This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 222.165.157.129 (talk) at 10:14, 17 July 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:14, 17 July 2007 by 222.165.157.129 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad
The article used to exist in Matt user-space, just like another article with opposing views exist in my user space (see here). What is Matt reason to move it from its user space to Project Islam space? Well see Matt own wordsWrapping up the issue of Muhammad's image. How can he solved or imposed a solution using a move (without having a concensus)? Hence this page should move back to his own user space (like mines). Btw the article is funny because it use WP:OR stating that because Muhammad cartoon are published by many countries hence WP:UNDUE about Muhammad images does not apply. It nullify multiple references saying depicting Muhammad is a extreme rare tradition, just using this bizarre WP:OR about cartoons. Please delete this page from Project Islam (or move it back to Matt user space). A. L. M. 08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: There we go with the 'struggle' again. This is exactly why we need to wrap this image stuff up. We need to stop people from protesting about these images needlessly. I'm going to seek advice on how to wrap this up. Do what you want, the end result will be forming a policy and majority consensus to keep these images and form a policy or guideline to keep these images. --Matt57 11:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- someone might actually confuse this for policy. BYT 12:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- comment even with a big fat "This is an essay, not a policy" box at the top? --L 12:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then move it back to Matt user space were it was previously. He should not use words like he has moved to solve the issue once and for all etc. I have NO objection if that exist in his user space like mines. -- A. L. M. 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Given that he has shown that he is attempting to make it a policy, I would find that very inappropriate. A policy should not be kept in user space. --L 12:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well then so is true with mine logic. Should I also move it out from my user space? Then should I also start saying to other it is to solve the issue once and for all by banning poeple? Like he is saying. I suggest move it back to his user space. --- A. L. M. 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- ALM, if you moved it into project space, others would be able to edit it, even move it to another title. It might wind up saying something very different then you want it to say. Same with Matt57's.Proabivouac 06:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well then so is true with mine logic. Should I also move it out from my user space? Then should I also start saying to other it is to solve the issue once and for all by banning poeple? Like he is saying. I suggest move it back to his user space. --- A. L. M. 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Given that he has shown that he is attempting to make it a policy, I would find that very inappropriate. A policy should not be kept in user space. --L 12:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then move it back to Matt user space were it was previously. He should not use words like he has moved to solve the issue once and for all etc. I have NO objection if that exist in his user space like mines. -- A. L. M. 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- comment even with a big fat "This is an essay, not a policy" box at the top? --L 12:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: It's not even a policy, it's a page showing why we cannot allow the images to be removed, using existing policies. Just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean it's not appropriate for wikipedia --L 12:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - it is, however, utterly one-sided in the presentation of its views- instead of objectively noting the good-faith, policy based arguments used by editors of all sides. that doesn't mean it needs to be deleted, it just means that it needs to be rewritten. ITAQALLAH 15:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- This move greatly facilitates that, if that's what you want to do. ALM's page and its talk page are currently under ALM's control, as was protested in its MfD, because they are in userspace (bad reason, but there you have it.) Matt57's now isn't. Maybe the right solution is to back the move, than propose a merger of ALM's page as a POV fork.Proabivouac 06:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - it is, however, utterly one-sided in the presentation of its views- instead of objectively noting the good-faith, policy based arguments used by editors of all sides. that doesn't mean it needs to be deleted, it just means that it needs to be rewritten. ITAQALLAH 15:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per L. -- Karl Meier 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I vote for deleting this article. Very irritating how a collection of ideas can be made into a guideline. I wrote a couple of comments in the article, but then realized there is a link and reverted. Unflavoured 06:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Policies or essays should have consensus amongst the fellow editors. This particular essay seems to be one editors set of ideas. 222.165.157.129 10:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jonathan Bloom & Sheila Blair (1997). Islamic Arts. London: Phaidon. p. 202.
- "Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad". BBC News. 2006-02-02. Retrieved 2007-05-03.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - T. W. Arnold (1919). ""An Indian Picture of Muhammad and His Companions"". The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 34, No. 195. pp. 249–252. Retrieved 2007-05-01.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - Alessandra. Raengo & Robert Stam (2004). A Companion To Literature And Film. Blackwell Publishing. p. 31. ISBN 063123053X.