Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:15, 18 January 2010

Let's discuss things! No, not you.... you would be better going back and rereading the rules first, hadn't you? Weakopedia (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Weakopedia, and welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Thank you for your contributions

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You might also find these policies and guidelines useful:

• What do we mean if we say that you might have a Conflict of Interest?
• What do we mean by Neutral Point of View?
• What sources are counted as reliable?
• What makes the subject of an article notable?
• Why was my page deleted?
• An essay containging a List of bad article ideas

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Getting the articles just right can be tricky - but there are lots of people to ask!

If you have any questions, just click on the Contact Me link after my signature at the end of this section. Alternatively, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question.

By the way, when you are writing on a discussion page (or someone's talk page), it is considered good manners to sign your comment... to do this, just add ~~~~ at the end of your comment. That will put your user name (Weakopedia) and the date/time at the end (or you can click on the icon when you are editing. Never sign on an article page - only on a discussion page.

I am now going to add my signature, using ~~~~: -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your view point

You have an interesting viewpoint! However, it leaves me with one question: what, then, are reliable sources of information? If we can't use newspapers, magazines or government announcements, then what is left that would be counted as universally reliable?

Obviously, we can't rely on individuals to always be reliable in what they say are facts. You say that we can't use a lot of what Misplaced Pages currently considers to be reliable sources.

So, again, I ask: what sources would you count as reliable?

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. Your question of course lies at the heart of what I am saying, and is a subject that interests me greatly. I should like to reply after I take some time to consider your points, thank you for the opportunity. Weakopedia (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Take your time! However, I would be curious to know whether you were planning on helping with the encyclopedia itself? My only warning (apart from not to vandalise!) would be to make sure that anything you add to articles is sourced from (you know what I'm about to say...) reliable, independent sources - or alternatively, if you remove information, that it is unsourced information.

As a general rule, if you want to make major and/or controversial changes to an article, it might be an idea to discuss the proposed changes on the article's talk page. To get to this, go to the article, and then click on the Discussion tab - always add your comments to the bottom of the page (unless you are replying to an early comment, in which case you put it after that comment) - and sign your comment. Please note that you only sign on talk pages, never in articles themselves.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah... thank you for that. Although I must be honest and say that while I welcome your original question about my views, your second edit does not seem to be the assumption of good faith that I read about Wikipedians holding dear. "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.". So in answer to your question I would point out that the question itself is perhaps unwarranted. Salutations. Weakopedia (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I shall give the edit a name this time, as I have just seen how monitoring watchlists is made easier when the user adds a suitable comment. Weakopedia (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't assuming good faith! The intention was to point out the importance of reliable sources to Misplaced Pages - and suggest ways in which you could make sure that any edits you make were not reverted straight away, which is something which a lot of new editors experience! I've seen how frustrated new editors can get when they add/remove something from an article, only to have it reverted.

No criticism of your motives was implied, and if this was the message that you got from it, I apologise! Happy editing -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have one request... your initial welcoming message contains precisely the same information as has been reproduced in the recently added 'Help' section on this page. This means the same block of text is repeated twice on the page, which I am sure you would agree is redundant. Would you mind to remove one or the other blocks? It would make the page much more readable, and remove no vital information. I am not opposed to leaving the 'Help' section unchanged if we can weed out the redundant text from the welcome message. I would do it myself but I fear that editing another users posts on a talk page would be considered improper. I thank you. Weakopedia (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it! I had forgotten that my standard welcome message template included the help section! I would probably remove the section at the bottom of the page if I was you.

This is your talk page - you are free to remove anything you want from it, whether that is something that you put here or something put here by another editor. The only thing frowned upon is to edit someone else's remarks here - but remove anything you want from here! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks again. I shall edit the first section as it is always useful for anyone who drops by to know that a committed user is monitoring things and how best to get any help they need. I am still considering your original question - mostly because my own views could do with more reliable sourcing! But rest assured that although I may be inclined to challenge opinions I shall attempt to do so entirely within the established framework. It is not my intention to impose my individual will upon anyone or anything, but there is always room for debate. Fare ye well. Weakopedia (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not forgotten your question - it's answering has led me across Misplaced Pages and through many other areas. I hope to have a suitable response soon. It is an interesting topic that deserves consideration! Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting help

There are several ways of getting help:

1. Leave a message on this page. It is on my watchlist, which means that I can see when the page is changed!
2. Leave a message on my talk page
3. Go into IRC Channel #wikipedia-en-help
4. Leave a message on this page starting with {{helpme}} followed by your question - someone in the IRC help room will be over as soon as possible
5. Leave a question on the Help Desk or on the New Contributors' Help Page

