Civilization Jihad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) * [[MFD.]]
This poorly written article about a notable subject was deleted multiple times, weirdly enough, as a violation of WP:G11 and at times as a contravention of WP:G10 and none of the times was it allowed a proper AFD discussion. Then it was userfied by Someguy1221 with the hopes of improvement.
Thereafter even that user-space draft was also nominated for deletion within 2-3 hours of userfication (same guys who CSDed it commented there)! This much fervor towards deleting the draft struck me as a tad odd to say the least. Moving on, it was dismissively labelled as a "garbage", "conspiracy theory POV", "crackpot theories" by some editor (obviously these labels were left unsourced at the MFD discussion, (the irony is even if it were sourced it would only redound to the vindication of its notability). Whatever the raised issues were they were either nonexistent or fully surmountable. Wikipedia has no deadline.
Not to mention, the creator of the article was vilified at the MFD, I was labelled as an "Islamophobe" merely for arguing in favor of this draft. Amazingly enough for me, the reviewing admin (Spartaz) at the MFD was convinced that this article does not merit a page in the user-space (which in turn stripped the creator, or any other interested editor, of the chance to rectify the issues).
"Civilization Jihad" is a very notable subject in the United States (be it a phenomenon or an umbrella term for something), it is not a fictitious construct as some have tried to frame it at the MFD discussion. There is no shortage of sources, verifiability is not a problem at all, only language but it ought not to serve as grounds for deletion, let alone speedy deletion.
Well I have seen it happen many times here on Wikipedia, people forcibly deleting poor articles basing on surmountable problems because it offended them in some way. When it comes to Islamic topics, it's no secret, that the definition of "offensive" is brought down to a whole new level. In the end I'd only like to say that the deletion was a typical case of overzealous deletion. This article is about as consequential a subject as, say, geocentric model, Historicity of Jesus or The Bible, now we may quibble about the veracity of it all or try to label it as "garble", whatever that may be, it is not insignificant. Please comment. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I misconstrued DRV. I withdraw the review. I see it is redundant now as there is a stringent consensus against the restoration of the previous article. I realize I am better off withdrawing albeit I would like others to create a neutral page (with a relevant name) on this subject. The possibility of that happening now seems as bleak as me ever getting nominated for Noble prize. Let's move on. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Quit beating a dead horse; the purpose of DRV isn't rebutting people who disagreed with you at the AFD/MFD, but identifying and correcting process issues. Although I will note, briefly, that the "he never got a chance to fix the issues" is moot on two counts: first, that he never tried to do so while it was in his user space, and second, that he is blocked for sockpuppetry while trying to promote this article, and pursuing it further is not unlikely to get him blocked again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You acknowledge yourself that this was poorly written and had issues. So much so that a significant number of different editors believed this content should be removed as promotional and an attack page. In fact, pretty much every editor who has looked at this content except yourself and the author has objected to it. The answer is not to fight tooth and nail to keep a POV ridden and synthetically sourced article alive but to start afresh with a neutral properly sourced article that treats the subject encyclopediactly and with appropriate academic rigor. This is a clear case of NOTBURO. You had 22 days at MFD for this to be discussed and there was adequate input from uninvolved editors. With the exception of one editor who thought that this should be moved the AFD, the clear consensus of those that examined the content was that the material was so bad we should not keep it. That seems pretty simple to me. Spartaz Humbug! 15:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One editor? Me? My thought that the discussion should have been at AfD was for process/procedure reasons. I thought it should have subjected to the standards at AfD. At AfD, things are more readily deleted. At MfD, it is a tougher task to get something deleted; in userspace the threshold for keeping is much lower. I expected it to be fixed and pass MfD, which would have seen it head to AfD. Also, the speedy challenge should see it discussed at AfD. However, as the page failed the lower threshold of MfD, the AfD and Speedy deletion challenges are moot. As for me !voting at MfD or here, I'd prefer to not to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant link Spartaz Humbug! 15:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - First, no Wikipedia user was called an Islamophobe in this discussion. What was merely pointed out to all involved there was that the "article" in question was using obvious Islamophobic terms like Dhimmitude & Eurabia and references from well-known conspiracy theorists like Bat Ye'or. I don't think that it would be appropriate to re-hash all that was discussed at MfD, but the above description of what happened to the "article" after it was "userfied" is inaccurate (please see the MfD for more on that). Second, the "article" in question has likely not been lost entirely, since it still exists (but blanked) in user space here and it has been available on Wikipedia in various forms for many months now, so there was plenty of time to transfer it elsewhere. Users were even encouraged at MfD to transfer the content somewhere else as well. Third, as has basically been pointed out here already, the "article" in question was created by a single purpose account Wikipedia user that was shown recently to be utilizing many sockpuppets. Lastly, the basic idea that a tiny sliver of less than 1% of the U.S. population is out to overthrow the entire USA from within is really an idea that can only be described, IMHO, as a wild conspiracy theory. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't pass the smell test. There are surely plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the Muslim Brotherhood, but this unsubstantiated conspiracy theory isn't one of them. Guy1890 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many sources would disagree with you. The tiny sliver, in this case, would be 2.5 - 4.7 million muslims. Do you have any source that echoes your arguments? Otherwise these are all unfounded original research, because, as far as I know, nobody has claimed that "Civilization Jihad" has a fixed deadline. It's not an impossibility. Stop using the word Islamophobia this is not phobia. It is demeaning. "There are surely plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the Muslim Brotherhood" - that's putting it very mildly, won't you say, their "General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America" read this:
″The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" and all the word means. The Ikhwan [Arabic for brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad to eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within, and sabotage its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers, so that it is eliminated, and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.
Without this level of understanding, we are not up to the challenge and have not yet prepared ourselves for Jihad. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.″ (my emphasis on Civilization-Jihadist Process)
- As you can see the goal is to obliterate our miserable culture from within. And if somebody says that we should only be seeing it as a reason to be skeptical about the group, damn I am skeptical about the personal predilections of that person. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The tiny sliver, in this case, would be 2.5 - 4.7 million muslims"...of which, obviously, a tiny sliver might be supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood that you attempt to describe (using, of course, an American Right-wing website like PJ Media) or some radical version of Islam. "And if somebody says that we should only be seeing it as a reason to be skeptical about the group, damn I am skeptical about the personal predilections of that person." Of course, that's not what I originally said, and...not that it should matter in this case...I'm an atheist, not some closet supporter of Islam or the Muslim Brotherhood. Like I've said to you before Mr. T, these kind of arguments aren't going to get you anywhere that you want to go on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For me the key phrase from the nominator here is: "This article is about as consequential a subject as, say, geocentric model, Historicity of Jesus or The Bible, now we may quibble about the veracity of it all or try to label it as "garble", whatever that may be, it is not insignificant." This is a good point that I wish to address. The nominator's position seems to be that this "unsubstantiated conspiracy theory", as Guy1890 describes it, may be entirely fictional but that doesn't mean we can't have an article on it. In other words, we should have an article about this "Civilization Jihad" for the same reason that we have an article on Bigfoot. False beliefs are best addressed by debunking them, not by deleting all content about them.
Mr T, you say "Please comment", and my answer is that the consensus is clear here. The consensus is: (1) You can't have this article, and (2) You can't have an article called civilization jihad. There is nothing to stop you writing neutral and factual content about anti-islamic sentiment but the consensus is that it should be a fresh start with a new title, and I would advise you to ensure that it's closely based on the best sources available.—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comment, I would just like to sort out a potential misconception. It is not my position that the subject "may be entirely fictional", no, I, for one, have tried my level best to refute the argument that people who are writing about it know it's a figment of their imagination. In short, it's likely not a fictitious construct, at least writers are not addressing the issue that way, that's my point.
