- 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 delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG
I'm proposing this for deletion again. The previous vote is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Islam:SIIEG, which closed with no consensus.
There is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam so there's no need for this additional project. Whatever the original intentions, it has turned into a platform for bigotry, and a magnet for people who arrive at Wikipedia with the sole intention of causing trouble at Islam-related articles. Editors associated with the project have included Chaosfeary, Existentializer and Ni-ju-Ichi (aka Enviroknot), Zeno of Elea, Urchid (aka CltFn), Exmuslim, Germen, and OceanSplash, all anti-Islam POV warriors, some of them highly offensive and disruptive. (In fairness, some decent editors have signed up too e.g. Babajobu and Briangotts, with the perfectly correct intention of ensuring that well-sourced criticism of Islam is included in articles, and any criticism I make here is not directed at them).
The project's stated aim is arguably not consistent with NPOV: "Document and include ... the known objective facts about Islam ... while ensuring that Islam related articles on Wikipedia are written in an encyclopedic style free from apologetics and non-neutral POV." Sounds good in theory, but there's actually nothing wrong with including material that is sympathetic to and respectful of Islam (so-called apologetics) within certain limits, so long as it's well-sourced and not stated as fact. The idea of relying on some of these disruptive editors to determine what the "objective facts" about Islam are is absurd. I'm therefore asking the community to vote against bigotry and delete this page. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Nomination out of process. Take this to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)- Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is just plain bigotry with a superficial gloss of intellectualism. Cberlet 20:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - it doesn't matter where it is, we can't have pro-bigotry WikiProjects which do things like rally to block Requests for Adminship against Muslim editors. Guettarda 20:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete an organization of pov pushers and several trolls which make it harder for editors who want to edit Islam-related articles seriously. It is not secular, it's just anti-Islamic and few of its members over the last few months have even been blocked for openly vandalizing wikipedia articles. A completely useless and bigot project. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Guettarda and Slim Virgin. The name "SIIEG" seems to be a subconscious mindset of the majority of its members (not all though, Babajobu is a good guy), they feel like they're under "Siege" from Islam. It's basically a POV pushing committeee. karmafist 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- When they were looking for a motto for the group, an IP editor suggested Siieg Heil as one :-) Tintin 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this is wrong, IMHO it should be establised as policy that those with all viewpoints may join a wikiproject and that pro- and anti- wikiporjects aren't allowed. This isn't the first time a similar thing has happened. — Dunc| ☺ 20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not cool. FeloniousMonk 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete BYT 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, POV pushing, hateful bullshit.-- Sean| Bla ck 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete AnnH (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete -- Striver 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Brimba 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Gee, is it any accident SIIEG is so close to sieg? Uberrima, while correct, is certainly no accident either. This piece of trash needs to go. Jim62sch 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Of course. And someone please ban a few of the above voters for extreme incivility and personal attacks. -- Karl Meier 21:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment One of the members of the SIIEG Guild left this Islamophobic message at Jimbo Wales talk page. I'm conflicted about this vote. If a KKK Guild existed on Wikipedia, would we vote to delete the guild? Yes/No? And why/why not? -- JuanMuslim 1m 23:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reason I voted keep for the WP Decency project: Disagreeing with what you say, defending to the death your right to say it. (per BD2412) Tom e r talk 22:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Putting aside your sweeping generalization about the "horrible garbage" that "they do", would you also demand that Shia and Sunni editors "join the actual (Islam) project" rather than maintaining their "fork" projects?
Babajobu 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, probably, but my point is that WikiProjects can't be exclusionary: You don't have to be Jewish to join
Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, nor do you have to be a
Doctor Who fan to be a member of
WP:WHO. And I apologize about the "garbage" thing, but I've seen countless examples of such things from every single editor who has been involved in this project, excepting yourself. There's a myriad of examples
here.--
Sean|
Bla
ck 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- You don't have to be secular to be a member of SIIEG, you just have to be interested in seeing Islam covered in an NPOV, secular fashion. Plenty of Muslim Wikipedians are annoyed when they see "PBUH" and so on creeping into Islam articles, because they know it reflects poorly on the NPOV and quality of those articles. Babajobu 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Then I don't really see why this exists. Of course all Islam-related articles should be neutral, informative, and verifiable: this is simply unnecessary and divisive.--
Sean|
Bla
ck 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- And of course all article on Shia Islam or Sunni Islam should be good, and all articles on music or medicine should be good. But guilds exist in those areas to coordinate the efforts of editors who want to work on those particular tasks. SIIEG is no different. It exists to coordinate the efforts of those editors who want to see Islam covered in an NPOV, non-pious manner. Babajobu 05:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, probably, but my point is that WikiProjects can't be exclusionary: You don't have to be Jewish to join
Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, nor do you have to be a
Doctor Who fan to be a member of
WP:WHO. And I apologize about the "garbage" thing, but I've seen countless examples of such things from every single editor who has been involved in this project, excepting yourself. There's a myriad of examples
here.--
Sean|
Bla
ck 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Putting aside your sweeping generalization about the "horrible garbage" that "they do", would you also demand that Shia and Sunni editors "join the actual (Islam) project" rather than maintaining their "fork" projects?
Babajobu 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, a bad-faith attempt at pushing a POV. « Lord ViD» 22:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this is the WikiProject equivalent of a POV fork. As others have said, the WikiProject Islam is more than open to them. Someone should keep a list of the members however, for future reference. -- bainer ( talk) 22:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this attempt at censorship makes me sick--
Diatrobica;l 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- User's second edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Yuber (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- No opinion What in the world is
this? Why do I care? I don't know anything about this AFD, and I have nothing to say about it. But I'm very curious why this user thought I would want to know about it.
Jdavidb (
talk •
contribs) 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think Diatrobica;l gave everyone on
Category:Conservative Wikipedians a message to vote keep on this, and that is why you were contacted.
This type of campaigning is, I think, perfectly acceptable and normal.Smmurphy( Talk) 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think Diatrobica;l gave everyone on
Category:Conservative Wikipedians a message to vote keep on this, and that is why you were contacted.
- Delete almost redundent with WP:Islam, nearly the same mission statement. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Dunc. Smmurphy( Talk) 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete. what "censorship"? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If a Wikiproject is unencyclopedic, it needs to go, that's our only standard. Wikiproject Islam will do for both apologists and critics of Islam. dab (ᛏ) 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Something should not be put up for deletion just because you don't like what people are saying. Dwain 23:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete. per nominator -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete. not worthy of encyclopedia entry. also, i don't want these annoying messages... -- R6MaY89 00:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep clearly too soon to judge the intentions of such a new wiki projct--
Shlemnik 00:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- strong keep I don't belive in the deletion of wikiprojects--
Fgleb 00:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Now blocked for page-move vandalism. Guettarda 18:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- SpeedyKeep nominator is a vandal, should be blocked from editing--
Femglow 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ditto. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- weak keep don't agree with the project's goals, but I'll fght to the death to defend your right to say it--
Hoboman 00:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Such an original thinker. User's first edit.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Um, I presume the closing admin will take note of the sockpuppetry.
WP:SOCK states that "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." Recent contributors seem to have only one edit...
Jdavidb (
talk •
contribs) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- All four are confirmed sockpuppets. Guettarda 04:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Um, I presume the closing admin will take note of the sockpuppetry.
WP:SOCK states that "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." Recent contributors seem to have only one edit...
Jdavidb (
talk •
contribs) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Such an original thinker. User's first edit.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Even Muslims can't have an organization, and that is bad. Эйрон Кинни 00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: This seems redundant and controversial, so I also vote to remove it. However, I will admit there is a fine line between discussing Islam and promoting/attacking it, and one person's "fact" may be another person's "slander". Palm_Dogg 01:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment how about a Wiki project that has conditions to enter? From the project main page:
- SIIEG members should: not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam
-- Striver 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems like a clone, besides someone put something on my talk page trying to make me vote keep. NightOwl91 01:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not conducive to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Furthermore - how about a little golden rule? How awful I would feel if there were a Wikiproject devoted to attacking my religion. This project only breeds further intolerance and ill will. Worst of all for the Wikipedia, it fosters ill will toward the project. Dan Lovejoy 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with WikiProject:Islam or somesuch. -- King of All the Franks 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Aside from never having heard anything good about this WikiProject, I must agree that it is redundant to WikiProject Islam. – ArmadniGeneral ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete apparent POV fork with WikiProject Islam. This isn't speech censorship, incidentally; Wiki space and Project space represent the encyclopedia to a certain degree, and content must show encyclopedic relevence and must meet community standards. Any user can devote their userspace to this endeavor, so long as it remains free of NPA and CIV violations. Xoloz 02:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep In addition to the main Muslim guild there is also a Shia guild and a Sunni guild--why then is it inappropriate that there should also be a "secular guild" for Islam editors. I agree that some editors who have signed onto the guild have also said or done inappropriate things, but the same is true of the Shia and Sunni guilds and any other wikiguild for that matter. The answer is not to destroy the guilds. SIIEG serves a legitimate purpose. Do the delete voters want to be the ones who go around Wikipedia removing the (once) endless examples of "PBUH" and "peace be upon him and upon the
ahlul-bayt", and "The Glorious Quran" and so forth? Or changing all those very many statements like "Muhammad was the final Prophet" so that they reflect that this is the Muslim view, rather than simple reality? I doubt you do. Let SIEEGers get back on with it.
Babajobu 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- We can't have exclusionary membership of WikiProjects, and we can't have WikiProjects whose talk page seems dedicated to attacking Islam and blocking the RFAs of Muslim editors simply because they are Muslim. Both of these factors make this WikiProject unacceptable. Guettarda 03:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- In addition, the stated purpose of changing all mentions of Muhammad to "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" is factually inaccurate, since he is also considered a prophet by Bahais and Ahmaddiyas. Guettarda 03:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The talk page is not dedicated to "attacking Islam" or blocking the RfAs of Muslim editors. Two RfAs were mentioned without telling readers how to vote...for one of them I voted oppose and one I voted neutral...there was no "block voting", and the only question was whether candidates were familiar with, and committed to,
WP:NPOV. And how is this project "exclusionary"? It is for editors with interest in a particular area. There are members of several faiths (including Islam) and none. And there is no stated intent to change all mentions of "Muhammad" to "the Islamic prophet Muhammad"...the intent is to change all mentions of "Prophet Muhammad" to either "Muhammad" or, when disambiguation is necessary, to the formulation you mention. This is not inaccurate...at very worst it is incomplete in not mentioning Bahais (and Ahmaddiyas, if you don't consider Ahmaddiyas to be Muslim despite their self-definition).