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review

It didn't turn out how I wanted, but I responded. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 12:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are obviously able to learn something from your actions, and I doubt there shall be a repeat of the event. My reason for adding to the discussion was simple - many Wikipedians were willing to assure you that one wrong act would not condemn you or your work here. I felt a danger of the event itself being forgotten in the rush to not condemn one editor. People reading the discussion should come away with the impression that the community disapproved of your actions, but that the community was big enough to recognise the contribution you have made and not condemn you unduly. It should also be plain to them what the consequences would be for repitition. Without an element of reprimand it would be too easy for an onlooker to conclude that an individual Wikipedian may pick and choose their manner of discussion provided they apologise for it quickly enough. I believe that now the casual reader will see both extremes of the argument, and that this shall serve to enhance their understanding of the community. Weakopedia (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I have no intention of purposefully forgetting it myself. Of that you can be sure. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 18:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Added this under a heading as it is about to be mentioned on the editor review itself. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 15:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

How obliging, many thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my comments to the appropriate section. Once again - your intentions in the matter may be perfectly honourable. You may even have had undisclosed personal reasons for reacting the way you did. You understand, I believe, that what you did was wrong. And it is not unforgiveable. But there is always a danger that in the rush to reassure a good editor false signals can be sent out by the other members of the community, that certain behaviour will be tolerated in certain circumstances. The message however should be very clear. I applaud your seeking a review, and I hope that your spirit for Wikipediaing remains unabated. However for Wikipedias sake I think there should be some appropriate reprimand, even if it is only a warning template. Many people in the future will have cause to discover the debate, as I did, and I believe uniformity of response is important. Weakopedia (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand perfectly and if I am ever submitted for an RfA, all of my editor reviews will be linked to in my acceptance of the nomination. And yes, as I have said, I have... had personal reasons for it, which I believe I have now put back in the past for good. As also stated on the editor review, I asked for warnings/blocks on the talk pages of two admins (and came close to begging xeno, honestly, because I felt so bad about it). And I've given some thought about a Wikibreak, but nothing's happened yet. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your soulsearching does you credit. I wish you well. Weakopedia (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone's commented on you at my review. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 17:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So they did! An admin no less - did you read the advice printed at the end? It leads to a page describing how it is best to ignore incivility. However to get that far you first have to read his comments, which were not entirely civil. So what does that mean?! Is his advice for himself? Is it for the rest of us - is he saying to ignore him because he is uncivil? Goodness knows. Well, having looked at his user page it seems he is a master of incivility so I can only assume he carries the 'advice' pinned to his tail to cover himself for when people become annoyed by his attitude. Rest assured that if you become an admin you will already have an attitude far better than some of them! Weakopedia (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved. It may be my editor review but it's the longest I've ever seen and it's becoming a warzone. I don't go there without full Kevlar body armour and a FN P90 any more. I just thought you might want to read it. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 15:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ultimately it is possible to disagree yet still be nice about it. In fact sometimes you can be in the wrong and still come off the more reasonable just by being nice about it. It might be insincere at times but overall it's just a better way to do business in a community. 'Speak softly and carry a big stick' and all that. Weakopedia (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of cities by GDP

I'm having a hard time making anyone see reason in the above discussion - especially when most of those discussing, seemingly the most active contributors to the article (and the 'big city' game), don't want to see reason.

I agree with your user page intro; if I could add to that, I would say that Misplaced Pages contradicts itself in its very fundaments: How can it be seen as an authoritative source when the weight of authority and authoritative fact themselves are contested (as so often is the case) by the contributors themselves? Many articles here are a reflection of that politick; many are based on a collection of 'chosen' sources reflecting the viewpoint of the majority of an article's contributors, an article that too often tells a story that strays from objective fact or even reality. I've had a very long and direct experience with this in my contributions to the Paris article, believe me.

It is here that you will not only see the effect of the media on the opinion of the masses, but, within the contributions themselves, all the fallacies and aggressiveness of human competition: a selective "defensive reasoning" that chooses facts that best support the point of view being defended. This facet of public-wide contribution is both unscientific and immature, and cannot result in any article that can be trusted completely.

