Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GroundRisk/sandbox

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:GroundRisk/sandbox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was Delete There is a fundamental misconception across much of this discussion that content such of this can only be addressed at AFD. That is in fact, incorrect as fundamental issues around synthesis and NPOV can be addressed at either venue so I have discarded arguments about where we should have discussed this. Because a valid deletion discussion has taken place, I have also discarded the arguments around G10 and/or G11 as a valid deletion discussion superceeds that argument. So where does that leave us? The delete arguments are based on misuse of sourced by synthesis and the article failing NPOV and pushing a point of view that is not reflective of the sources. The keep side has not properly addressed these arguments and I am particularly swayed by the neutrals in this discussion who have no axe to grind and/or no dog in this fight who have supported this argument. On that basis I find that there is rough consensus that this material does not belong on wikipedia and that the bare minumum that applies here is WP:TNT. On that basis I am also salting the location in mainspace and requiring that this not be recreated until a neutral and properly sourced draft is approved by DRV. Just a tip for those wanting this back - you will get more traction if you deal with the NPOV and SYNTH concerns rather then attacking the process. Spartaz Humbug! 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I have also deleted sandbox2... Spartaz Humbug! 15:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:GroundRisk/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: User had copied draft to the article namespace while this MFD was ongoing, but it has been subsequently deleted to allow this MFD to conclude.  7  23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This (at Civilization Jihad) was speedy deleted as an attack page (based on its existing solely to link various living people and groups to this fictional construct), which is not permitted in any namespace. The user was advised by the admin that restored/userfied it that he should not simply restore all of the old content, but did so anyway. Seems like a no-brainer. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you please leave this page alone in my sandbox. I am currently undergoing research to better the page. I am going through the sources and deleting ones that are "questionable" to some and verifying the others. This page is not a blatant attack page and this subject has been researched and written about from numerous scholarly sources. It is in my sandbox for a reason and would ask that you allow me to improve the article. I have talked with wikipedia admins about the page and they suggested I keep it in my sandbox to work on it so people like yourself, would leave it alone until I can finish it. This was a previous page that was unfairly deleted. It had been up for about six months and was a collaborative by critics and others. Even the critics wanted to improve the page not delete it entirely.
GroundRisk (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you just created the article again, by accident?! Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I am going through the sources and deleting ones that are 'questionable' to some and verifying the others." I don't think that there's any recent evidence of that at all. In fact, your comment on another editor's page seems to indicate the opposite of this: "The draft that is currently on there is the latest one before it was lost so luckily it didn't' lose all the edits in the previous life." (from User talk:Mrt3366) I do think that one should be allowed to improve upon a previously deleted article before trying to recreate that same page again, but that's not apparently what you've been up to Mr. GroundRisk. Since you have a full copy of the page the way that it was before it was recently deleted, you can always work to try & improve it offline. "It had been up for about six months and was a collaborative by critics and others. Even the critics wanted to improve the page not delete it entirely." That's not entirely true either. As the previously deleted Civilization Jihad history and talk page showed, that page was up for deletion several times, and many edits that were made by other users that were not deemed "friendly" were met with hostility. The Civilization Jihad page was a real mess. The process of coming to any kind of consensus on how to improve the page, so that it wasn't just a Right-wing attack page, was overly difficult and much more difficult than it needed to be IMHO. Wikipedia doesn't need these kind of pages on it that blatantly push a conspiracy theory POV...there are plenty of free blog sites on the Internet where one can do that sort of thing. The page in question here should be Deleted. Guy1890 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have nothing else to do in your life than track my Wikipedia which is fine. In the meantime why don't you pick up a couple books that are listed in the sources which apparently you have so thoroughly been through , and read for yourself. But since you are a self indicted subject matter expert on this, please inform me how these published books and MB court documents that say "civilization jihad" are fictional, part of a conspiracy and do not merit a page for discussion. GroundRisk (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This (at Civilization Jihad) was speedy deleted as an attack page (based on its existing solely to link various living people and groups to this fictional construct), which is not permitted in any namespace. The user was advised by the admin that restored/userfied it that he should not simply restore all of the old content, but did so anyway. Seems like a no-brainer. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