Babajobu 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The page bans people from membership on the basis of their beliefs. How is that not exclusionary? And the talk page is seething with anti-Islamic hate. I'm not Muslim and I found it highly offensive. And people coming off the project did vote to oppose in one of those RFAs because the editor was Muslim.
Guettarda 03:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- What in God's name are you talking about that the project "bans people from membership on the basis of their beliefs"?? It absolutely does not. The most pious member of any religion, including Islam, is welcome at SIIEG...they just have to have an interest in seeing their pieties presented in an NPOV manner, rather than as plain, objective truth. "Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged steed" is POV; "so-and-so believes that Muhammad ascended..." or "Muslims believe that Muhammad ascended" or "some Muslims believe that..." are all perfectly fine and NPOV. Pious Muslims are perfectly capable of observing NPOV, and perfectly welcome to join SIEEG! And I have a hard time believing that any editors voted against an RfA "because the editor was Muslim"...but even if that did happen, you're going to ban a particular guild because one or two of its members did something inappropriate. Is that sort of collective punishment really necessary?
Babajobu 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- It says "[must]not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam" - this is unacceptable exclusion. You don't have the right to tell people that they can only be involved in a project if they do hold certain views about religion. As for the RFA vote "because the editor was Muslim" - that came up in the RFA. True, one vote would not make a project biased, but exclusive language and hateful anti-Muslim language on the talk page are enough.
Guettarda 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- My interpretation of that clause has been that writers must not attempt to insinuate "Islam is True" POV into articles and pass it off as plain truth. The most pious believer in any faith is not necessarily an advocate of apologetics on behalf of that faith. You can be a believer without wanting to impose your belief system on others and without demanding that others accept your view of the world. That's all SIIEG asks of its religious members. In wiki articles just describe your faith, don't preach it. Is that so offensive? And also, if some offensive talk on a talk page earns a ban, then boy is wikipedia in trouble. 50% of our talk pages will have to go.
Babajobu 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's not what apologetics is. Any Muslim should hold the view that their religion is true. The exclusion says nothing about editing POV - it says that they are not allowed membership on the basis on their opinion about Islam. None of us are neutral, none of us are expected not to have a POV. We are expected to write NPOV regardless of how we feel. This project excludes people on the basis of their belief. That is contrary to what Wikipedia is all about. Guettarda 04:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- My interpretation of that clause has been that writers must not attempt to insinuate "Islam is True" POV into articles and pass it off as plain truth. The most pious believer in any faith is not necessarily an advocate of apologetics on behalf of that faith. You can be a believer without wanting to impose your belief system on others and without demanding that others accept your view of the world. That's all SIIEG asks of its religious members. In wiki articles just describe your faith, don't preach it. Is that so offensive? And also, if some offensive talk on a talk page earns a ban, then boy is wikipedia in trouble. 50% of our talk pages will have to go.
Babajobu 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- It says "[must]not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam" - this is unacceptable exclusion. You don't have the right to tell people that they can only be involved in a project if they do hold certain views about religion. As for the RFA vote "because the editor was Muslim" - that came up in the RFA. True, one vote would not make a project biased, but exclusive language and hateful anti-Muslim language on the talk page are enough.
Guettarda 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- What in God's name are you talking about that the project "bans people from membership on the basis of their beliefs"?? It absolutely does not. The most pious member of any religion, including Islam, is welcome at SIIEG...they just have to have an interest in seeing their pieties presented in an NPOV manner, rather than as plain, objective truth. "Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged steed" is POV; "so-and-so believes that Muhammad ascended..." or "Muslims believe that Muhammad ascended" or "some Muslims believe that..." are all perfectly fine and NPOV. Pious Muslims are perfectly capable of observing NPOV, and perfectly welcome to join SIEEG! And I have a hard time believing that any editors voted against an RfA "because the editor was Muslim"...but even if that did happen, you're going to ban a particular guild because one or two of its members did something inappropriate. Is that sort of collective punishment really necessary?
Babajobu 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The page bans people from membership on the basis of their beliefs. How is that not exclusionary? And the talk page is seething with anti-Islamic hate. I'm not Muslim and I found it highly offensive. And people coming off the project did vote to oppose in one of those RFAs because the editor was Muslim.
Guettarda 03:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree completely that editors are entitled to whatever beliefs they hold, but not entitled to impose those beliefs on Wikipedia. "Apologetics" are the systematic and rhetorical defense and advancement of the faith to non-believers. I think the clause is written poorly, because I believe it uses "POV" in the wiki-sense of "the opposite of NPOV", i.e. the tendency or desire to slant wikipedia articles toward the editor's particular set of beliefs. Perhaps that needs to be made clearer. But again, all this is a wild overreaction and could have been solved with a little feedback rather than an hack-and-slay MfD.
Babajobu 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- And the anti-Muslim vitriol on the talk page?
Guettarda 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's some bad stuff on the talkpage, and some good stuff, too. If we're going to delete every Wikipedia talk page with crap on it, we've got a whole lot of conversation deleting to do.
Babajobu 05:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's a lot of bad stuff there - as bad a page as I have encountered, and what appears to be a general acceptance of hate-speech. It isn't a little crap, it's a pervasive bias. Couple that with the "you aren't welcome if you disagree with us" sign on the front page and you have a very bad place. How can that type of a poisonous atmosphere be tolerated for so long anywhere in this project? I have never come across that hostile a page (well, with the possible exception of
this page, but the attacks on that page are aimed at me personally).
Guettarda 06:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- How much of the page have you read? It's a long page, and most of it is pretty mundane, talking about the most NPOV way to state things, voting on fairly trivial issues, alerts to pages of interest or articles of interest. And there are a couple rants that people are focusing on to discredit the entire project. Whatever, go ahead and delete the verboten secular project in a fit of PC pique. Hope to see you running "honorifics and praises" patrol, Guettarda, since SIIEG will no longer be coordinating it. Babajobu 06:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's a lot of bad stuff there - as bad a page as I have encountered, and what appears to be a general acceptance of hate-speech. It isn't a little crap, it's a pervasive bias. Couple that with the "you aren't welcome if you disagree with us" sign on the front page and you have a very bad place. How can that type of a poisonous atmosphere be tolerated for so long anywhere in this project? I have never come across that hostile a page (well, with the possible exception of
this page, but the attacks on that page are aimed at me personally).
Guettarda 06:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's some bad stuff on the talkpage, and some good stuff, too. If we're going to delete every Wikipedia talk page with crap on it, we've got a whole lot of conversation deleting to do.
Babajobu 05:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- And the anti-Muslim vitriol on the talk page?
Guettarda 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The talk page is not dedicated to "attacking Islam" or blocking the RfAs of Muslim editors. Two RfAs were mentioned without telling readers how to vote...for one of them I voted oppose and one I voted neutral...there was no "block voting", and the only question was whether candidates were familiar with, and committed to,
WP:NPOV. And how is this project "exclusionary"? It is for editors with interest in a particular area. There are members of several faiths (including Islam) and none. And there is no stated intent to change all mentions of "Muhammad" to "the Islamic prophet Muhammad"...the intent is to change all mentions of "Prophet Muhammad" to either "Muhammad" or, when disambiguation is necessary, to the formulation you mention. This is not inaccurate...at very worst it is incomplete in not mentioning Bahais (and Ahmaddiyas, if you don't consider Ahmaddiyas to be Muslim despite their self-definition).
Babajobu 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete no purpose for it's existence in it's present form and the changes needed to make it NPOV are so huge that you might as well start over.-- MONGO 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Could everyone that received the "This type of censorship makes me sick" from User:Diatrobica;l raise their hand? Also, did any of you vote "keep"? -- Striver 03:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep per Babajobu.
Briangotts
(Talk)
(Contrib) 03:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment You are all encouraged to check out the similarities and differences among the various Islam-related guilds.... Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG-- JuanMuslim 1m 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Question. I was going to vote "delete" on the basis that we already have Wikiproject:Islam, which could perform the worthwhile tasks mentioned by Babajobu. I see, however, that the SIIEG says that Wikiproject:Islam is its "parent". Therefore, perhaps it's not exactly "an additional project", as SlimVirgin characterized it. If the people in Wikiproject:Islam have found it useful to set up a subproject to root out edits that reflect a pro-Islamic bias, I would be OK with that, although I agree with Guettarda and others that membership in the subproject should be open. (An editor with an apologetic attitude can still edit neutrally.) Would someone please clarify the relationship between SIIEG and Wikiproject:Islam? JamesMLane 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The Muslim guild is the parent project of SIIEG. Personally, I don't like signing up to guilds that require me to add my name to a separate section for non-believers, as the Muslim guild does, so I haven't added my name to the Muslim guild. But SIIEG, like the Sunni and Shia guilds, is a guild for people with an interest in Islam articles but also an interest in a particular type of information on Islam. And of course SIIEG membership is open to people of all beliefs, so long as they are willing to try to write in an NPOV manner about Islam. But I agree that this needs to be made more clear on the project page.
Babajobu 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Only the Islam religion guild is the parent guild of the subguilds. We've no authority over you and vice versa. Another problem with the SIIEG is the title - Secular Islamic Information Editors' Guild. The title makes about as much sense as the "Secular Christianity Information Editors' Guild." The title implies that the guild is trying to secularize a religion. --
JuanMuslim
1m 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The name isn't perfect, Juan, but I don't think it implies anything about "secularizing a religion". I think it suggests the desire to have information on Islam presented in a secular, NPOV manner in which the truth claims of the religion are neither affirmed nor denied, but only described. And yes, the Islam guild is the parent guild. Babajobu 05:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's also too much emphasis by the SIIEG against the apologetic point-of-view. Apologetic has a negative connotation. For many people when they hear the word, they understand it to mean, "Say what I believe is true else you're apologizing." It's basically a nice way of saying you're lying to me. What many people want Muslims to say is "Muslims are all terrorists!" Everything doesn't have simple answers. Sometimes there are two views that should be expressed. Anti-POV or neutral POV should be sufficient. --
JuanMuslim
1m 05:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, very often it is useful and necessary to present multiple points of view, including a pious or "Islam is True" POV. SIIEG's point is that these views should be presented as POVs, rather than as universal reality. And no one here wants Muslims to say "Muslims are all terrorists!"...in fact I've often removed vandalism like that from Islam-related articles, as I watchlist them for SIIEG. Babajobu 05:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the POV pushed on various Islam-related articles, such as the Criticism of Islam article and the discussion on its talk page. -- JuanMuslim 1m 07:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Only the Islam religion guild is the parent guild of the subguilds. We've no authority over you and vice versa. Another problem with the SIIEG is the title - Secular Islamic Information Editors' Guild. The title makes about as much sense as the "Secular Christianity Information Editors' Guild." The title implies that the guild is trying to secularize a religion. --
JuanMuslim
1m 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The Muslim guild is the parent project of SIIEG. Personally, I don't like signing up to guilds that require me to add my name to a separate section for non-believers, as the Muslim guild does, so I haven't added my name to the Muslim guild. But SIIEG, like the Sunni and Shia guilds, is a guild for people with an interest in Islam articles but also an interest in a particular type of information on Islam. And of course SIIEG membership is open to people of all beliefs, so long as they are willing to try to write in an NPOV manner about Islam. But I agree that this needs to be made more clear on the project page.