Perhaps it is along these lines that you should present your argument - your front page does have the tones of a conspiracy theory, and probably will be accused of being such by those who don't agree with you - for their lack of a more sound argument, no doubt. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the AFD and went to the article, and the discussion page, to determine how to or even whether to respond on the AFD page. Then I googled PWC and a few other related things. By chance I have the OECD yearbook and the UN yearly report on the state of the worlds cities and I tried to recreate the information contained in the article but I was unable to do so in the way the article was presented, and my vote was for deletion.

Looking back I see that all I did was summarize some of your remarks! But I reached my own conclusions upon consideration of the evidence.

I certainly believe that the structure of Misplaced Pages can lead to an individual or group having the ability to monopolise parts of history. I feel this is somewhat representitive of the world at large. Less than 1% of Wikipedians are regular editors and only about 3% of those have admin functions so the danger of having your reasonable arguments confounded is high. And it is certainly a valid point that the customs of an editors country of origin are too often applied where inapplicable.

The nature of Misplaced Pages appeals to a fundamental part of the human psyche that gains satisfaction from making connections. As a social project it is extremely interesting and one can observe all the facets of humanity in the interactions within. It's first barrier is the quality of information that is allowed in which can be further compounded by individual editors and how they select and use the information they are permitted to introduce.

For me then there are two questions, can Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians present an accurate impression of the facts, and can what Misplaced Pages regards as factual information really be called such.

My intro was written with a moments thought - I will modify it as my impressions of Misplaced Pages distil, but I intend to keep the provocative nature intact. Whilst I am not a combatitive person by nature the intro was designed to precipitate spirited debate on the matter, which I believe is possible without animosity. I am certainly trying to be considered about my reasoning and use of supporting matter.

I also understand your point about conspiracy theorists. My intention would be to show not that there is a group of people whose intentions are to subvert history but rather that by necessity governments and businesses may not be open about their dealings, and by necessity manipulate the media, and that by relying on mass media and government issued information that Misplaced Pages can only serve to act as an agent of propoganda.

In truth my ideas on the subject are in their infancy and I hope to refine them with help. Your comments have been very much appreciated. Weakopedia (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain amount of irony in the fact that the very facets of human nature Misplaced Pages depends upon to expand (making connections, 'leaving a mark' (about "my interests" and "my territory" )) can also be a limitation to its quality.

I see few problems in "high level of knowledge" articles (scientific articles concerning biology, geology, etc.), but the fun starts when we descend to more "common knowledge" articles such as shoe polish and... city articles. The lower the level of needed knowledge in an article descends, the more open it is to the possibly confrontation-provoking aspects of human nature (defence of 'territory' and 'self-worth') - the worst of this lot, IMHO, are articles on cities and famous people.

Add into the mix what the general public "knows" - here we are getting into the territory you outlined in your introduction. Many identify themselves by who they idolise; the 'higher' status of idols is largely based on a 'reputation' adopted and even fabricated by the more social aspects of the general public itself. The problem with the greater public's 'knowledge' about subjects such as these is that it was, like you say, usually fed to them by the sources they see every day - by the media - and few have taken the time for a more objective look into the subject of their idolisation; a few contributors are even loathe to do so because discovering the more reality-based aspects of the subject of their idolisation would 'damage' their opinion of themselves; a few other are even militant in their efforts to impede the publication of any fact that could damage the reputation of the same. I'm sure this is why contributions to 'biographical' wikipedia articles were the first to have been put under 'peer review' before publication.

"What I believe" (or "what they believe" ) articles are another active part of the WikiZoo - especially for topics such as global warming and creationism. What is lacking there again is objectivity - and I find it amusing (with an undercurrent of perturbation) to see that articles such as these are always promoting media articles as "citable sources", rather than citing the organisations that are the very origins of the information itself, not to mention in avoiding all mention of the consensus as a whole of the same. Again, many are loathe to have their "vision" of the world disturbed, and then there are those who loathe to see anything objective published about the message they think they control; there is irony that, often in this case, the victim and the con artist work hand in hand towards the same end.

"Other culture" articles can open another type of a bag of worms: Few contributors to "other-language" Misplaced Pages articles (for example, the English article on Brazil) speak the language they are contributing to natively, and many of this category want to project the best image possible ("we're great, too!") to the rest of the world. This is why many articles such as these read like tourist ads, and this is why many contain so many false messages contributed by those wishing to elevate "their home" to compete with (or resemble) other world places. I can speak from personal experience here: at my arrival to the Paris article around five years ago, it conveyed the message to the rest of the world that "Paris" was the unique name of a skyscraper'd metropolis that covered an area over fifty times Paris' real size; it turned out that most of the article had been written by a few contributors hoping to con the more ignorant of North American English-speaking foreigners into believing that Paris as a city was "just like theirs" and the contributors (also conning themselves) lived there. Paris is a particular city with particular administative/territorial/judicial/economical particularities, and the how and the why of how it is defined should be clearly explained (it wasn't).

