Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image of Muhammad in the West

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 03:08, 7 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and cleanup, though with caveats, first the article's title should be re-named, as per suggestions on this AFD. I would re-name it, but I don't know what an appropriate name would be. Second that the bias in this article is cleaned up, and if it is not, no bias against a re-nomination in a few weeks. If this is done right, concerns over size issues on Muhammad can be dealt with. I leave the name change up to talk on the talk page. Cheers!. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Muhammad in the West

[edit]
Image of Muhammad in the West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Obvious POV fork of the article on the Prophet Muhammad. Any useful information can be incorporated into the article on the Prophet Muhammad itself. Rumpelstiltskin223 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what does "The West" mean exactly? "West of whom"? I know that it is generally used to mean Europeans/North Americans but the term is not encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion in the title. Title should be more specific. To many people, Arabs are also "Westerners" as are Russians although Russians say "Westerners" for other Europeans.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rumpelstiltskin223, for future AfDs, please notify the user who has created the page. I've updated the page and add more information. --Aminz 04:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge - back into Muhammad per the above. Article is almost entirely written from one source, and is short enough that anything useful can be merged back. I am a big fan of the philosophy that that sub-articles should not be created until there is enough NPOV material on a sub-topic that for reasons of space a split is necessary. This article doesn't meet that standard. - Merzbow 03:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is not a POV fork but a main stub article created very recently. Encyclopedia Britannica has a detailed article on this very topic. See [1]. The book "Muhammad in Europe" for example is also on the very topic. [2] The sources used are also all reliable sources. --Aminz 04:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Merzbow. Aminz initially wrote the respective section in Muhammad in a POV manner, and when the section was NPOVed by other ediotrs, he copied his initial version of the section into this article. This is a clear POV fork. Beit Or 07:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A POV fork. There is no good reason the verifiable and NPOV content of this article cannot be covered in the main article under a heading such as "Non-Muslim views of Muhammad." If a separate article ever becomes justified, such a title would be a much better name for it than "Image of Muhammad in the West," for reasons given above. Nick Graves 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a POV fork. Please check the page. --Aminz 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, I have a lot of respect for you, but this article is very POV - making statements like "the misunderstandings about Muhammad, were brought on by the Crusades and were kept up by Christian and other authorities" like they were fact, and other statements. Most of the wording you use in this article was rejected by other editors when you inserted it into Islam and Muhammad, but you're putting the same wording back up here. - Merzbow 08:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merzbow, thanks for your kind words. please see this by Bernard Lewis [3]. (starting from "The west too...")
Muhammad was once viewed as a demon, Lewis says. After refomations and after the crusades, he was viewed as a self-seeking imposter. Lewis says: "The modern historian will not readily believe that so great and significant a movement was started by a self-seeking imposter." Now, either Modern scholars or Medieval ones were misunderstanding?