Babajobu 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The various Islam-related guilds support the standards mentioned at Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). Thus, we all agree that such praises should be avoided in Wikipedia. -- JuanMuslim 1m 04:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Juan, maybe so, but before SIIEG got started Islam articles were absolutely overrun with that sort of thing. SIIEG members made a much more concerted effort than members of the other guilds to remove those sorts of praises. Babajobu 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I think that having projects which require editors to have a certain viewpoint is not helpful to the aim of building consensuses in articles. "SIIEG members should not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam." We should focus in the content, not the attitudes of editors (beyond the usual Wikipedia-wide policies). - Willmcw 04:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm going to be bold and rephrase that clause in the SIIEG mission statement. I think it's poorly worded. I've always understood it to require only that members not seek to advance an apologetic approach to Islam in wiki articles, rather than attempting to somehow forbid them to have apologetic viewpoints themselves. I'll change it to reflect that. Babajobu 04:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Question Aren't other Wikipedia rules sufficient for dealing with the problem element in this group?
User:Babajobu offers one good reason for not joining the general Islam project: editors may prefer not to reveal their own religion - at least not in a catalogued and easily referrable manner. As much as I detest bigotry, not all editors in this project are objectionable. It would be easy for the problem users to start a forum on another website away from scrutiny. Isn't it better to discipline specific violations of policy?
Durova 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why would editors have to reveal their religion to join the main Islam project?--
Sean|
Bla
ck 05:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please check out the actual pages. Even the Muslim Guild has an option in which editors can state they are neither Muslim nor nonMuslim, meaning I don't want to tell you. I don't have to tell you. Or none of your business. And that is and should be sufficient for any of us. Nor do I appreciate when someone writes to Jimbo Wales stating that "Remember: “for evil to triumph, all it takes is for good people to do nothing”. It is the peace of the world that is at stake. It is lives of many innocent people that is at stake." --
JuanMuslim
1m 05:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood, I agree with you: the religion of any given editor is largely irrelevant to their editing, and thus should not be a factor in joining a WikiProject. I was asking Durova, who seemed to imply that editors have to reveal their religion to join the Islam WikiProject.-- Sean| Bla ck 05:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please check out the actual pages. Even the Muslim Guild has an option in which editors can state they are neither Muslim nor nonMuslim, meaning I don't want to tell you. I don't have to tell you. Or none of your business. And that is and should be sufficient for any of us. Nor do I appreciate when someone writes to Jimbo Wales stating that "Remember: “for evil to triumph, all it takes is for good people to do nothing”. It is the peace of the world that is at stake. It is lives of many innocent people that is at stake." --
JuanMuslim
1m 05:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why would editors have to reveal their religion to join the main Islam project?--
Sean|
Bla
ck 05:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree totally with Durova, obviously. As for the Muslim Guild, it has the section on top for Muslims, the section below for non-Muslims, and a third and mostly uninhabited section for "Other", whatever that means. And you are wrong that "that is...sufficient for any of us". For me, sufficient would be a guild that did not categorize its members according to their response to "what is your religion?" That's just my personal feeling. Obviously many others are fine with it. Babajobu 05:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 05:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I'm pissed. I really think the overwhelming number of delete votes in this AfD is the result of PC sheep effect and that a good and necessary project is getting deleted. I hope all the delete voters are ready to take up the mop and pail and perform the sort of thankless janitorial tasks I mentioned in my vote and that SIIEG has coordinated. There's no "recent uses of PBUH" or "recent praises of Muhammad in article space" page. You have to look for that stuff, and it takes time. Enjoy.
Babajobu 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly believe that regardless of the vote, there will always be some people who will do their best to get rid of the PBUHs, etc.-- JuanMuslim 1m 06:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sure there will, but before SIIEG came along their efforts were hopelessly ineffective. And I'm not interested in continuing that sort of "honorifics and praise" patrol when this horde of delete voters are working to ensure that that kind of janitorial work is as difficult, cumbersome, and uncoordinated as possible. Let them do it, if they're interested in having Islam-related articles that don't read like mosque handouts. Babajobu 07:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- When SIIEG first started Wikipedia was positively loaded up with PBUHs and "Glorious Quran"s and "Holy Quran"s and assertions that various supernatural events in Muslim theology were plain historical truth, et cetera. I'm sure that people made ad hoc efforts to address this stuff before SIIEG, but they had clearly met with only partial success. SIIEG did what a guild is supposed to do, it coordinated the efforts of different users, pooled information and tips, and "the mosque handout" phenomenon in Wikipedia dropped noticeably. But clearly this was all part of SIIEG's racist, Islamophobic, hate-spewing agenda, so let's bring back the mosque handouts while all the delete voters wander back to the areas they actually work on.
Babajobu 07:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do have any evidence that that's the truth? Because I really, really think that you're exaggerating.--
Sean|
Bla
ck 07:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well we'll find out, won't we? Check back in three months and have a look. I'm not saying SIIEG made all the difference, but it made a significant one.
Babajobu 07:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe. But I think that there are better methods for that, and that editors who purposefully don't revert edits like that should be reminded of WP:NPOV (and WP:POINT, but that's another matter entirely).-- Sean| Bla ck 07:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is just me talking off the top of my head :) but can't you set up a bot to find things like PBUH or SAWS or Holy/Glorious/Noble Quran? Palm_Dogg 19:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well we'll find out, won't we? Check back in three months and have a look. I'm not saying SIIEG made all the difference, but it made a significant one.
Babajobu 07:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do have any evidence that that's the truth? Because I really, really think that you're exaggerating.--
Sean|
Bla
ck 07:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Zero 08:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Babajobu, my main objection was that SIIEG is made redundant by WikiProject Islam. "This Islam WikiProject aims to address all POV issues from all articles on or referencing Islam"....doesn't that sound familiar? Isn't that exactly what you're trying to do with SIIEG? Then why not join WikiProject Islam and do that there? « Lord ViD» 08:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've already mentioned why I won't join wikiproject Islam...I don't want to join a project that categorizes its members, and has different sign-up areas for them, based on their answer to the question "what is your religion?", as wikiproject Islam does. Also, wikiproject Islam by default covers both Sunni and Shia topics, but there are still Sunni and Shia guilds for editors who want to especially focus on those areas. The Islam guild also touches on issues surrounding NPOV, but SIIEG is for members who want to specifically focus on that issue. If the Shia and Sunni guilds are fair, then why isn't SIIEG?
Babajobu 12:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- All members of the subguilds are members of the Islam Wikiproject. Therefore, the Islam Wikiproject doesn't even have an actual list of participants as far as I know. --
JuanMuslim
1m 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm...well you might try taking a quick look at the main page of the
Muslim Guild.
Babajobu 15:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh ok, you meant to say Muslim Guild rather than the Islam Guild. You mentioned the Islam Guild earlier. Islam Guild participants. I mentioned the url to the Muslim Guild earlier. -- JuanMuslim 1m 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm...well you might try taking a quick look at the main page of the
Muslim Guild.
Babajobu 15:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- All members of the subguilds are members of the Islam Wikiproject. Therefore, the Islam Wikiproject doesn't even have an actual list of participants as far as I know. --
JuanMuslim
1m 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've already mentioned why I won't join wikiproject Islam...I don't want to join a project that categorizes its members, and has different sign-up areas for them, based on their answer to the question "what is your religion?", as wikiproject Islam does. Also, wikiproject Islam by default covers both Sunni and Shia topics, but there are still Sunni and Shia guilds for editors who want to especially focus on those areas. The Islam guild also touches on issues surrounding NPOV, but SIIEG is for members who want to specifically focus on that issue. If the Shia and Sunni guilds are fair, then why isn't SIIEG?
Babajobu 12:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Ramallite (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - if there was a Wikiproject dedicated to vandalizing articles with grossly bigoted, untrue and POV statements, saying things like Muslims lie. This is what Islam teaches them to do...Muslims use anyone including the neo-Nazis to acheive their goal. (all in one recent statement from User:OceanSplash) about Buddhism, Republicans, Jews or popstars, we'd do the same. Sherurcij ( talk) ( bounties) 14:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- As you say, all these comments were made in one statement by one user who very recently joined the project. How you make the leap from that one comment to saying that the project is "dedicated to" those things completely escapes me.
Babajobu 15:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- You guys are so intent on pushing Islamophobic views that you guys are actually considering setting up a website to promote your ideas. For more information on this
new SIIEG project idea check this out.--
JuanMuslim
1m 16:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Cut it out with the inaccurate "you guys" generalizations, would you please? One frustrated user said he wanted to start a Wikipedia fork...the only two people who responded to his comment (I was one of them) said basically "sounds interesting, but we're happy with Wikipedia". Does that sound like "you Islamophobes are starting a fork"? Or are you just making the sorts of unfair, innacurate generalizations you rightfully dislike when made about Islam?
Babajobu 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- None of the guild members voiced strong opposition to it. -- JuanMuslim 1m 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Cut it out with the inaccurate "you guys" generalizations, would you please? One frustrated user said he wanted to start a Wikipedia fork...the only two people who responded to his comment (I was one of them) said basically "sounds interesting, but we're happy with Wikipedia". Does that sound like "you Islamophobes are starting a fork"? Or are you just making the sorts of unfair, innacurate generalizations you rightfully dislike when made about Islam?
Babajobu 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- You guys are so intent on pushing Islamophobic views that you guys are actually considering setting up a website to promote your ideas. For more information on this
new SIIEG project idea check this out.--
JuanMuslim
1m 16:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- As you say, all these comments were made in one statement by one user who very recently joined the project. How you make the leap from that one comment to saying that the project is "dedicated to" those things completely escapes me.