I guess you've brought up a subject that's been bothering me for a while - I've had little opportunity to talk about it here, which may explain why I wrote so much. Do let me know what you think - it is possible to carry on this conversation on a talk-page sub-page, if you would like to keep your talk 'front page' clear. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 16:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you have really hit the nail on the head regarding articles about things that are close to people. Thanks to the media the general public sees more of celebrities than they do their own family. People know more about newscasters, politicians and actors than they do about cousins, aunts or neighbours. And yes, people become very offended when you challenge their perceptions of their 'heroes', the reason of course being that the identification is so strong that they see any challenge as one on their own personal belief system.

Your point about sourcing is also well taken. Wiki rules state that it doesn't matter if the sky is blue and everyone on earth can look out their window and observe that fact - it is only whenever the blueness of the sky become a topic for discussion in the media that it is of note and may be Wikified. This is worrying for two reasons - firstly that the media get to decide what is suitable for Misplaced Pages. Secondly if the media report instead that the sky is red, and are consistent in that, then Misplaced Pages has no choice but to report it as such.

I have been thinking of your remarks as I have searched through Misplaced Pages this last week. The Brazil article is interesting. One editor makes the point that he shall not believe anything he reads on the internet over something he can read in a book written by a reputable source. It is an interesting argument to present, especially whilst using it to expand an online document, but it certainly illustrates a point. The sources that Wikipedians use are required to be secondhand but by the time it reaches the internet the information is third or fourth hand at best. So the fact that everyone on earth can see the sky is blue AND there are multiple scientific studies showing that the sky is blue, there is consensus between all humans and the entire scientific community, for us to say so here would be considered 'original research' unless it is consistently reported on in the news, the secondary sources.

This really necessitates a review of the secondary sources permitted, which I don't see happening so much. Government and business are clever, they pioneered the use of psychology for manipulation. Government has a clear responsibility to protect the national interest, but they must often admit that this necessitates the use of subterfuge, propoganda and more. They even invented the term 'miss-spoke' for the things they feel obliged to say that are not necessarily accurate. Being publically accurate is not in their job description. More so with businesses which of course are considered living things with rights and responsibilities to themselves.

For me then there are two visions of Wiki - Misplaced Pages as is, and Misplaced Pages as it could be. If we go with Misplaced Pages as is then a lot of work needs to be done about the sourcing. It isn't good enough to be spoonfed your oppinion by the media. Just because the media all agree on something doesn't make it true. For Misplaced Pages 'as is' that needs to me made clear, that the opinions expressed within are NOT the opinions of milliuons of editors but simply the opinions of those behind the media. And the sources should be investigated thoroughly, they are the whole basis for this website. Where they can be shown to have been inaccurate they should be dropped, no matter how big and official sounding they are. And the fact that the media say that another media source is reliable should not matter - Misplaced Pages might not be making claims of it's own but it is claiming that it's sourcing policy is adequate so that is what it needs to work on. At least this would be an honest Misplaced Pages, admitting what it is and trying to clear up it's mess.

I wonder though just how much Misplaced Pages would be left if we couldn't use sources that have shown to have misrepresented or skewed facts in the past. And then of course there is the problem of ommission - if the reliable media don't talk about it, it isn't news, isn't notable and isn't for Wiki.

Which makes me consider Wiki 'as it could be'. I read an article likening Wiki to a huge online role playing game, and that is exactly how many people here play it. Out of all the users only 1% play the game, but if you look through the user pages you can see them trying to 'level up' to sysop status and beyond. Wiki is a giant experiment in social activity in my opinion and the rules have been very cleverly worded to give them a framework to achieve their goals. Many users even abandon all notion of content and focus specifically on the rules of the game, and those rules are designed for the media led majority.

This means that every blogger, every website on earth can say the sky is blue, but the spoonfed majority still get to print the medias assertion that it is in fact red as fact. You can see it in most articles - there is continual disagreement with the parties pushing each other into 'conspiracy theorist' and 'conformist' camps.

I think Wiki should either fess up to what it is, not the opinion of the majority but the opinion of the media, or it should go all the way and become the giant social experiemnt it really is, allow more sources and go to town with the arguing.