Merzbow, I can send you the journal article from which I took "the misunderstandings about Muhammad, were brought on by the Crusades and were kept up by Christian and other authorities". At least it is a POV. I am fine with attributing it. --Aminz 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the article - the phrase would have to be attributed and reworded to make it clear what "the misunderstandings" were specifically that he thinks were brought on. - Merzbow 08:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this attempt to have Aminz personal and biased version of a section in the Muhammad article published elsewhere. -- Karl Meier 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Image of Muhammad in west has already been discussed in Encyclopedias and this topic definitely deserves space on wikipedia. TruthSpreaderreply 09:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you believe that the fact that the subject might be notable, makes it a good idea to keep what is nothing more than a POV fork of a section in the Muhammad article? -- Karl Meier 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to "Understanding of Islam in the West" or similar - although article contents as definitely POV at the moment this is an important topic - the Danish cartoon controversy, for example, shows the different attitudes and understandings between East and West on matters of Islam. I think the current article is too specific and POV but could be expanded into something much more worthwhile. - PocklingtonDan 09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Muhammad article is too long anyway, this topic could be expanded and does not duplicate it. --BozMo talk 10:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think article has potential of getting expand. Muhammad article is already too long we can keep the start of article in Muhammad and expand it here. --- ALM 10:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename For two main reasons 1. Encyclopaedia Britannica has an article on this topic 2. The information merits a separate article but with a rename. --- Palestine48 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has potential. I'm not sure about renaming to "Understanding of Islam in the West". That's a vast topic, and would encompass everything from the 6th Century to 9-11. It might be better to have an article striktly focused on how the Prophet himself has been viewed rather than Islam and Muslims in general. -Docg 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Use of the term "The West" in the context of this article is unencyclopedic, due to its ambiguity, and because the terminology is POV-centric. What is "The West"? And, more importantly, who defines it? Is it the US, the Americas, Europe? Does it include Australia, even though that continent is geographically east? What about the large portion of Russia that is part of the Asian continent? Are Israelis "Westerners"? What about Palestinians living in the same region? Why separate the views of eastern non-Muslims (Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) from those of western non-Muslims? What about the views of Muslims who live in "The West"? Are these not "Western" views of Muhammad? A much clearer, less POV-centric, more encyclopedic title for this article would be "Non-Muslim views of Muhammad." If the article is kept, a summary paragraph will still need to be included in the Muhammad article. Nick Graves 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping a summary paragraph with a pointer to longer article is quite normal. As for the 'West', it is a bit vague, but not unencyclopedic. It is used for short hand in many academic discussions to mean Europe, America and those part of the world sharing much of their their cultural assumptions (so yes Australia and NZ etc.). THe nations that would once largely have been seen as predominantly Christian. As for Muslims in the West, there's no explicit reason why they shouldn't be included, although probably only in so far as their views might be distinguished from other Islamic views of the prophet (I don't know whether they can be or not).--Docg 18:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently does not define what it means by "The West." If the term is commonly used in academic discussions to mean Europe and culturally related countries, that ought to be clarified and works cited to support the distinction. I found that Non-Islamic views of Muhammad already exists, and this article is redundant with that one. What is the justification for keeping this separate article? Nick Graves 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should see how Britannica Encyclopedia is using that. In medieval times, it refers to Europe I think. This article focuses on the views about Muhammad as they historically developed and explaining the reasons behind this development etc etc. Non-Islamic views of Muhammad presents different sample views of different scholars but not in a systematic way. --Aminz 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that article currently consists mostly of a list of quotes, which is a weakness. However, the namespace is a natural home for the contents of this article. Nick Graves 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge to Depictions of Muhammad.--Sefringle 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any reasons behind your recommendation here? Also, please note that image in the title of this article refers to views or opinions about Muhammad, not pictures or visual depictions of Muhammad. The article you suggest as a target for merging is not appropriate for this article. Nick Graves 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I generally try to avoid political, religious, and political-religions articles, but I have to say, all these articles that keep getting created (like this one) are just serving to make wikipedia ever more a publisher of original thought, essays, and synthesis, however "encyclopedic" the article's title makes the page sound.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can be POV but it is not OR. --Aminz 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The section for which this article is supposedly an expansion is actually entitled "Medieval Christian views of Muhammad"--that's a huge disconnect. I would have to agree with Dmz5. This article is a synthesis of views of various authors (heavily weighted toward Muslim scholars), and thus constitutes original research. A more apt name for the article in its present state might be Muslim views about the image of Muhammad in the West. Nick Graves 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand why somebody calls it POV. There are different POV about him in the west. We can't merge it in the main article(Prophet Muhammad) because that article is long and this is not a main issue. So we should make a new article.