Babajobu 15:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Become full of bigots, alas. Maybe it started honourably, but that is not how it is now. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 15:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Section break
- Very weak and careful keep. Long explanation: Firstly, the spamming that informed me of this VFD really pisses me off and made me almost vote "delete" as a reflex. Even though the project has many similarities to wikiproject:Islam, it is a descendant project which does make some useful NPOV contributions. Some of the project's members are trolls, vandals, socks (like the guy who spammed the whole of Category:Conservative wikipedians, a tactic I find, frankly disgusting), bigots, and other Islamophobes. However SIIEG is not responsible for the actions of it's members outside of the project. Now here is my point, if a member vandalizes Islam and replaces the text with "Muslims are evil" then couldnt there be some sort of suspension of membership on a project that is supposed to work toward NPOV? My vote is very weak so if someone could rebutt me then I'll change my vote. Ban e s 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't believe there's any need to have separate Islam Wikiprojects (even the Shia, etc.) for the same reason that I don't think we should have Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism:Non-Catholics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Republican Party of the United States:Moderate Republicans. There's positively no need for splitting things up so minutely. I respect Babajobu, but I don't think that there's a need for this page. Ral315 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, for redundancy. -- Apostrophe 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if WikiProject Islam wants to keep them as a child group, per Babajobu. Of course, the problem elements should be dealt with as appropriate under the normal procedures. (I could have sworn I already voted "delete" on this, but oh well.) — Simetrical ( talk) 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There are various Islam-related guilds because if we were all members of just the Islam Guild we would spend all our time arguing. Maybe, the SIIEG should make various changes, such as changing its name. --
JuanMuslim
1m 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I already changed the ambiguous membership clause so that it now explicitly states that members need only refrain from insinuating "Islam is True" POV into articles, rather than that they must disavow any particular type of opinion. I'd be open to a name change, but at this point it's irrelevant. People are getting too much pleasure out of this kneejerk politically correct gangbang to overcome the ridiculous number of delete votes. I'm through with this crap. Babajobu 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Babajobu, you wrote "Personally, I don't like signing up to guilds that require me to add my name to a separate section for non-believers, as the Muslim guild does, so I haven't added my name to the Muslim guild.
First of all, we do not have any "non-Beliver" section in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, its " non-Muslim". For the second, there is a " Others" section - he is free to use it if he does not like to share his belief, in the same way the two other members under that section. -- Striver 23:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not about not wanting to reveal my beliefs. I don't want to join a guild that categorizes its members based on one of three possible answers to the question "Are you a Muslim?". Fortunately no other religion project in Wikipedia categorizes its members in this way, only the Muslim guild does it. Other people don't mind, obviously. But to me, frankly, it's a little obnoxious, and I won't sign up to a guild that does that.
Babajobu 01:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Although not forcing members to catagorize themselves,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism asks for its members to BE Roman Catholics.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Really? Wow. Well, so much for the idea that SIIEG had violated sacred wikilaw by possibly saying that its members should BE non-apologists for Islam. Anyway, that's been changed, so it now only asks people not to edit in an apologetic way. So, when do we see the hordes of indignant delete-this-guild voters go after the Catholicism 101 guild for demanding that its members be and believe something in particular? Any time soon? Or is SIIEG being deleted for breach of "principles" that were fabricated for this special occasion?
Babajobu 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just a small note about the exclusivity of WP:Catholicism 101, the issue has been brought up on their
talk page just recently (probably as a result of my above comment). Along with RC's, they are "open" to "those deeply associated with Catholic theology". That project is less than two months old and only has three members, so its current position may change as it grows and matures. If you are interested in discussing that project, feel free to do so there and please continue to
assume good faith in all discussions, as these WikiProjects may cause dispute, but they add immensely to WP.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 05:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- To answer Babajobu's question: If the Catholicism project goes back to listing membership criteria that make any reference to an editor's own religious beliefs, then, yes, I will happily join the "hordes of indignant delete-this-guild voters". As for SIIEG, I'm still undecided. Part of my problem is the impression that this project's attitude is, "We try to find and correct NPOV violations that are pro-Muslim. We don't care about the ones that are anti-Muslim." If that impression is inaccurate, would it be possible to change the name and expand the mission? There might be less objection to a project that was expressly aimed at rooting out POV hostility to Islam along with rooting out the PBUH's. JamesMLane 03:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just a small note about the exclusivity of WP:Catholicism 101, the issue has been brought up on their
talk page just recently (probably as a result of my above comment). Along with RC's, they are "open" to "those deeply associated with Catholic theology". That project is less than two months old and only has three members, so its current position may change as it grows and matures. If you are interested in discussing that project, feel free to do so there and please continue to
assume good faith in all discussions, as these WikiProjects may cause dispute, but they add immensely to WP.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 05:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Really? Wow. Well, so much for the idea that SIIEG had violated sacred wikilaw by possibly saying that its members should BE non-apologists for Islam. Anyway, that's been changed, so it now only asks people not to edit in an apologetic way. So, when do we see the hordes of indignant delete-this-guild voters go after the Catholicism 101 guild for demanding that its members be and believe something in particular? Any time soon? Or is SIIEG being deleted for breach of "principles" that were fabricated for this special occasion?
Babajobu 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Although not forcing members to catagorize themselves,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism asks for its members to BE Roman Catholics.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not about not wanting to reveal my beliefs. I don't want to join a guild that categorizes its members based on one of three possible answers to the question "Are you a Muslim?". Fortunately no other religion project in Wikipedia categorizes its members in this way, only the Muslim guild does it. Other people don't mind, obviously. But to me, frankly, it's a little obnoxious, and I won't sign up to a guild that does that.
Babajobu 01:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per SlimVirgin. 172 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest that members of the SIIEG Guild are encouraged to edit with more regard towards accuracy and balance. Anyone who seeks a neutral POV will be "non-apologetic."-- JuanMuslim 1m 05:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Babajobu wrote: "It's not about not wanting to reveal my beliefs. I don't want to join a guild that categorizes its members based on one of three possible answers to the question "Are you a Muslim?"." What question? I only see three places where one can choose to sign in on, i see no question. -- Striver 06:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Babajobu and TShilo. -- Kefalonia 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep there's nothing wrong with such a project in principle. if you don't like how it's being run, participate and reform it.
Derex 17:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that be an argument against the keeping of this group, as it was created for those who had issues with the primary Islam WikiProject? -- Apostrophe 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. WikiProject Islam already exists, and these issues should be taken there; this seems only to be a vehicle for provocation and disruption. The name "SIIEG" also seems highly dubious, given the obvious associations. -- The Anome 01:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
MERGEchanged to Merge and delete - The project, though it helped to reach an agreement about the use of glorified titles from Islam-related articles. I have no doubt that the same achievement would have been made at the parent Wikiproject Islam. The SIIEG has only helped to create tensions that wikipedia doesn't need. Wikipedia needs collaborations and not random planning. I am also against the existance of both Sh'ia and Sunna projects for the same reason.If not delete. Cheers -- Svest 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
- Keep has survived previous VfD. Serves important wiki function. Klonimus 05:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Klonimus is one of the most active SIIEG members. The guild is about as needed as these POV articles Klonimus wrote - The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism, Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad, Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle, Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington, and The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad. What important function? To spread hatred and fear of Muslims? -- JuanMuslim 1m 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete . there is a muslim guild with active members , so there is no need of a "secular isalm" guild . Removing PBUHs is not such a big task that we need to have a whole guild for it . After all there must be many CHRISTs , LORDs , SRIs , SWAMIs , GURUs , MASTERs , SENSEIs out there . We dont have & dont need any secular christianity , secular hinduism guilds . The guild is only used for colaboration in severe anti-islam pov pushing , colaborations for revert warrings & campaign against VFA of muslim wikipedians . The founder Zeno of Elea is well known for publicitising his hateful beliefs about Islam , and anybody who opposes him , he calls them apologetics for fundamentalist islam , liberals who want to censor information , ramadan crazed nazi mullahs e.t.c . He came up with SIIEG idea when he & company failed to link their favourite Islamophobic site from Islam . Its a long history . In Dhul-Qarnayn , we had a long debate with him . His logic was "since muhammad copied quran from pre-existing texts & since DQ has got many similarities with Alexender & since those texts considered the earth as flat , so Islam believes in a flat earth" . In jihad he believed that all Islamic definitions & etymomlgy of the word are irrelevent , definitions from US DOJ are most relevent . You dont have to be a rocket scientist to guess what's goinon here . Similar behaviour can be found on Allah , Islamic banking , Muhammad , Muhammad's wives etc (see the talk pages). There are other members who believe that Islam is an off-shoot of Nazism (or nazism is an off-shoot of Islam) , Even others who believe its their moral obligation to use WP to let people about real Islam & free the world from the claws of Islam . Some people believe there is a jihadi beneath their bed , some believe there is a jihadi in their cupboard .....the list goes on . PBUH removers , apologetic removers , faithful secular janitors.......these words are just a coverup . The founder is so desperate that he is planning to start his own Islampedia , that wont have any Islamic views about Islam , only his .
- other reason that is given for keeping it is that Muslim guild categorizes its members according to their response to "what is your religion" . Well this thing as a problem was never brought up by the members or non-members . If anybody has problems with it , we can always discuss it . Its not such a big issue that we need a whole guild for this matter . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c08:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- Ian Pitchford 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above. R adiant _>|< 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Because Wikipedia is intended to be an encylopedia, this should not be a place for placating the fantasies of religious believers. Nevertheless, this is what occurs here on a constant basis. The "Islam is the truth" POV permeats wikipedia Islam articles because it is Muslims and other deluded indviduals, as opposed to objective thinkers, who dominate and control such pages. Any statement, no matter how well sources and objective, is immediatly deleted if it suggests that Islam is a lie just like every other religion. This is a problem that cannot be solved through projects such as the one currently under vote for deletion. Rather, this is a problem that can only be solved if and when jimbo wales and his people are willing to address it themselves.
- Keep per user:Hoboman Freedom of speech is important, even on Wikipedia Zeq 08:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Soft coder Talk 11:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per user:Bill Levinson There are many versions of Islam and Islamic perspectives that all need to be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Levinson ( talk • contribs)
- Weak delete. In itself, the third point of the policies ("SIIEG members should not attempt to advance an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam in Wikipedia articles") is commendable. Wikipedia indeed shouldn't apologize for anything, and this is completely consistent with WP:NPOV. However, the statement omits that wikipedia articles shouldn't criticize Islam either. An encyclopedia should not take any side in the debate. This omission turns the point from npov to highly pov. OTOH, mildening it would make the WikiProject redundant with Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, which the participants are free to join. Aecis praatpaal 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete POV fork of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:02, 21 December 2005 (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.