"False beliefs are best addressed by debunking them" - I agree, I welcome everybody to produce the rebuttal or refutation, as opposed to shrugging off the whole topic. With that said, I would like to refrain from commenting on anything else you assert. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "I welcome everybody to produce the rebuttal or refutation" Unfortunately, the history of the talk page of the Civilization Jihad page will show that you, in fact, fought tooth & nail to revert almost any attempt to introduce a NPOV to that article. Also, this tactic was tried at MfD, and it failed to convince anyone. If Mr. T is willing to try & turn over a new leaf now, that's nice, but there's no track record of that kind of feeling from the page in question, which is one of the many reasons why we're all here at this late date in this forum. Again, I warned you at the time Mr. T that your tactics there weren't going to get you where you wanted to be on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion obviously, since I am the one who put the G10 and G11 tags on it (and nother admin agreed with both or them). As I said at the original AfD, the article is essentially promotion of a cause, which is good cause for Speedy G11, which is not limited to commercial promotion. The G10 was on the basis that most of the content consisted of poorly sourced negative statements, either direct or by implication, of living people. The material was also essential original research in the sense of synthesis, the collection of miscellaneous news events and quotations to support a hypothesis. S Marshall is correct that were there a specific movement devoted to promulgating this conspiracy theory--which is much more specific than any rather general anti-Islamic sentiment, we could report on it. We would report on it, with abased of responsible comments about it, not try to prove it as the article does. It may be possible to write such an article, but not under this title nor with this contents, nor any likely version based on it or relying on the same material or written in the same manner. DGG ( talk ) 14:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That page was not exclusively promotional. Kindly temporarily restore the latest version of the deleted page so that non-admins can see what we are dealing with. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion While I can not see the deleted article, I can see that no grounds exist in accordance with WP:DRVPURPOSE to overturn the outcome of the MfD being reviewed. My76Strat (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. This article seems to have been quite properly deleted. Prioryman (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion I agree that there are no grounds to overturn the deletion. It was a mix of original research and a BLP attack page. If we ever have an article on this conspiracy theory it would have to make it clear that it is a conspiracy theory, not a reality as the article suggested. This is all based on a 1991 memorandum written by one person and then used by Islamophobes to promote their argument that Muslims are trying to take over America. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as the DRV filing is one big pile of "I disagree" rather than any legitimate identification of closing admin misstep or wrongdoing. When the first few hits for a topic hit blogs, think tank press releases, and noted anti-Islamic blogs like WND and newsmax, you know a topic area is just plain trouble. That everyone out on the fringe has heard of something doesn't make it notable in the rest of the saner world of reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we close this early as a snowball? Literally no one except the nominator (a substantial contributor to the article, IIRC) is arguing against the close, and this miserable affair has now dragged on for over five weeks and included an AFD, an MFD, an SPI, and now this. All we're doing is giving GroundRisk and Mrt3366 more platforms to promote their conspiracy theory on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed this DRV on my watchlist otherwise I don't know any of the history related to this article. I'd like to believe everyone has acted in good faith and I'm asking you to reconsider the appropriateness of labeling GroundRisk and Mrt3366 as you have done. My hope is that you will determine it to be extraneous to our goal. As a gesture to show collaborative good faith I ask Mrt3366 to recognize the emerging consensus and withdraw this DRV. Do the substantial rewrite this article requires and if it meets the criteria for inclusion, recreate the article at that time. That's pretty much the direction forward. Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, I understand what you're trying to say here & I respect it. However, you should know that Mr. T has now taken basically this exact same case to the founder of Wikipedia's talk page. I guess, as has been pointed out there, that we're due for a future possible discussion by going "to WP:ANI". As was discussed at MfD, this is basically a crusade for Mr. T, which should put his comments above in proper context. I'm sorry to say that, but it's unfortunately true. Guy1890 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already got the ball rolling by putting out a few feelers. I just asked the user how they would feel about a topic ban related to Muslims/Islam.[1] Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - It is time to conclude this overly long topic. It surprises me that this issue is still going on, as only one user is against the deletion. Runehelmet (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, after looking into a bit, but not deeply -- all I have time and patience for at this time -- I would tend to endorse deletion for now, without prejudice against re-creating a substantially different article under this name, if and when the term bubbles up into mainstream sources. I can't read the article (it's been restored but with no history it appears) and there wasn't a proper AfD discussion, but even so. There are certainly times when it's better to delete the article and start from scratch, and this may well be one of the. There appear to be no reliable NPOV sources for the term (yet) that I could find. And look, there are some subjects that are just hard for the Wikipedia to cover, and that need to be handled with extra care to mind NPOV, and this is one of them. Until and unless we can have a proper NPOV article with proper neutral reliable sources, we should probably have no article. I don't know if the speedy deletion was proper or not, but it appears to have been correct per WP:IAR if nothing else, so endorse deletion. Herostratus (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