On this note-if you check the version of the two pages I got rid of some content that was from the Soohkdeo book. Took some sentences out completely. Also I added new sections under the front groups and counter terrorism page with different sources that were from NYTimes and Washington Post. And the whole page was never in question. When I talked to the admin about restoring the page, we discussed fixing a couple parts. I never agreed to get rid of all the old content and was never advised to. GroundRisk (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move this discussion to AfDMove to mainspace and allow nomination at AfD as per the author's wishes. This is not speediable as an attack page. We don't make content decisions at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain why you believe our attack page policies do not apply to a page that exists for the sole purpose of ascribing sinister motivations to living people and groups? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because trying to "provide sourced encyclopedic content" (AGF) is always "another purpose" that evades G10. I don't agree with your "sole". I don't think the page is enough of an attack that seven days at AfD will be a great problem, and if you do, we can discuss it while it is blanked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does one assume good faith when an editor creates the same, exact page that was previously deleted on another user's page (User:CeceliaXIV/sandbox) and lies about why they recreated the same, exact page (Civilization Jihad) again in a different spot by saying that "It was mistake" (User talk:GroundRisk#Please let the MFD run its course)? I'm kind of at a loss here. I fully understand that GroundRisk has been basically displeased with the fact that his "article" got (speedily) deleted, but that kind of thing happens all the time on Wikipedia. I understand that it's frustrating when that happens to you (since it's happened to me as well), but not everyone has a right to spew their obvious POV all over Wikipedia IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this draft and send this to AFD - SmokeyJoe is right, it ought to have never been speedied. It's not an attack page to describe an attack. Nazism is not an attack page against the Nazis, am I right? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you arguing that WorldNetDaily, various anti-Muslim think tanks, and the personal analyses of Wikipedia editors are sources equal in quality to the hundreds of scholarly books describing the Nazis? If so, you need to seriously revisit your understanding of basic Wikipedia policy. Your second sentence is essentially "But Muslims are evil, so who cares if Wikipedia publishes untruths about them?" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. America, Have You Lost Your Mind, Or Is It Your Soul?: Can't You Remember, p. 278, at Google Books
  2. Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America, p. 293, at Google Books
  3. How Obama Embraces Islam's Sharia Agenda, p. 17, at Google Books
  4. Baffling Puzzle: Sidelining Truth, p. 328, at Google Books
  5. How Obama Embraces Islam's Sharia Agenda: A Creed for the Poor and Disadvantaged, p. 17, at Google Books
  6. Islam's Sharia Finance: Cultural Implications of the Global Adoption of a Religion Based Economic System Overview
  7. DIME Elements of Jihad
  8. The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat, p. 43, at Google Books [also pages 183, 225]
These at least do not sound like mere fictions to me, and also which policy says that "various anti-Muslim think tanks" are not reliable when it comes to Islamic articles?
Keep it and send it to AFD, it's not speediable,
Like I have been saying a lot these days this article needs more edits not deletion. Are Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of religion, Islam and violence, etc attack pages?
Who fucking cares? Wikipedia is not censored and offensiveness of an article is not grounds for its deletion. This topic passes WP:GNG, that's all that matters. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your list of sources only makes even clearer the total invalidity of your opinion on the subject. What a ridiculous list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? I didn't expect you would be mesmerized but, at the same time, I could care less about how "ridiculous" you think the list is. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Roscelese, do you go through every organization name such as CAIR and INSA and get rid of statements that suggest they that are part of the Muslim Brotherhood? And based on wikipedia standards that list of books is fair game to be used as sources. So unless you have a better argument other than this is an attack page, the page will be going back up. GroundRisk (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing whether this synthesised advancement of original research and BLP violations should be allowed any place in user space at all and you are threatening to just slap it back into a recreated unrectified article? Have you no conception of how serious a matter this is? You either sock or try to evade detection by using another user's space and you either fib or show utter lack of competence regarding your "mistaken" re-creation of the article yesterday. Let's sort out the issue of the material in your sandbox first before there is even any thought of creating an article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that is fine. But if the fact that this is an going to be deleted as an attack page then yes we do have a serious problem because it is not so. And again let me explain what had happened. When this article was put up the second time after someone deleted it. I went to a wiki admin and they put it in my sandbox to fix..which I did and was working on. Within less than 12 hours someone flag was put on it for MFD, which is fine but the link went to an old discussion that had been archived and not allowed to be edited. So I deleted the tag knowing very well someone would probably put a new one on which they did and this is the new MFD. I was not trying to evade any detection. And b/c no one would let me breath for one second while I was working on the article in my sandbox (I am sorry I have another job and can't sit on wiki all day) another user took it over in their sandbox. I don't have another account. I am not trying to evade anything. Everything on wiki is public so kinda hard to be secret. I took the subject from their sandbox and put the page back up. People mess with my sandbox all the time. The current article in my sandbox is not the latest version of it because the latest version has edits not seen. So can we move on and talk about the subject of the matter which why this page keeps unfairly being attacked and flagged without hardly any discussion. I have reliable sources and it is not an attack page. I would like to keep adding to it and add some more sources. Again I am welcome to people putting contradictory sections in there but no one will, they will only take the lazy route and delete the page. GroundRisk (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"which is fine but the link went to an old discussion that had been archived and not allowed to be edited." That's not true at all, and