- 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 delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG
I'm proposing this for deletion again. The previous vote is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Islam:SIIEG, which closed with no consensus.
There is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam so there's no need for this additional project. Whatever the original intentions, it has turned into a platform for bigotry, and a magnet for people who arrive at Wikipedia with the sole intention of causing trouble at Islam-related articles. Editors associated with the project have included Chaosfeary, Existentializer and Ni-ju-Ichi (aka Enviroknot), Zeno of Elea, Urchid (aka CltFn), Exmuslim, Germen, and OceanSplash, all anti-Islam POV warriors, some of them highly offensive and disruptive. (In fairness, some decent editors have signed up too e.g. Babajobu and Briangotts, with the perfectly correct intention of ensuring that well-sourced criticism of Islam is included in articles, and any criticism I make here is not directed at them).
The project's stated aim is arguably not consistent with NPOV: "Document and include ... the known objective facts about Islam ... while ensuring that Islam related articles on Wikipedia are written in an encyclopedic style free from apologetics and non-neutral POV." Sounds good in theory, but there's actually nothing wrong with including material that is sympathetic to and respectful of Islam (so-called apologetics) within certain limits, so long as it's well-sourced and not stated as fact. The idea of relying on some of these disruptive editors to determine what the "objective facts" about Islam are is absurd. I'm therefore asking the community to vote against bigotry and delete this page. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Nomination out of process. Take this to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)- Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is just plain bigotry with a superficial gloss of intellectualism. Cberlet 20:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - it doesn't matter where it is, we can't have pro-bigotry WikiProjects which do things like rally to block Requests for Adminship against Muslim editors. Guettarda 20:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete an organization of pov pushers and several trolls which make it harder for editors who want to edit Islam-related articles seriously. It is not secular, it's just anti-Islamic and few of its members over the last few months have even been blocked for openly vandalizing wikipedia articles. A completely useless and bigot project. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Guettarda and Slim Virgin. The name "SIIEG" seems to be a subconscious mindset of the majority of its members (not all though, Babajobu is a good guy), they feel like they're under "Siege" from Islam. It's basically a POV pushing committeee. karmafist 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- When they were looking for a motto for the group, an IP editor suggested Siieg Heil as one :-) Tintin 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this is wrong, IMHO it should be establised as policy that those with all viewpoints may join a wikiproject and that pro- and anti- wikiporjects aren't allowed. This isn't the first time a similar thing has happened. — Dunc| ☺ 20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not cool. FeloniousMonk 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete BYT 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, POV pushing, hateful bullshit.-- Sean| Bla ck 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete AnnH (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete -- Striver 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Brimba 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Gee, is it any accident SIIEG is so close to sieg? Uberrima, while correct, is certainly no accident either. This piece of trash needs to go. Jim62sch 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Of course. And someone please ban a few of the above voters for extreme incivility and personal attacks. -- Karl Meier 21:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment One of the members of the SIIEG Guild left this Islamophobic message at Jimbo Wales talk page. I'm conflicted about this vote. If a KKK Guild existed on Wikipedia, would we vote to delete the guild? Yes/No? And why/why not? -- JuanMuslim 1m 23:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reason I voted keep for the WP Decency project: Disagreeing with what you say, defending to the death your right to say it. (per BD2412) Tom e r talk 22:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Putting aside your sweeping generalization about the "horrible garbage" that "they do", would you also demand that Shia and Sunni editors "join the actual (Islam) project" rather than maintaining their "fork" projects?
Babajobu 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, probably, but my point is that WikiProjects can't be exclusionary: You don't have to be Jewish to join
Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, nor do you have to be a
Doctor Who fan to be a member of
WP:WHO. And I apologize about the "garbage" thing, but I've seen countless examples of such things from every single editor who has been involved in this project, excepting yourself. There's a myriad of examples
here.--
Sean|
Bla
ck 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- You don't have to be secular to be a member of SIIEG, you just have to be interested in seeing Islam covered in an NPOV, secular fashion. Plenty of Muslim Wikipedians are annoyed when they see "PBUH" and so on creeping into Islam articles, because they know it reflects poorly on the NPOV and quality of those articles. Babajobu 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Then I don't really see why this exists. Of course all Islam-related articles should be neutral, informative, and verifiable: this is simply unnecessary and divisive.--
Sean|
Bla
ck 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- And of course all article on Shia Islam or Sunni Islam should be good, and all articles on music or medicine should be good. But guilds exist in those areas to coordinate the efforts of editors who want to work on those particular tasks. SIIEG is no different. It exists to coordinate the efforts of those editors who want to see Islam covered in an NPOV, non-pious manner. Babajobu 05:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, probably, but my point is that WikiProjects can't be exclusionary: You don't have to be Jewish to join
Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, nor do you have to be a
Doctor Who fan to be a member of
WP:WHO. And I apologize about the "garbage" thing, but I've seen countless examples of such things from every single editor who has been involved in this project, excepting yourself. There's a myriad of examples
here.--
Sean|
Bla
ck 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Putting aside your sweeping generalization about the "horrible garbage" that "they do", would you also demand that Shia and Sunni editors "join the actual (Islam) project" rather than maintaining their "fork" projects?
Babajobu 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, a bad-faith attempt at pushing a POV. « Lord ViD» 22:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this is the WikiProject equivalent of a POV fork. As others have said, the WikiProject Islam is more than open to them. Someone should keep a list of the members however, for future reference. -- bainer ( talk) 22:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this attempt at censorship makes me sick--
Diatrobica;l 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- User's second edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Yuber (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- No opinion What in the world is
this? Why do I care? I don't know anything about this AFD, and I have nothing to say about it. But I'm very curious why this user thought I would want to know about it.
Jdavidb (
talk •
contribs) 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think Diatrobica;l gave everyone on
Category:Conservative Wikipedians a message to vote keep on this, and that is why you were contacted.
This type of campaigning is, I think, perfectly acceptable and normal.Smmurphy( Talk) 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think Diatrobica;l gave everyone on
Category:Conservative Wikipedians a message to vote keep on this, and that is why you were contacted.
- Delete almost redundent with WP:Islam, nearly the same mission statement. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Dunc. Smmurphy( Talk) 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete. what "censorship"? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If a Wikiproject is unencyclopedic, it needs to go, that's our only standard. Wikiproject Islam will do for both apologists and critics of Islam. dab (ᛏ) 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Something should not be put up for deletion just because you don't like what people are saying. Dwain 23:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete. per nominator -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete. not worthy of encyclopedia entry. also, i don't want these annoying messages... -- R6MaY89 00:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep clearly too soon to judge the intentions of such a new wiki projct--
Shlemnik 00:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- strong keep I don't belive in the deletion of wikiprojects--
Fgleb 00:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Now blocked for page-move vandalism. Guettarda 18:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- SpeedyKeep nominator is a vandal, should be blocked from editing--
Femglow 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ditto. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- weak keep don't agree with the project's goals, but I'll fght to the death to defend your right to say it--
Hoboman 00:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Such an original thinker. User's first edit.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Um, I presume the closing admin will take note of the sockpuppetry.
WP:SOCK states that "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." Recent contributors seem to have only one edit...
Jdavidb (
talk •
contribs) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- All four are confirmed sockpuppets. Guettarda 04:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Um, I presume the closing admin will take note of the sockpuppetry.
WP:SOCK states that "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." Recent contributors seem to have only one edit...
Jdavidb (
talk •
contribs) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Such an original thinker. User's first edit.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Even Muslims can't have an organization, and that is bad. Эйрон Кинни 00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: This seems redundant and controversial, so I also vote to remove it. However, I will admit there is a fine line between discussing Islam and promoting/attacking it, and one person's "fact" may be another person's "slander". Palm_Dogg 01:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment how about a Wiki project that has conditions to enter? From the project main page:
- SIIEG members should: not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam
-- Striver 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems like a clone, besides someone put something on my talk page trying to make me vote keep. NightOwl91 01:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not conducive to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Furthermore - how about a little golden rule? How awful I would feel if there were a Wikiproject devoted to attacking my religion. This project only breeds further intolerance and ill will. Worst of all for the Wikipedia, it fosters ill will toward the project. Dan Lovejoy 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with WikiProject:Islam or somesuch. -- King of All the Franks 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Aside from never having heard anything good about this WikiProject, I must agree that it is redundant to WikiProject Islam. – ArmadniGeneral ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete apparent POV fork with WikiProject Islam. This isn't speech censorship, incidentally; Wiki space and Project space represent the encyclopedia to a certain degree, and content must show encyclopedic relevence and must meet community standards. Any user can devote their userspace to this endeavor, so long as it remains free of NPA and CIV violations. Xoloz 02:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep In addition to the main Muslim guild there is also a Shia guild and a Sunni guild--why then is it inappropriate that there should also be a "secular guild" for Islam editors. I agree that some editors who have signed onto the guild have also said or done inappropriate things, but the same is true of the Shia and Sunni guilds and any other wikiguild for that matter. The answer is not to destroy the guilds. SIIEG serves a legitimate purpose. Do the delete voters want to be the ones who go around Wikipedia removing the (once) endless examples of "PBUH" and "peace be upon him and upon the
ahlul-bayt", and "The Glorious Quran" and so forth? Or changing all those very many statements like "Muhammad was the final Prophet" so that they reflect that this is the Muslim view, rather than simple reality? I doubt you do. Let SIEEGers get back on with it.
Babajobu 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- We can't have exclusionary membership of WikiProjects, and we can't have WikiProjects whose talk page seems dedicated to attacking Islam and blocking the RFAs of Muslim editors simply because they are Muslim. Both of these factors make this WikiProject unacceptable. Guettarda 03:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- In addition, the stated purpose of changing all mentions of Muhammad to "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" is factually inaccurate, since he is also considered a prophet by Bahais and Ahmaddiyas. Guettarda 03:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The talk page is not dedicated to "attacking Islam" or blocking the RfAs of Muslim editors. Two RfAs were mentioned without telling readers how to vote...for one of them I voted oppose and one I voted neutral...there was no "block voting", and the only question was whether candidates were familiar with, and committed to,
WP:NPOV. And how is this project "exclusionary"? It is for editors with interest in a particular area. There are members of several faiths (including Islam) and none. And there is no stated intent to change all mentions of "Muhammad" to "the Islamic prophet Muhammad"...the intent is to change all mentions of "Prophet Muhammad" to either "Muhammad" or, when disambiguation is necessary, to the formulation you mention. This is not inaccurate...at very worst it is incomplete in not mentioning Bahais (and Ahmaddiyas, if you don't consider Ahmaddiyas to be Muslim despite their self-definition).
