![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I came across content deletion cases in Ex-Muslim articles. Yasmine Mohammed and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in both cases content deletionists deleted own views of Yasmine Mohammed and Ayaan Hirsi Ali respectively. If reliable enough source is available why one's own views can not be there, in articles written about them?
In case of reason forwarded by deletionist is WP:Coatrack, How Yasmine Mohammed can have opinion on multiple aspects? If she has at all and Wikipedia article covers it, It will be WP:Coatrack! I find this argument strange. Whether it is Barak Obama or Donald Trump and many other politicians, they are going to have opinions on multiple subjects even those subjects which they are not experts and I see lot of coverage of that in Wikipedia. Why there is no WP:Coatrack on them and only on Yasmine Mohammed? Is use of WP:Coatrack really rational enough in this case?
In another deletion, while deleting
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinion edit summary goes Pundits make many inflammatory claims, but we cannot document them all. Please cite a reliable, WP:IS for this.
Actually content seem to have news source refs and deletionist seem to ask for neutral source may be critical of
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinion.
Here I seek to compare again with Donald Trump, He too makes lot many believed to be inflammatory claims. And adequate news sources would be available. For example in Donald Trump case may be Fox News source not necessarily not neutral but unlikely publish fake news detrimental to Donald Trump. So does Wikipedia not take Fox news ref just because the news source does not include any criticism of Donald Trump?
I am not against including criticism of opinions. For example Yasmine Mohammed article includes criticism of title of her book. But whether we will not allow her opinions on multiple subjects citing WP:Coatrack or we will not allow her opinions in article about herself because reference source does not include criticism on any of her opinion?
Are these really valid rational and logical excuses for content deletion or content stone walling? Here is List of fallacies, may be this list helps deletionists help better to support and wikisplain their above mentioned arguments of deletion.
I do not know all Wikipedia rules, other editors too who support ex-Muslim articles visit Wikipedia much lesser, they would be knowing rules and wiki processes much lesser. Contesting such deletions, prima facie unfair ones happen much lesser. Does this not really create Wikipedia:Systemic bias against atheists in general and Ex-Muslims in particular?
Bookku ( talk) 08:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag. Then you can add a discussion section. Could you please fix this - I've struck through it at the moment. Just add the neutral statement or question, a new section heading for discussion, then your comments.
Doug Weller
talk
11:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)You are welcome to suggest neutral statements then I will add above comment. Or may may be I will drop Rfc for a while I find some self-censored and politically right language for my-self. Or May be I create an Rfc for having a mode of Wikipedia wide discussion without need of such censorship. Bookku ( talk) 11:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I came across content deletion cases in Ex-Muslim articles. Yasmine Mohammed and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in both cases content deletionists deleted own views of Yasmine Mohammed and Ayaan Hirsi Ali respectively. If reliable enough source is available why one's own views can not be there, in articles written about them?
In case of reason forwarded by deletionist is WP:Coatrack, How Yasmine Mohammed can have opinion on multiple aspects? If she has at all and Wikipedia article covers it, It will be WP:Coatrack! I find this argument strange. Whether it is Barak Obama or Donald Trump and many other politicians, they are going to have opinions on multiple subjects even those subjects which they are not experts and I see lot of coverage of that in Wikipedia. Why there is no WP:Coatrack on them and only on Yasmine Mohammed? Is use of WP:Coatrack really rational enough in this case?
In another deletion, while deleting
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinion edit summary goes Pundits make many inflammatory claims, but we cannot document them all. Please cite a reliable, WP:IS for this.
Actually content seem to have news source refs and deletionist seem to ask for neutral source may be critical of
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinion.
Here I seek to compare again with Donald Trump, He too makes lot many believed to be inflammatory claims. And adequate news sources would be available. For example in Donald Trump case may be Fox News source not necessarily not neutral but unlikely publish fake news detrimental to Donald Trump. So does Wikipedia not take Fox news ref just because the news source does not include any criticism of Donald Trump?
I am not against including criticism of opinions. For example Yasmine Mohammed article includes criticism of title of her book. But whether we will not allow her opinions on multiple subjects citing WP:Coatrack or we will not allow her opinions in article about herself because reference source does not include criticism on any of her opinion?
Are these really valid rational and logical excuses for content deletion or content stone walling? Here is List of fallacies, may be this list helps deletionists help better to support and wikisplain their above mentioned arguments of deletion.
I do not know all Wikipedia rules, other editors too who support ex-Muslim articles visit Wikipedia much lesser, they would be knowing rules and wiki processes much lesser. Contesting such deletions, prima facie unfair ones happen much lesser. Does this not really create Wikipedia:Systemic bias against atheists in general and Ex-Muslims in particular?
Bookku ( talk) 08:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag. Then you can add a discussion section. Could you please fix this - I've struck through it at the moment. Just add the neutral statement or question, a new section heading for discussion, then your comments.
Doug Weller
talk
11:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)You are welcome to suggest neutral statements then I will add above comment. Or may may be I will drop Rfc for a while I find some self-censored and politically right language for my-self. Or May be I create an Rfc for having a mode of Wikipedia wide discussion without need of such censorship. Bookku ( talk) 11:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)