the history of the page in question shows that very well. "So I deleted the tag knowing very well someone would probably put a new one on which they did and this is the new MFD." You deleted the tag because you didn't want the article deleted again...at least be honest about what you've been up to recently GroundRisk. You're just digging yourself a bigger hole here. "I took the subject from their sandbox and put the page back up"...which you're not allowed to do, and which you were specifically told not to do by the administrator that userfied the page in the first place. "The current article in my sandbox is not the latest version of it because the latest version has edits not seen." That doesn't make any sense. "I have reliable sources and it is not an attack page." You have, at best, cherry picked "sources" that are pushing, at best, a Right-wing POV conspiracy theory. Guy1890 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously why am I even wasting time talking to you about this. I am NOT lying. How am I cherry picking sources? I am using ones that discuss the topic. Add your contradictory section and include another point of view if you are so worried about it. GroundRisk (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the things you say are patently and demonstrably untrue, if you're not lying you must be very confused. Maybe you should have a lie down. Do you think we all have zips up the back of our heads?
Why do you persist on suggesting adding a "contradictory section"? Wikipedia does not work on the basis of allowing unreliably supported nonsense as long as contradictory material (sane or otherwise) is also included. If it doesn't pass muster, it stays out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stepping back a level, I see this as a combination of WP:BITEing, of a newly arrived determined WP:POVWARRIOR committed to a sourced WP:Advocacy of his point of view. It sits ill with core content policy WP:NPOV, which is our most non-negotiable non-legal policy, but one that is sometimes hard to explain to a newcomer. One attempt might be “you need to use a more diverse range of sources”.

Another observation from the back is that this is a moderately well developed WP:BAN discussion.

I have seen this scenario play out before. GroundRisk (talk · contribs) beware, it doesn’t end well for the new editor with a conviction and a point of view but not an honest reading of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

User:GroundRisk, your enthusiasm and passion are assets, but they are getting you into trouble on your first encounter. Can you please slow down and read my links above. Also, can you please declare definitively, is this the first account you’ve ever used on Wikipedia? Would you consider a brief explanation as to you intentions of contributions on your userpage, User:GroundRisk. Would you please also consider Wikipedia:Alternative outlets if you don’t consider Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to your liking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and protect against recreation. Since it is currently not in article space, it is here that we have to deal with it. I consider it a valid A10. It's an attack page not against an individual, but a political movement. it is an attack page not a description of an attack because it is written polemically,with selective use of sources, some of them extremely far-fetched, in order to promote the idea of the movement being an exceptionally wide conspiracy. come to think of it, it's probably a valid G11 as well--negative promotionalism is promotionalism. But I don't really care how we remove it. DGG (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has become a typical case of overzealous deletion. Just because the article was written very poorly does it mean that the subject itself isn't notable enough to merit an article? "Civilization Jihad" as a topic is very notable in the United States, it is not a fictitious construct as some of us would like to frame it. The problems are not insurmountable. The draft can reasonably be cleaned up to present a more neutral point of view. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is my first account. I am just trying to create an article that I believe deserves a page. It is not fictitious or some crazy conspiracy in anyway and I don't believe it should be deleted as an attack page. I really think there has been a big misunderstanding in my intentions. Also I realize the page needs work and I am committed to making it better but I can't do that when all my time is spent defending the existence of the page. Thank you SmokeyJoe, for the links. I appreciate it. I will pay attention to them as I move forward. GroundRisk (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. Don't compound matters. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What other pages on Wikipedia have you created GroundRisk, as referred to here previously ("This is most definitely not my first page on wikipedia." and "I did wikipedia work years ago")? As far as I can tell, your account is, at best, a Single Purpose Account, as you don't appear to have edited any pages on Wikipedia beyond the Civilization Jihad page or very, very few other pages in support of promoting the Civilization Jihad page. Guy1890 (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At best, you people are attacking me because you cannot come up with any other reason why this page should not be on. You are suspiciously very protective of this subject. Why so? Why are you people so concerned with this? I don't get it. This is not an attack page and I am going to make it better. I don't have to sit here and be interrogated on my past workings on Wikipedia because no matter what I say you wont' believe me. At this point, this conversation with you fine users, is pointless. I am not going to be bullied into dropping the work I want to do on wikipedia. At this point you have all become useful idiots for agenda this page is discussing. GroundRisk (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that while claiming to be in the process of improving the draft, GroundRisk is in fact adding even more policy-noncompliant rubbish like [1] and [2]. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what is wrong with those two entries beside the fact you disagree with the content? GroundRisk (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is [3], [4] rubbish exactly, Roscelese don't just push forward your opinions, explain yourself for those of us who are not exactly familiar with this. Is it language or is it factually incorrect? or is it both? Have you read the source?