Babajobu 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The page bans people from membership on the basis of their beliefs. How is that not exclusionary? And the talk page is seething with anti-Islamic hate. I'm not Muslim and I found it highly offensive. And people coming off the project did vote to oppose in one of those RFAs because the editor was Muslim.
Guettarda 03:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- What in God's name are you talking about that the project "bans people from membership on the basis of their beliefs"?? It absolutely does not. The most pious member of any religion, including Islam, is welcome at SIIEG...they just have to have an interest in seeing their pieties presented in an NPOV manner, rather than as plain, objective truth. "Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged steed" is POV; "so-and-so believes that Muhammad ascended..." or "Muslims believe that Muhammad ascended" or "some Muslims believe that..." are all perfectly fine and NPOV. Pious Muslims are perfectly capable of observing NPOV, and perfectly welcome to join SIEEG! And I have a hard time believing that any editors voted against an RfA "because the editor was Muslim"...but even if that did happen, you're going to ban a particular guild because one or two of its members did something inappropriate. Is that sort of collective punishment really necessary?
Babajobu 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- It says "[must]not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam" - this is unacceptable exclusion. You don't have the right to tell people that they can only be involved in a project if they do hold certain views about religion. As for the RFA vote "because the editor was Muslim" - that came up in the RFA. True, one vote would not make a project biased, but exclusive language and hateful anti-Muslim language on the talk page are enough.
Guettarda 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- My interpretation of that clause has been that writers must not attempt to insinuate "Islam is True" POV into articles and pass it off as plain truth. The most pious believer in any faith is not necessarily an advocate of apologetics on behalf of that faith. You can be a believer without wanting to impose your belief system on others and without demanding that others accept your view of the world. That's all SIIEG asks of its religious members. In wiki articles just describe your faith, don't preach it. Is that so offensive? And also, if some offensive talk on a talk page earns a ban, then boy is wikipedia in trouble. 50% of our talk pages will have to go.
Babajobu 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's not what apologetics is. Any Muslim should hold the view that their religion is true. The exclusion says nothing about editing POV - it says that they are not allowed membership on the basis on their opinion about Islam. None of us are neutral, none of us are expected not to have a POV. We are expected to write NPOV regardless of how we feel. This project excludes people on the basis of their belief. That is contrary to what Wikipedia is all about. Guettarda 04:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- My interpretation of that clause has been that writers must not attempt to insinuate "Islam is True" POV into articles and pass it off as plain truth. The most pious believer in any faith is not necessarily an advocate of apologetics on behalf of that faith. You can be a believer without wanting to impose your belief system on others and without demanding that others accept your view of the world. That's all SIIEG asks of its religious members. In wiki articles just describe your faith, don't preach it. Is that so offensive? And also, if some offensive talk on a talk page earns a ban, then boy is wikipedia in trouble. 50% of our talk pages will have to go.
Babajobu 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- It says "[must]not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam" - this is unacceptable exclusion. You don't have the right to tell people that they can only be involved in a project if they do hold certain views about religion. As for the RFA vote "because the editor was Muslim" - that came up in the RFA. True, one vote would not make a project biased, but exclusive language and hateful anti-Muslim language on the talk page are enough.
Guettarda 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- What in God's name are you talking about that the project "bans people from membership on the basis of their beliefs"?? It absolutely does not. The most pious member of any religion, including Islam, is welcome at SIIEG...they just have to have an interest in seeing their pieties presented in an NPOV manner, rather than as plain, objective truth. "Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged steed" is POV; "so-and-so believes that Muhammad ascended..." or "Muslims believe that Muhammad ascended" or "some Muslims believe that..." are all perfectly fine and NPOV. Pious Muslims are perfectly capable of observing NPOV, and perfectly welcome to join SIEEG! And I have a hard time believing that any editors voted against an RfA "because the editor was Muslim"...but even if that did happen, you're going to ban a particular guild because one or two of its members did something inappropriate. Is that sort of collective punishment really necessary?
Babajobu 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The page bans people from membership on the basis of their beliefs. How is that not exclusionary? And the talk page is seething with anti-Islamic hate. I'm not Muslim and I found it highly offensive. And people coming off the project did vote to oppose in one of those RFAs because the editor was Muslim.
Guettarda 03:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree completely that editors are entitled to whatever beliefs they hold, but not entitled to impose those beliefs on Wikipedia. "Apologetics" are the systematic and rhetorical defense and advancement of the faith to non-believers. I think the clause is written poorly, because I believe it uses "POV" in the wiki-sense of "the opposite of NPOV", i.e. the tendency or desire to slant wikipedia articles toward the editor's particular set of beliefs. Perhaps that needs to be made clearer. But again, all this is a wild overreaction and could have been solved with a little feedback rather than an hack-and-slay MfD.
Babajobu 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- And the anti-Muslim vitriol on the talk page?
Guettarda 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's some bad stuff on the talkpage, and some good stuff, too. If we're going to delete every Wikipedia talk page with crap on it, we've got a whole lot of conversation deleting to do.
Babajobu 05:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's a lot of bad stuff there - as bad a page as I have encountered, and what appears to be a general acceptance of hate-speech. It isn't a little crap, it's a pervasive bias. Couple that with the "you aren't welcome if you disagree with us" sign on the front page and you have a very bad place. How can that type of a poisonous atmosphere be tolerated for so long anywhere in this project? I have never come across that hostile a page (well, with the possible exception of
this page, but the attacks on that page are aimed at me personally).
Guettarda 06:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- How much of the page have you read? It's a long page, and most of it is pretty mundane, talking about the most NPOV way to state things, voting on fairly trivial issues, alerts to pages of interest or articles of interest. And there are a couple rants that people are focusing on to discredit the entire project. Whatever, go ahead and delete the verboten secular project in a fit of PC pique. Hope to see you running "honorifics and praises" patrol, Guettarda, since SIIEG will no longer be coordinating it. Babajobu 06:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's a lot of bad stuff there - as bad a page as I have encountered, and what appears to be a general acceptance of hate-speech. It isn't a little crap, it's a pervasive bias. Couple that with the "you aren't welcome if you disagree with us" sign on the front page and you have a very bad place. How can that type of a poisonous atmosphere be tolerated for so long anywhere in this project? I have never come across that hostile a page (well, with the possible exception of
this page, but the attacks on that page are aimed at me personally).
Guettarda 06:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's some bad stuff on the talkpage, and some good stuff, too. If we're going to delete every Wikipedia talk page with crap on it, we've got a whole lot of conversation deleting to do.
Babajobu 05:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- And the anti-Muslim vitriol on the talk page?
Guettarda 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The talk page is not dedicated to "attacking Islam" or blocking the RfAs of Muslim editors. Two RfAs were mentioned without telling readers how to vote...for one of them I voted oppose and one I voted neutral...there was no "block voting", and the only question was whether candidates were familiar with, and committed to,
WP:NPOV. And how is this project "exclusionary"? It is for editors with interest in a particular area. There are members of several faiths (including Islam) and none. And there is no stated intent to change all mentions of "Muhammad" to "the Islamic prophet Muhammad"...the intent is to change all mentions of "Prophet Muhammad" to either "Muhammad" or, when disambiguation is necessary, to the formulation you mention. This is not inaccurate...at very worst it is incomplete in not mentioning Bahais (and Ahmaddiyas, if you don't consider Ahmaddiyas to be Muslim despite their self-definition).
Babajobu 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete no purpose for it's existence in it's present form and the changes needed to make it NPOV are so huge that you might as well start over.-- MONGO 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Could everyone that received the "This type of censorship makes me sick" from User:Diatrobica;l raise their hand? Also, did any of you vote "keep"? -- Striver 03:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep per Babajobu.
Briangotts
(Talk)
(Contrib) 03:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment You are all encouraged to check out the similarities and differences among the various Islam-related guilds.... Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG-- JuanMuslim 1m 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Question. I was going to vote "delete" on the basis that we already have Wikiproject:Islam, which could perform the worthwhile tasks mentioned by Babajobu. I see, however, that the SIIEG says that Wikiproject:Islam is its "parent". Therefore, perhaps it's not exactly "an additional project", as SlimVirgin characterized it. If the people in Wikiproject:Islam have found it useful to set up a subproject to root out edits that reflect a pro-Islamic bias, I would be OK with that, although I agree with Guettarda and others that membership in the subproject should be open. (An editor with an apologetic attitude can still edit neutrally.) Would someone please clarify the relationship between SIIEG and Wikiproject:Islam? JamesMLane 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The Muslim guild is the parent project of SIIEG. Personally, I don't like signing up to guilds that require me to add my name to a separate section for non-believers, as the Muslim guild does, so I haven't added my name to the Muslim guild. But SIIEG, like the Sunni and Shia guilds, is a guild for people with an interest in Islam articles but also an interest in a particular type of information on Islam. And of course SIIEG membership is open to people of all beliefs, so long as they are willing to try to write in an NPOV manner about Islam. But I agree that this needs to be made more clear on the project page.
Babajobu 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Only the Islam religion guild is the parent guild of the subguilds. We've no authority over you and vice versa. Another problem with the SIIEG is the title - Secular Islamic Information Editors' Guild. The title makes about as much sense as the "Secular Christianity Information Editors' Guild." The title implies that the guild is trying to secularize a religion. --
JuanMuslim
1m 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The name isn't perfect, Juan, but I don't think it implies anything about "secularizing a religion". I think it suggests the desire to have information on Islam presented in a secular, NPOV manner in which the truth claims of the religion are neither affirmed nor denied, but only described. And yes, the Islam guild is the parent guild. Babajobu 05:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's also too much emphasis by the SIIEG against the apologetic point-of-view. Apologetic has a negative connotation. For many people when they hear the word, they understand it to mean, "Say what I believe is true else you're apologizing." It's basically a nice way of saying you're lying to me. What many people want Muslims to say is "Muslims are all terrorists!" Everything doesn't have simple answers. Sometimes there are two views that should be expressed. Anti-POV or neutral POV should be sufficient. --
JuanMuslim
1m 05:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, very often it is useful and necessary to present multiple points of view, including a pious or "Islam is True" POV. SIIEG's point is that these views should be presented as POVs, rather than as universal reality. And no one here wants Muslims to say "Muslims are all terrorists!"...in fact I've often removed vandalism like that from Islam-related articles, as I watchlist them for SIIEG. Babajobu 05:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the POV pushed on various Islam-related articles, such as the Criticism of Islam article and the discussion on its talk page. -- JuanMuslim 1m 07:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Only the Islam religion guild is the parent guild of the subguilds. We've no authority over you and vice versa. Another problem with the SIIEG is the title - Secular Islamic Information Editors' Guild. The title makes about as much sense as the "Secular Christianity Information Editors' Guild." The title implies that the guild is trying to secularize a religion. --
JuanMuslim
1m 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The Muslim guild is the parent project of SIIEG. Personally, I don't like signing up to guilds that require me to add my name to a separate section for non-believers, as the Muslim guild does, so I haven't added my name to the Muslim guild. But SIIEG, like the Sunni and Shia guilds, is a guild for people with an interest in Islam articles but also an interest in a particular type of information on Islam. And of course SIIEG membership is open to people of all beliefs, so long as they are willing to try to write in an NPOV manner about Islam. But I agree that this needs to be made more clear on the project page.
