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The result of the discussion was Speedy keep: nomination withdrawn, and no deletion recommendations (non-admin closure). The sole "weak delete" vote is contradicted by the same user's subsequent request for a WP:SNOW close. Jowa fan (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:JRSpriggs[edit]

User:JRSpriggs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm generally loathe to nominate user pages for deletion, but I've been closely observing the activity on this page, as well as complaints and discussions that have taken place on the talkpage of this user, and regardless of good-faith edits made by User:JRSpriggs, it still seems to violate certain facets of WP:UPNOT. There are statements within which are per se polemic and divisive. I quote: "Muslims say "Islam" means submission to God. But God does not exist. What "Islam" really means is submission to Muhammad's words (the Qur'an) and example (the Hadith). By depriving Muslims of the option of thinking for themselves, he is interfering with their ability to live in the real world. Muslims should abandon Islam and accept atheism." Much of the content on this page has been carefully worded, likely so as not to appear deliberately polemic, yet they are still statements that editors of the aforementioned groups may take issue with. In fact, the vast majority of the content for this page reads like a personal manifesto detailing political, religious, and sociological viewpoints and doctrines. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This page should either be completely wiped clean or seriously trimmed to reduce areas of contention. WaltCip (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My original rationale notwithstanding, I hereby withdraw my nomination.--WaltCip (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that leaves me as the only "delete" vote, I think that means we can snow-close this as "keep". Any uninvolved parties familiar enough with the process to do so? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Islam is very good at suppressing freedom of speech by feigning offence. Polyamorph (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well intentioned concern for respecting their belief's I'm sure, but JRSpriggs makes it clear they reject all religion. As for singling out Islam in that particular passage, he makes it clear why, he's referring to radical Islam. Look people should have the right to say what they think. There is no personal attack here, he's not singling anyone out. As an atheist myself I take serious offence at how such statements can be censored in case they might "offend" someone. Polyamorph (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to single someone out to be offensive. If I say "People with red hair are stupid," then it's insulting, but it's not singling out anyone. You say he's referring to radical Islam but couldn't find that in the section; it talks about Islam in general, so it would offend Muslims, radical or otherwise. I agree that people have a right to say whatever they want, even if it does offend people, but it's a big internet and they can put it somewhere else. WP:SOAPBOX is applied somewhat judiciously on user pages, but I think the line should be drawn where comments are going to turn people away from the site.--RDBury (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone writes "Black people are lazy and need to be disciplined", would you (Polyamorph) defend that by saying that the writer makes it clear he's referring to indolent black people, and that industrious ones who feel offended should get a life? Is Spriggs really only referring to the minuscule minority of fundamentalist Muslims? Then why doesn't he say so? What he really means is: "I hate Muslims, in general, without any restriction or qualification".  --Lambiam 19:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the place to go into detail about it, since I've expressed my standpoint and you've expressed yours. But he does make it clear he is referring to radical muslims, if you read the passage, it's at the start. He isn't saying he hates muslims, you can't imply that because it's just patently false. What he writes is how a lot of atheists think about ALL religions in general. Polyamorph (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to this: "According to the Washington Post (8/22/2010 page A8), radical Somali imam Abdulrahman Abdullahi declares..." pretty clear to me he's talking about radicalism. Like I said, don't suppress freedom of speech in defence of protecting those who may be offended. Muslims may be offended by the pictures of Mohammed that wikipedia hosts, but they are not censored. Why? (it's a rhetorical question). Polyamorph (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2011 (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.


More