Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not aniconistic

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, let discussion run its course and retag if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not aniconistic

This page is unecessarily antagonistic toward editors who hold aniconistic beliefs (like Muslims). If this were a template I would tag it for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#T1 (divisive and inflammatory). As well this idea is already covered by WP:NOT#CENSORED.

This concept is so far removed from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view that it is literally opposed to it. Religious aniconistic POV is just as valid as any other POV. (→Netscott) 04:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong speedy keep. First and foremost, this proposal is a work in progress that hasn't even been announced yet, so objecting to it is severely premature-- I'm not even positive what exactly this page's content should be, but it should have some content. The debate about aniconism has come up on at least four different articles that I know of. If there are any guidelines that have come out of those four debates, we should figure what they are and write them down somewhere. Secondly-- consensus or no, deleting makes no sense. If it's truly divisive and opposed by consensus, it will fail of its own accord once it is completed and proposed. If it is supported consensus, it will become policy/guideline and will prevent unnecessary disputes in the future. In either case, deletion is a ridiculous solution. --Alecmconroy 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to userspace and mark as an essay. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- (→Netscott) 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why has this been done?Proabivouac 05:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, that frames the issue in an unrealistic way, and brings in people with a likely bias. This is not necessarily a Islam issue. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It involves iconists equally - where do we find them?Proabivouac 05:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Alecmconroy or move per HighInBC. Not obviously inflammatory or divisive.Proabivouac 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and update as concerns are evinced. This essay would not be needed, and indeed it were preferable not to have it, but for the fact that common-sense is controversial. That this essay exists is embarrassing, however none of what is said there is untrue. I don't see bias in the juxtaposition of

Wikipedia articles are not bound by religious laws which prohibit the use of images

with

The use of images solely to offend, harrass, or upset members of a certain religious groups is inappropriate

These two statements need to be explicitly paired somewhere. I believe both are equally true, and the second one less well understood in practice. And if anything is unnecessarily divisive and inflammatory it is the drum-beat repetition of the first statement without the necessary understanding of the second. Shenme 05:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It doesn't help that the essay was created apparently because of a dispute on having images on Muhammad, but that's not a reason for deletion, and I'm not convinced of a good one. -Amarkov moo! 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Alecmconroy's comments. -- Karl Meier 11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy - we allow user boxes which are far more extreme POV, for example, pro-aryanism / nordicism. Addhoc 13:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Alecmconroy. Beit Or 14:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Because it is a religious matter and/or peoples beliefs you cannot really make a policy against their views, its a little unfair to editors. Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This looks to me like a guideline for a specific instance of WP:NOT#CENSOR, and one that comes up often enough that it needs to be addressed. If it is not yet the guideline we want, it should be improved through community imput, not deleted. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Alecmconry, Harrison and Amarkov. That said, Netscott brings up a good point any maybe this piece should make it clear that Wikipedia is not iconististic either, but is only "not aniconistic". JoshuaZ 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep many articles on wikipedia lack images, making it look dull. So this essay is using a humorous way to encourage us putting up images for articles, not a bad thing, and no reason to delete. Wooyi 21:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If only it were so! Sadly, it's not humorous-- people really do show up at articles asking why the page isn't following religious laws. So far, we've just pointed them to Wikipedia is not censored and been done with it-- but it seems like it might be nice to write up a more specific explanation that's not as terse as just saying "Wikipedia is not censored, the end" --Alecmconroy 21:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's not just a question regarding to censorship. It is necessary to encourage people putting up images on articles. As myself has uploaded many politician's image single-handedly, I have seen the lack of images on many articles has been a problem. Wooyi 21:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is a serious attempt to explain to users why the images they do not think should be shown in public are shown on wikipedia. Ansell 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Mark as essay and keep, whether userfied or not. Gracenotes^T § 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as an essay, a bit over-specific and could usefully be merged to "Wikipedia is not censored", of which it is clearly a specific subset, but it does not itself violate any principles. Might be better to be expanded in some slightly less formal language, mind. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Obviously a pov fork made for the Muhammad article. Linking a picture instead of displaying it is not a form of censorship. If you disagree, please go to the Goatse article and place a big picture of goatse uncensored at the top. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is potentially offensive to compare that to a respectful picture of Muhammad painted by a devout Muslim. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know any devoted Muslim who has drawn such picture. I mean we can say some Muslim had drawn picture but devoted need citation. Right? --- SAndT^{Lets Talk} 10:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If I said in an article, "Lütfi Abdullah, the famous calligrapher who illustrated the Siyer-i Nebi for Murad III, was a devout Muslim," that would require citation. Similarly, if you said he was not a devout Muslim, that too would require citation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Those picture are veiled? Your example is wrong. Do you have any other example? I do not think so. Secondly, I have not said that non-devoted Muslims had drawn those pictures. You are saying them devoted Muslim hence you need citation not me. --- SAndT^{Lets Talk} 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:POINT --ProtectWomen 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, by that manner, lets take out all pictures of Pigs from Wikipedia since they're offensive to really really devout Muslims. I hope you are not that devout.--Matt57 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's been said before and should be said again: This is not Islam-specific. Look at, say, Bahá'u'lláh. And many forms of Islam have no problem with depictions of Muhummad, at least by other Muslims. SnowFire 00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep As similarly noted by Tom Harrison, this article is a natural extension to the Wikipedia is not censored policy. As opposed to calling this topic a POV fork or anti-NPOV, this policy is actually essential to keeping Wikipedia NPOV (and secular) ProtectWomen 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete After looking at discussion at Muhammad pictures page at talk:Muhammad/images this just looks like violating WP:POINT and a POV fork. --- SAndT^{Lets Talk} 10:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind-- this page wasn't advertised or submitted for a vote to become a guideline yet, nor would I want it to be until the dispute at Muhammad has been resolved. It looks like things are coming to consensus there, so I started working on this page to REFLECT a consensus when there is one, not to try to impose one. --Alecmconroy 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and let it run its course. Wikipedia isn't aniconistic and its fine to spell this out. Herostratus 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree with Herostratus above. This policy is the right step towards dealing with the ridiculous censorship that has been going on some religion related pages. Alecmconroy, thank you very much for taking this initiative.--Matt57 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a work in progress which seems like it will develop into a useful policy page. —Psychonaut 02:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is not offensive. Acalamari 16:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and let the proposal run its course. It may also be a legit essay. No reason to delete it either way. — coelacan — 02:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above--Sefringle 03:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seeing as its message has been a de facto guidline for ages, just usually covered under WP:NOT#CENSORED. Since WP:NOT doesn't deal with minor specific issues this is a reasonable split-off. --tjstrf talk 08:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Ķĩřβȳ.Template:Sa.vakilian--12:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but reject. As a proposal, it's redundant and not necessary, so it should be {{rejected}} (and I suppose someone will change that into {{essay}}, which I suppose is acceptable). >Radiant< 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep its a no brainer--CltFn 05:13, 16 March 2007 (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.