--Sa.vakilian 07:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The title certainly isn't a problem. The famous scholar Maxime Rodinson has a chapter on "The Western Image and Western Studies of Islam" in the Oxford University Press book The Legacy of Islam. It's the article itself that is the trouble. It's incredibly POV and inaccurate in its current state. Using just one source for this kind of thing is never a good idea. It is perfectly possible to have an article on this subject. Whether that means delete and wait for someone with better info to recreate, I don't know. --Folantin 09:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please use the sources to include other POVs as well. --Aminz 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have the time or the resources at the moment. Currently this piece is little more than opinion-mongering. How about some mentions of Dante, Edward Gibbon or Thomas Carlyle and their very different takes on Mohammed? --Folantin 09:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article doesn't touch post-medieval times. The work of Thomas Carlyle should be mentioned as it was a break-through. --Aminz 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the North Korean views of Muhammad?--Patchouli 21:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not, just fix enough material to make it worth an article.--Striver - talk 21:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Well sourced and nicely written.--Patchouli 21:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Doc. metaspheres 12:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Beit Or, POV fork. --Magabund 23:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a special aspect is not a POV fork. That there was once a negative image in the west is not POV; first of all it's objectively true, and it can perfectly well be used equally to show the ethnocentricity of W Europe. DGG 10:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact remains that this is incredibly POV as it stands. There is no attempt to explain why such a negative image arose. Western contacts with Islam hardly began with the Crusades. Heraclius and the Battle of Poitiers, anyone? As I've said, it also has little about later attitudes, particularly those of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment figures (e.g. Voltaire's highly ambivalent attitude towards Islam and Mohammed). At the moment it is an extremely crude, black-and-white propagandistic piece, the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. There's a quotation from Jerry Vines, but no reference to Louis Massignon (there is a longish Wikipedia article on the latter).Using this article to "show the ethnocentricity of W Europe" is hardly going to solve the POV problems here. --Folantin 11:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folantin, you are right. The article lacks the views of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment people and most importantly the view of Modern scholars. Please help. It is 100% justified to add POV tag to the article. --Aminz 11:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm relying on memory and I don't have the resources to hand at the moment, except for that Rodinson chapter, which is good but relatively short. It also deals with the image of Islam as a whole in the West, rather than Muhammed in particular, and it makes no mention of Carlyle, who is probably going to be a key figure in any article with this title.
However, I will attempt to do what I can for the moment. I can also recommend a few sources which those with access to a university library may be able to use to fill out this article. I'll make any further comments on its talk page. --Folantin 13:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Important comment:The article Userspace Folantin2 has been created in article space, claiming to be a sub-page of this article. J Milburn 14:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest renaming to "Western views of Muhammad".Bless sins 15:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepInteresting topic that deserves coverage--CltFn 13:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as "Western" not "Christian" is in the title I plan to expand this to cover figures such as Voltaire, Gibbon and Carlyle who were Western but not really practising Christians. --Folantin 13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why lump Christian views of Islam together with those of secularists and humanists, while excluding those of Hindus and Buddhists? Christians have a lot more beliefs in common with Muslims than they do with secular humanists. This distinction between the West and the East really makes no sense in the context of this article, and is quite arbitrary. And what about Jewish views. Do they come from the "East" or the "West"? Nick Graves 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The use of "West" in the title is not arbitrary since major scholars like Rodinson use it. See also: Islam and the West by Bernard Lewis, The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West by Gilles Kepel, Islam, the West and Challenges of Modernity by Tariq Ramadan, The West, Islam and Islamism by Caroline Cox and John Marks, Islam and the West: Conflict or Cooperation? by Amin Saikal, Islam and the Medieval West by Stanley Ferber, and - above all - Islam and the West: The Making of an Image by Norman Daniel and Image of the Prophet Muhammad in the West by Jabal Muhammad Buaben. You can look "West" up in a dictionary: it means European civilisation and its offshoots. Voltaire, Gibbon, Carlyle et al. emerged from the same culture as Dante and Peter the Venerable and this article should examine the shifting attitudes of Westerners towards Muhammad (it is often very difficult to assess just how Christian, agnostic or atheist some of the major Western figures are after the Enlightenment). Hindus and Buddhists have had a completely different historical experiences of Islam so their attitudes towards Muhammad should have separate articles. --Folantin 09:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* as per nom. (There could possibly be an article on this but this is not it. ) Str1977 (smile back) 10:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV Saying the truth 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Image_of_Muhammad_in_the_West&oldid=1137926913"