    A general rule of thumb is do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where to begin? How about its lack of reliable sourcing? Its addition of material that isn't even present in the rubbish sources cited? What I now notice is plagiarism? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a ban on the sites presented? "material that isn't even present" is it misrepresentation of the source? If so, how? Elaborate in detail. I want to understand why you say what you say. Did you even read the ebook cited as "The Muslim Brotherhood and the Threat to U.S. National Security - 'The Movement'"?? It doesn't seem like a misrepresentation. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point here really is that instead of "only restor(ing) from the history the content that was appropriately backed by reliable sources, which was actually a tiny minority of it" GroundRisk is instead just expanding the article further. He/she/whatever hasn't demonstrated that they've learned anything by this entire process here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Clear cut case of delete - As an involved party in this matter and having read over the arguments I have to concur with Roscelese, DGG, and Mutt Lunker. This article is nothing more than hysteria propelled by right wing organisations and individuals and is a gross violation of BLP. The writer GroundRisk is engaged in POV and refuses to change his position (and has so for months now apparently). The entire article when read sounds like the Elders of Zion nonsense or worse, Der Ewige Jude. The page should be blocked from creation with immediate effect until scholarly sources confirm the existence of such a grand conspiracy. The author GroundRisk is also engaging in making up his own definition of Taqqiyya and whatnot which surely can't be allowed - scholarly sources from proper academics should be enough. Wikipedia is not a personal blog or a collection for crackpot theories. Numpty9991 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC) -block evading sock puppet of Dalai Lama Ding Dong Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • That's a big "if." I took a look before nominating the article for deletion, and the sources just aren't out there - are you suggesting that we document "the fringe theory that 'civilization jihad' is a thing"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider the question hypothetical. Do we trust the people at these noticeboards? No, I do not suggest documenting every new fringe theory. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The author GroundRisk is also engaging in making up his own definition of Taqqiyya". I noticed that a long while ago as well. Among the more amusing claims (that I original identified on the Civilization Jihad talk page) that still remain in the current form here is that the Sisters of Mercy or the "Mercy International Association (MIA)" as identified in the article is a "Muslim Brotherhood front organization", which is just silly. Guy1890 (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wikipedia page on taqiyya it is "legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are at risk of significant ." The definition of taqiyya on the civilization page is "This permits a person of Islam to deny their true beliefs in order to protect themselves and the religion as a whole from harm. It can be used when an individual is under duress or pressure." How again am I making this up? GroundRisk (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's on the page in question is pretty much a textbook example of the kind of garbage that one hears from Right-wing sources...that one cannot trust Muslims or Muslim organizations in general because they can pretty much lie at will. The real meaning of Taqiyya is, of course, quite different, as one can clearly see from the Wikipedia page associated with the term. It's used almost exclusively in Shi'a Islam (the Muslim Brotherhood is a Sunni organization) and can be only used when one is "at risk of significant persecution" or under "threat, persecution, or compulsion" or "overwhelming danger of loss of life or property". The "article" in question also mentions the Islamophobic term Dhimmitude. It's chock full of intentional inaccuracies like this and has been for quite some time now. Guy1890 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, right-wing sources inherently do not merit a mention? Although you are zealously inclined to think that it is "garbage", I humbly beg to differ (see Holy Land Foundation and Criticism of CAIR). Secondly, Dhimmitude is not a coinage of the islamophobist-group, it comes from the Arabic noun dhimmi, which refers to a non-Muslim subject of an Islamic state. OTOH Islamophobia and its cognates are created to play Identity politics, hence I would very much appreciate if you stop throwing words like "Islamophobist", "garbage" around.