By chance I was given a library, maybe 3,000 books covering 300 years of opinion, economics, science and government. I opened a random book from 1924 which was like the Misplaced Pages of it's day, reporting on subjects that had received much media attention in the preceeding period using media articles as sources. The first article was an expose of how international financiers had channeled funds through Britain to neutral countried during WW1 where it was distributed directly to the Germans with the full understanding and blessing of the British government, an act which prolonged the war by three years no less. The second article was describing how sunspot activity worked on a 35 year cycle and to expect global warming during the latter part of the century.

During the recent 'Climategate' affair I went looking through the alleged emails at random, picking out storylines and following them through. One which brought me amusement were scientists lamenting that certain officials seemed to get their scientific information directly from Misplaced Pages. I laughed, however I share their concern.

There are rays of hope - there are many editors and admins who are genuinely trying to contribute to something for everyone. However I believe that the underlying idea they are working for is flawed, and even if they brave the pitfalls of being a Wikipedian in theend they have only helped create an illusion of a global encyclopedia. Weakopedia (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays from Phantomsteve!

Hey, thanks a lot. Happy holidays to you too. How you guessed I look like that old guy with the glasses I'll never know... Weakopedia (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

diffs/hello

Hello, I am preparing to file a complaint about this situation. I am collecting these diffs because I am trying to sort out what has been done and to figure out how to document what I need. I believe one of the admin in this situation has acted inappropriately. I am not inflaming any situation, nor do I intend to, etc. I am very upset about what has transpired and I want to show these to another admin and get advice about how to follow up with a complaint. Thank you for your concern, but it seems all of you are responding to these diffs because your friend Daedalus969 is complaining about them and claiming that they are there to somehow disrespect him. This is not true.Malke2010 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - I was talking to the admin, not to you. It seemed like they were being slightly presumptuous and needlessly inflammatory. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for replying. I was in touch with the admin I mentioned above and she has been marvelous as always, and I feel things are entirely resolved for me. Have a happy New Year. :D Malke2010 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff

I think that page may have been nominated previously for MfD, but I don't feel like looking around to see for sure. Editors are usually given a lot of leeway in what they can have in their userspace. If he's not mentioning any real names or going overboard with the personal attacks, it's probably ok to let him be. Of course, editors can consider that page along with other evidence when judging the overall value that Mr. Connolley brings to Misplaced Pages. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I have just spent a lot of time looking at cases of user pages that were deleted for alegedly constituting a personal attack, and when I stumbled across the page in question it seemed in context to be a worse use of talk space than most of the articles which have already been deleted due to the same rationale. I will check to see if it has been nominated for deletion already, although I must admit that it isn't any great priority of mine. I do however believe that Mr Connolley could be making more constructive use of his time at Misplaced Pages than compiling lists of grievances. Thanks very much for your comments. Weakopedia (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad and assassinations

You seem reasonable, I want to discuss the dispute with you. The problem is that :Misconceptions2 is not willing to provide one secondary, reliable source for every assasination attempt claim. If that not provided I think a section about an attempt full of primary and unreliable sources is worthless. Sole Soul (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Misconceptions2 is really not helping himself at the moment. As to your question about the sources, much of the article is obviously inadequately sourced. In addition, where there are references, these are at times contradictory. Some of the intermediate edits have been quite useful, however I do see a problem with restricting the scope of the article to assassinations carried out by or sanctioned by Muhammad. I think if the article remains as Muhammad and Assassinations then much work is needed, and the inclusion of attempted assassinations is valid (if reliably sourced). I would support a page renaming to something more representative of the article - user Bali Ultimate did some great work with the intro, correctly showing that the article is more about Muhammads attitude to killing. I think renaming the article in line with Bali Ultimates intro would be a good idea, but whatever approach is taken the references without a doubt need to be improved and a lot of material removed. I would be happy to help where I can. Weakopedia (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, the naming and the scope was not my concern. My concern is sources. I don't know if you have read this . Sole Soul (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I did read the section about the use of Ibn Ishaq. As far as a I can tell none of his works survive, nor his students edits of his work, but copies and incomplete copies of the copies his students made of his work. They shouldn't be used to demonstrate historical accuracy as they are thrice removed from the original works. In general I support the idea of deleting the page entirely. I think there is scope for a different page discussing Muhammads attitude to killing, but it would not take the format of the current article. Failing that some of the ideas could be incorporated into the article on Muhammad, if they are not there already. Removal of the unsourced material and the irrelevancies would shorten the article enough to achieve this. Weakopedia (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved. Weakopedia (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)