Babajobu 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The various Islam-related guilds support the standards mentioned at Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). Thus, we all agree that such praises should be avoided in Wikipedia. -- JuanMuslim 1m 04:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Juan, maybe so, but before SIIEG got started Islam articles were absolutely overrun with that sort of thing. SIIEG members made a much more concerted effort than members of the other guilds to remove those sorts of praises. Babajobu 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I think that having projects which require editors to have a certain viewpoint is not helpful to the aim of building consensuses in articles. "SIIEG members should not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam." We should focus in the content, not the attitudes of editors (beyond the usual Wikipedia-wide policies). - Willmcw 04:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm going to be bold and rephrase that clause in the SIIEG mission statement. I think it's poorly worded. I've always understood it to require only that members not seek to advance an apologetic approach to Islam in wiki articles, rather than attempting to somehow forbid them to have apologetic viewpoints themselves. I'll change it to reflect that. Babajobu 04:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Question Aren't other Wikipedia rules sufficient for dealing with the problem element in this group?
User:Babajobu offers one good reason for not joining the general Islam project: editors may prefer not to reveal their own religion - at least not in a catalogued and easily referrable manner. As much as I detest bigotry, not all editors in this project are objectionable. It would be easy for the problem users to start a forum on another website away from scrutiny. Isn't it better to discipline specific violations of policy?
Durova 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why would editors have to reveal their religion to join the main Islam project?--
Sean|
Bla
ck 05:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please check out the actual pages. Even the Muslim Guild has an option in which editors can state they are neither Muslim nor nonMuslim, meaning I don't want to tell you. I don't have to tell you. Or none of your business. And that is and should be sufficient for any of us. Nor do I appreciate when someone writes to Jimbo Wales stating that "Remember: “for evil to triumph, all it takes is for good people to do nothing”. It is the peace of the world that is at stake. It is lives of many innocent people that is at stake." --
JuanMuslim
1m 05:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood, I agree with you: the religion of any given editor is largely irrelevant to their editing, and thus should not be a factor in joining a WikiProject. I was asking Durova, who seemed to imply that editors have to reveal their religion to join the Islam WikiProject.-- Sean| Bla ck 05:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please check out the actual pages. Even the Muslim Guild has an option in which editors can state they are neither Muslim nor nonMuslim, meaning I don't want to tell you. I don't have to tell you. Or none of your business. And that is and should be sufficient for any of us. Nor do I appreciate when someone writes to Jimbo Wales stating that "Remember: “for evil to triumph, all it takes is for good people to do nothing”. It is the peace of the world that is at stake. It is lives of many innocent people that is at stake." --
JuanMuslim
1m 05:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why would editors have to reveal their religion to join the main Islam project?--
Sean|
Bla
ck 05:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree totally with Durova, obviously. As for the Muslim Guild, it has the section on top for Muslims, the section below for non-Muslims, and a third and mostly uninhabited section for "Other", whatever that means. And you are wrong that "that is...sufficient for any of us". For me, sufficient would be a guild that did not categorize its members according to their response to "what is your religion?" That's just my personal feeling. Obviously many others are fine with it. Babajobu 05:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 05:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I'm pissed. I really think the overwhelming number of delete votes in this AfD is the result of PC sheep effect and that a good and necessary project is getting deleted. I hope all the delete voters are ready to take up the mop and pail and perform the sort of thankless janitorial tasks I mentioned in my vote and that SIIEG has coordinated. There's no "recent uses of PBUH" or "recent praises of Muhammad in article space" page. You have to look for that stuff, and it takes time. Enjoy.
Babajobu 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly believe that regardless of the vote, there will always be some people who will do their best to get rid of the PBUHs, etc.-- JuanMuslim 1m 06:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sure there will, but before SIIEG came along their efforts were hopelessly ineffective. And I'm not interested in continuing that sort of "honorifics and praise" patrol when this horde of delete voters are working to ensure that that kind of janitorial work is as difficult, cumbersome, and uncoordinated as possible. Let them do it, if they're interested in having Islam-related articles that don't read like mosque handouts. Babajobu 07:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- When SIIEG first started Wikipedia was positively loaded up with PBUHs and "Glorious Quran"s and "Holy Quran"s and assertions that various supernatural events in Muslim theology were plain historical truth, et cetera. I'm sure that people made ad hoc efforts to address this stuff before SIIEG, but they had clearly met with only partial success. SIIEG did what a guild is supposed to do, it coordinated the efforts of different users, pooled information and tips, and "the mosque handout" phenomenon in Wikipedia dropped noticeably. But clearly this was all part of SIIEG's racist, Islamophobic, hate-spewing agenda, so let's bring back the mosque handouts while all the delete voters wander back to the areas they actually work on.
Babajobu 07:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do have any evidence that that's the truth? Because I really, really think that you're exaggerating.--
Sean|
Bla
ck 07:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well we'll find out, won't we? Check back in three months and have a look. I'm not saying SIIEG made all the difference, but it made a significant one.
Babajobu 07:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe. But I think that there are better methods for that, and that editors who purposefully don't revert edits like that should be reminded of WP:NPOV (and WP:POINT, but that's another matter entirely).-- Sean| Bla ck 07:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is just me talking off the top of my head :) but can't you set up a bot to find things like PBUH or SAWS or Holy/Glorious/Noble Quran? Palm_Dogg 19:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well we'll find out, won't we? Check back in three months and have a look. I'm not saying SIIEG made all the difference, but it made a significant one.
Babajobu 07:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do have any evidence that that's the truth? Because I really, really think that you're exaggerating.--
Sean|
Bla
ck 07:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Zero 08:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Babajobu, my main objection was that SIIEG is made redundant by WikiProject Islam. "This Islam WikiProject aims to address all POV issues from all articles on or referencing Islam"....doesn't that sound familiar? Isn't that exactly what you're trying to do with SIIEG? Then why not join WikiProject Islam and do that there? « Lord ViD» 08:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've already mentioned why I won't join wikiproject Islam...I don't want to join a project that categorizes its members, and has different sign-up areas for them, based on their answer to the question "what is your religion?", as wikiproject Islam does. Also, wikiproject Islam by default covers both Sunni and Shia topics, but there are still Sunni and Shia guilds for editors who want to especially focus on those areas. The Islam guild also touches on issues surrounding NPOV, but SIIEG is for members who want to specifically focus on that issue. If the Shia and Sunni guilds are fair, then why isn't SIIEG?
Babajobu 12:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- All members of the subguilds are members of the Islam Wikiproject. Therefore, the Islam Wikiproject doesn't even have an actual list of participants as far as I know. --
JuanMuslim
1m 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm...well you might try taking a quick look at the main page of the
Muslim Guild.
Babajobu 15:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh ok, you meant to say Muslim Guild rather than the Islam Guild. You mentioned the Islam Guild earlier. Islam Guild participants. I mentioned the url to the Muslim Guild earlier. -- JuanMuslim 1m 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm...well you might try taking a quick look at the main page of the
Muslim Guild.
Babajobu 15:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- All members of the subguilds are members of the Islam Wikiproject. Therefore, the Islam Wikiproject doesn't even have an actual list of participants as far as I know. --
JuanMuslim
1m 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've already mentioned why I won't join wikiproject Islam...I don't want to join a project that categorizes its members, and has different sign-up areas for them, based on their answer to the question "what is your religion?", as wikiproject Islam does. Also, wikiproject Islam by default covers both Sunni and Shia topics, but there are still Sunni and Shia guilds for editors who want to especially focus on those areas. The Islam guild also touches on issues surrounding NPOV, but SIIEG is for members who want to specifically focus on that issue. If the Shia and Sunni guilds are fair, then why isn't SIIEG?
Babajobu 12:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Ramallite (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - if there was a Wikiproject dedicated to vandalizing articles with grossly bigoted, untrue and POV statements, saying things like Muslims lie. This is what Islam teaches them to do...Muslims use anyone including the neo-Nazis to acheive their goal. (all in one recent statement from User:OceanSplash) about Buddhism, Republicans, Jews or popstars, we'd do the same. Sherurcij ( talk) ( bounties) 14:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- As you say, all these comments were made in one statement by one user who very recently joined the project. How you make the leap from that one comment to saying that the project is "dedicated to" those things completely escapes me.
Babajobu 15:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- You guys are so intent on pushing Islamophobic views that you guys are actually considering setting up a website to promote your ideas. For more information on this
new SIIEG project idea check this out.--
JuanMuslim
1m 16:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Cut it out with the inaccurate "you guys" generalizations, would you please? One frustrated user said he wanted to start a Wikipedia fork...the only two people who responded to his comment (I was one of them) said basically "sounds interesting, but we're happy with Wikipedia". Does that sound like "you Islamophobes are starting a fork"? Or are you just making the sorts of unfair, innacurate generalizations you rightfully dislike when made about Islam?
Babajobu 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- None of the guild members voiced strong opposition to it. -- JuanMuslim 1m 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Cut it out with the inaccurate "you guys" generalizations, would you please? One frustrated user said he wanted to start a Wikipedia fork...the only two people who responded to his comment (I was one of them) said basically "sounds interesting, but we're happy with Wikipedia". Does that sound like "you Islamophobes are starting a fork"? Or are you just making the sorts of unfair, innacurate generalizations you rightfully dislike when made about Islam?
Babajobu 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- You guys are so intent on pushing Islamophobic views that you guys are actually considering setting up a website to promote your ideas. For more information on this
new SIIEG project idea check this out.--
JuanMuslim
1m 16:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- As you say, all these comments were made in one statement by one user who very recently joined the project. How you make the leap from that one comment to saying that the project is "dedicated to" those things completely escapes me.