P.S. A small observation: "risk of significant persecution" is to some extent at least dependent on the threat-perception of the individual. In a nation like US where the general perception is that Homeland security is going to take you away or monitor you if you overtly express support for terrorist groups, I dare say, it's not unusual to get overwhelmed by the perception of the "risk of significant persecution". Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, you know exactly what Dhimmitude means and why its being used in the "article" in question Mr. T, which is a textbook example of Islamophobia BTW. Your usual gamesmanship with words isn't going to work here. Guy1890 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I use Ye’or, Bat. Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Fairleigh Dickinson 2005, p. 192 at Google Books. for a source in the dhimmitude section and another reliable published source. Your argument here has no weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroundRisk (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did, in fact, "use Ye’or, Bat. Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Fairleigh Dickinson 2005, p. 192 at Google Books. for a source in the dhimmitude section", which, of course, uses the term Eurabia (which is an Islamophobic conspiracy theory term in & of itself). The book in question here was written by Bat Ye'or, who is, of course, a well-known conspiracy theorist. Thanks for proving my point about your "article". Guy1890 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You calling this page and this concept "Islamophobic" proves my point within this page, so thank you kind sir. "They have played to the “political correctness” in the U.S. This is extremely effective because any critic of the Muslim Brotherhood is labeled as “Islamophobic" GroundRisk (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My "gamesmanship with words" certainly doesn't work with uncivil pugnacious people who are not ready to assume good faith on the parts of their opponents simply by virtue of their well-founded dissent. You assume User:Groundrisk is prejudiced POV-pusher who is merely peddling "garbage" (your word), you think I am an Islamophobe, that I am merely playing games with words here and whatnot. Why not keep it focused on the content? I don't like it should not and must not serve as an excuse to delete a poorly written article.
Let's stop the mudslinging right here. That would be more constructive. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell from your record on Wikipedia in recent months Mr. T, your continued gamesmanship with words and Wikilawyering doesn't seem to be be getting you very far with many people. That's not my problem though. I actually don't know that you are an Islamophobe. I only know for sure that the "article" in question here is an Islamophobic piece that's pushing, at best, a wild, Right-wing conspiracy theory. As we've been over long ago though on the now deleted Civilzation Jihad talk page, it's hard for me to assume good faith on your part when you write things like "I think that single article might prove to be the most important article of our century and I am not exaggerating" other people's talk pages. It really doesn't suggest that you're being especially open-minded when it comes to this particular article. Objections to the Civilization Jihad page go well beyond "I don't like it" arguments, as has been clearly summarized by more than a few people above in this very discussion here. Guy1890 (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm you have three people. So your "more than a few people" is three people who apparently can speak for everyone else out there about what is and what is not conspiracy. Just out of curiosity, have you actually read any books on this subject? Like actually picked up a book and read it? Do you honestly think this is made up? The word "civilization jihad" was written and presented in court.GroundRisk (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the act of describing certain Islamic topics forthrightly and clearly is tantamount to exhibiting Islamophobia, then so be it. "Civilization jihad" is as real a concept as say the crusades were perhaps. Where does it say that if someone uses the term "Eurabia" he loses all credibility? In USA the term ″Eurabia″ is not directly associated with Islamophobia. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not "describing ... topics forthrightly", but a determined act of WP:SYNTHESIS in bringing together miscellaneous facts, some with very questionable documentation, into the construction of a conspiracy theory. Neutral articles on the subject can be written, but based on the declared opinions of the editor, this user space page is not going to become one. I have previously expressed the opinion that the content falls under the speedy delete criterion G10 for attack page. It also falls under G11, promotionalism of an idea. These criteria apply throughout WP. DGG (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are reliable. This should not have a speedy deleted. It should be sent to AFD so it can be more thoroughly examined by different users. GroundRisk (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: I was responding to Guy1890's dismissive remarks against me and anything that even tries to describe the bitter side of anything related to Islamic beliefs which continued even after I had asked him to focus on the content not the editor. FYI, I am not and was not saying that the article doesn't have issues (literally thousands B, C, Start-class articles have these issues) but this needs more edits and attention of editors as opposed to deletion altogether. It should not have been speedily deleted without a general discussion; it's a very complicated subject. I concur with GR on at least this much. Let the community decide. BTW, my opinion on whether or not this subject is verifiable or important actually has no bearing on the current quality of the article. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please come to some sort of conclusion here. This article should go AFD. GroundRisk (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2013 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GroundRisk/sandbox&oldid=1142500923"