discussion forum. dab (ᛏ) 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 220.238.173.96 18:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per dab above. Skleinjung 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until the debate has stopped, after that it can be delete'd - according to the rules it could be deleted right away but I think it would be wise to make an exception for this one. TERdON 22:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but first compile a list of discussion forums and weblogs to which people can be referred. If people are left with no place to voice their emotions on this topic, then the signal/noise ratio on the talk page will become too low. --PeR 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm generally against actual discussion of the topics on Wikipedia, as the site is designed to be an encyclopedia and not a soapbox. However, this is a highly controversial topic that has aroused strong feelings among many people-- and in parts of the world, people are dying over this thing. It's something that ought to be discussed, but I'm glad it's being discussed on a subpage of the talk page-- obviously if it were on the main talk page, it'd be utterly inappropriate. --ekedolphin 11:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As opinions expressed above, please keep this page intact. The page is not having an impact on the main artical and serves as a place to discuss the current situation.If it is deleted comments of the like being expressed here will move to the talk section. There is no reason to delete, let people express their opinions. Ryanuk 19:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this page actually serves a purpose, in that it acts as a repository for all the trolling that is removed from the article talk page, if not for this subpage, the trolls would have no where to go and would overun the article talk page within a matter of minutes--64.12.116.13 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not trolling, at least not all of it, someone just made a decision to take various topics from the talk page and move them to a new page without asking anyone. Elfguy 15:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    "Various topics" meaning topics that were not related to the actual article, which is the topic of the original talk page. They weren't just moved here at random. I agree not all of them are trolls - not even most of them - but they were all off topic, making the original talk page a mess. (Entheta 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a message board.--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; It serves as an outlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celcius (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Wikipedia is constantly contradicting itself; it claims it is only an encyclopaedia, yet it allows pages such as this to exist. LordViD 10:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe someone can sum up all the pro and con arguments of publishing the cartoons on wikipedia? But please use a new page to keep the creative chaos alive. :) Raphael 193.252.213.100 12:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep reluctantly per Aecis, Blightsoot and Joturner. -- Avenue 00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. This page serves a legitimate editorial function which is to help foster discussion on points of view and arguments which may later be surveyed for incorporation into the main article. I think that once the controversy has played out, the appropriate thing to do is to survey this page for any material to be added (i.e. some say this and others say that) and then archive or delete the page. Wikipedia may not be a soapbox but this is a controversial issue and one cannot cover a controversy without attracting argument.--Einhverfr 07:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to the POV Wikicity. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now and then review again in a few months. For now this page is pretty vital for keeping the real Talk page uncluttered. --Cyde Weys 21:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since removing it, it has nowhere to go. This page is good for history of cartoons of Muhammad especially as Wikipedia is an enclopedia 218.111.36.32 12:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. --Terence Ong 03:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If they don't have the argument page to discuss such things, they'll try and take it to other locations. Better to focus it in one, easier to moderate location. Dr. B 07:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Refer: Enforcing the policy would ultimately undermine what the policy was put in place to achieve, because the contributors of the contravening discussions either don't know or don't care about the policy. Reluctantly, I believe this page needs to be kept until the article is no longer a current event, or else users directed to other sources where such discussions are legitimate. — digitaleon • talk @ 16:19, 12 February 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.