Babajobu 15:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Become full of bigots, alas. Maybe it started honourably, but that is not how it is now. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 15:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Section break
- Very weak and careful keep. Long explanation: Firstly, the spamming that informed me of this VFD really pisses me off and made me almost vote "delete" as a reflex. Even though the project has many similarities to wikiproject:Islam, it is a descendant project which does make some useful NPOV contributions. Some of the project's members are trolls, vandals, socks (like the guy who spammed the whole of Category:Conservative wikipedians, a tactic I find, frankly disgusting), bigots, and other Islamophobes. However SIIEG is not responsible for the actions of it's members outside of the project. Now here is my point, if a member vandalizes Islam and replaces the text with "Muslims are evil" then couldnt there be some sort of suspension of membership on a project that is supposed to work toward NPOV? My vote is very weak so if someone could rebutt me then I'll change my vote. Ban e s 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't believe there's any need to have separate Islam Wikiprojects (even the Shia, etc.) for the same reason that I don't think we should have Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism:Non-Catholics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Republican Party of the United States:Moderate Republicans. There's positively no need for splitting things up so minutely. I respect Babajobu, but I don't think that there's a need for this page. Ral315 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, for redundancy. -- Apostrophe 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if WikiProject Islam wants to keep them as a child group, per Babajobu. Of course, the problem elements should be dealt with as appropriate under the normal procedures. (I could have sworn I already voted "delete" on this, but oh well.) — Simetrical ( talk) 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- There are various Islam-related guilds because if we were all members of just the Islam Guild we would spend all our time arguing. Maybe, the SIIEG should make various changes, such as changing its name. --
JuanMuslim
1m 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I already changed the ambiguous membership clause so that it now explicitly states that members need only refrain from insinuating "Islam is True" POV into articles, rather than that they must disavow any particular type of opinion. I'd be open to a name change, but at this point it's irrelevant. People are getting too much pleasure out of this kneejerk politically correct gangbang to overcome the ridiculous number of delete votes. I'm through with this crap. Babajobu 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Babajobu, you wrote "Personally, I don't like signing up to guilds that require me to add my name to a separate section for non-believers, as the Muslim guild does, so I haven't added my name to the Muslim guild.
First of all, we do not have any "non-Beliver" section in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, its " non-Muslim". For the second, there is a " Others" section - he is free to use it if he does not like to share his belief, in the same way the two other members under that section. -- Striver 23:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not about not wanting to reveal my beliefs. I don't want to join a guild that categorizes its members based on one of three possible answers to the question "Are you a Muslim?". Fortunately no other religion project in Wikipedia categorizes its members in this way, only the Muslim guild does it. Other people don't mind, obviously. But to me, frankly, it's a little obnoxious, and I won't sign up to a guild that does that.
Babajobu 01:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Although not forcing members to catagorize themselves,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism asks for its members to BE Roman Catholics.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Really? Wow. Well, so much for the idea that SIIEG had violated sacred wikilaw by possibly saying that its members should BE non-apologists for Islam. Anyway, that's been changed, so it now only asks people not to edit in an apologetic way. So, when do we see the hordes of indignant delete-this-guild voters go after the Catholicism 101 guild for demanding that its members be and believe something in particular? Any time soon? Or is SIIEG being deleted for breach of "principles" that were fabricated for this special occasion?
Babajobu 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just a small note about the exclusivity of WP:Catholicism 101, the issue has been brought up on their
talk page just recently (probably as a result of my above comment). Along with RC's, they are "open" to "those deeply associated with Catholic theology". That project is less than two months old and only has three members, so its current position may change as it grows and matures. If you are interested in discussing that project, feel free to do so there and please continue to
assume good faith in all discussions, as these WikiProjects may cause dispute, but they add immensely to WP.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 05:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- To answer Babajobu's question: If the Catholicism project goes back to listing membership criteria that make any reference to an editor's own religious beliefs, then, yes, I will happily join the "hordes of indignant delete-this-guild voters". As for SIIEG, I'm still undecided. Part of my problem is the impression that this project's attitude is, "We try to find and correct NPOV violations that are pro-Muslim. We don't care about the ones that are anti-Muslim." If that impression is inaccurate, would it be possible to change the name and expand the mission? There might be less objection to a project that was expressly aimed at rooting out POV hostility to Islam along with rooting out the PBUH's. JamesMLane 03:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just a small note about the exclusivity of WP:Catholicism 101, the issue has been brought up on their
talk page just recently (probably as a result of my above comment). Along with RC's, they are "open" to "those deeply associated with Catholic theology". That project is less than two months old and only has three members, so its current position may change as it grows and matures. If you are interested in discussing that project, feel free to do so there and please continue to
assume good faith in all discussions, as these WikiProjects may cause dispute, but they add immensely to WP.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 05:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Really? Wow. Well, so much for the idea that SIIEG had violated sacred wikilaw by possibly saying that its members should BE non-apologists for Islam. Anyway, that's been changed, so it now only asks people not to edit in an apologetic way. So, when do we see the hordes of indignant delete-this-guild voters go after the Catholicism 101 guild for demanding that its members be and believe something in particular? Any time soon? Or is SIIEG being deleted for breach of "principles" that were fabricated for this special occasion?
Babajobu 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Although not forcing members to catagorize themselves,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism asks for its members to BE Roman Catholics.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not about not wanting to reveal my beliefs. I don't want to join a guild that categorizes its members based on one of three possible answers to the question "Are you a Muslim?". Fortunately no other religion project in Wikipedia categorizes its members in this way, only the Muslim guild does it. Other people don't mind, obviously. But to me, frankly, it's a little obnoxious, and I won't sign up to a guild that does that.
Babajobu 01:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per SlimVirgin. 172 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest that members of the SIIEG Guild are encouraged to edit with more regard towards accuracy and balance. Anyone who seeks a neutral POV will be "non-apologetic."-- JuanMuslim 1m 05:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Babajobu wrote: "It's not about not wanting to reveal my beliefs. I don't want to join a guild that categorizes its members based on one of three possible answers to the question "Are you a Muslim?"." What question? I only see three places where one can choose to sign in on, i see no question. -- Striver 06:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Babajobu and TShilo. -- Kefalonia 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep there's nothing wrong with such a project in principle. if you don't like how it's being run, participate and reform it.
Derex 17:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that be an argument against the keeping of this group, as it was created for those who had issues with the primary Islam WikiProject? -- Apostrophe 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. WikiProject Islam already exists, and these issues should be taken there; this seems only to be a vehicle for provocation and disruption. The name "SIIEG" also seems highly dubious, given the obvious associations. -- The Anome 01:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
MERGEchanged to Merge and delete - The project, though it helped to reach an agreement about the use of glorified titles from Islam-related articles. I have no doubt that the same achievement would have been made at the parent Wikiproject Islam. The SIIEG has only helped to create tensions that wikipedia doesn't need. Wikipedia needs collaborations and not random planning. I am also against the existance of both Sh'ia and Sunna projects for the same reason.If not delete. Cheers -- Svest 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
- Keep has survived previous VfD. Serves important wiki function. Klonimus 05:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Klonimus is one of the most active SIIEG members. The guild is about as needed as these POV articles Klonimus wrote - The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism, Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad, Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle, Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington, and The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad. What important function? To spread hatred and fear of Muslims? -- JuanMuslim 1m 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete . there is a muslim guild with active members , so there is no need of a "secular isalm" guild . Removing PBUHs is not such a big task that we need to have a whole guild for it . After all there must be many CHRISTs , LORDs , SRIs , SWAMIs , GURUs , MASTERs , SENSEIs out there . We dont have & dont need any secular christianity , secular hinduism guilds . The guild is only used for colaboration in severe anti-islam pov pushing , colaborations for revert warrings & campaign against VFA of muslim wikipedians . The founder Zeno of Elea is well known for publicitising his hateful beliefs about Islam , and anybody who opposes him , he calls them apologetics for fundamentalist islam , liberals who want to censor information , ramadan crazed nazi mullahs e.t.c . He came up with SIIEG idea when he & company failed to link their favourite Islamophobic site from Islam . Its a long history . In Dhul-Qarnayn , we had a long debate with him . His logic was "since muhammad copied quran from pre-existing texts & since DQ has got many similarities with Alexender & since those texts considered the earth as flat , so Islam believes in a flat earth" . In jihad he believed that all Islamic definitions & etymomlgy of the word are irrelevent , definitions from US DOJ are most relevent . You dont have to be a rocket scientist to guess what's goinon here . Similar behaviour can be found on Allah , Islamic banking , Muhammad , Muhammad's wives etc (see the talk pages). There are other members who believe that Islam is an off-shoot of Nazism (or nazism is an off-shoot of Islam) , Even others who believe its their moral obligation to use WP to let people about real Islam & free the world from the claws of Islam . Some people believe there is a jihadi beneath their bed , some believe there is a jihadi in their cupboard .....the list goes on . PBUH removers , apologetic removers , faithful secular janitors.......these words are just a coverup . The founder is so desperate that he is planning to start his own Islampedia , that wont have any Islamic views about Islam , only his .
- other reason that is given for keeping it is that Muslim guild categorizes its members according to their response to "what is your religion" . Well this thing as a problem was never brought up by the members or non-members . If anybody has problems with it , we can always discuss it . Its not such a big issue that we need a whole guild for this matter . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c08:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- Ian Pitchford 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above. R adiant _>|< 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Because Wikipedia is intended to be an encylopedia, this should not be a place for placating the fantasies of religious believers. Nevertheless, this is what occurs here on a constant basis. The "Islam is the truth" POV permeats wikipedia Islam articles because it is Muslims and other deluded indviduals, as opposed to objective thinkers, who dominate and control such pages. Any statement, no matter how well sources and objective, is immediatly deleted if it suggests that Islam is a lie just like every other religion. This is a problem that cannot be solved through projects such as the one currently under vote for deletion. Rather, this is a problem that can only be solved if and when jimbo wales and his people are willing to address it themselves.
- Keep per user:Hoboman Freedom of speech is important, even on Wikipedia Zeq 08:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Soft coder Talk 11:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per user:Bill Levinson There are many versions of Islam and Islamic perspectives that all need to be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Levinson ( talk • contribs)
- Weak delete. In itself, the third point of the policies ("SIIEG members should not attempt to advance an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam in Wikipedia articles") is commendable. Wikipedia indeed shouldn't apologize for anything, and this is completely consistent with WP:NPOV. However, the statement omits that wikipedia articles shouldn't criticize Islam either. An encyclopedia should not take any side in the debate. This omission turns the point from npov to highly pov. OTOH, mildening it would make the WikiProject redundant with Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, which the participants are free to join. Aecis praatpaal 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete POV fork of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:02, 21 December 2005 (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.