The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, per vote stacking and proposed "nonsensical votes". Cbrown1023 talk 00:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad as a diplomat[edit]

I am nominating this page for deletion because it is unencyclopedic and I feel the content is too biased to ever be redeemable. The writing of the article is done so as to make Mohammed to look like a saint, in propaganda form, and editors on the page have routinely and abusively edit warred to keep out any factual information that is not flattering to their "prophet." This is not a good thing for the encyclopedia and therefore should be deleted. Particularly problematic are a lack of reference to groups with which Mohammed later broke treaties, a lack of information on problems within the various documents themselves, and a continual claim that Muhammad was solely responsible for changes in the region which is not backed up by fact. The whole article is the same sort of rampant whitewashing of the military expansion of the Islamic lands and conversion by the sword which were Mohammed's primary methods. RunedChozo 18:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:POINT nomination. user tagged this article with ((totallydisputed)) but has refused to ever substantiate why he did so, despite repeated requests. similarly, there has been very little rationale given in the nom as to why it should be deleted. ITAQALLAH 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The user posting this continues to refuse to promise to follow the rules of Wikipedia, a necessary promise I have asked for due to his edit warring and abusive false edit summaries in the past. RunedChozo 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: As for WP:POINT claim, I did not nominate this for any reason other than that I think it is a horrid, unencyclopedic article that should be deleted. RunedChozo 19:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Firstly, any one is welcome to change the article which I believe is already very good written with many references. Secondly the topic is encyclopedic and Muhammad article is tooo long to have all those things there. Lastly, the user who had nominated for deletion is confirmed socket puppet. --- ALM 18:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Attacking the messenger is not a valid response. Please desist in using debate tactics that aren't even valid in first grade, especially since you were part of a lynch mob last time. Secondly, the article is beyond redemption and needs deleting. RunedChozo 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know you but your page has a big banner on it. I just said what the banner was saying. However, saying part of mob certainly not an attack? huh --- ALM 18:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My page has a lying banner put there by people trying to harass me, nothing more. RunedChozo 18:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Big problems with Runed Chozo's justification.Bless sins 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...to make Mohammed to look like a saint..." Diplomacy has nothing to do with "saint"hood. three is no such thing as "good dipomacy" and "evil diplomacy".
"editors ... have ... edit warred to keep out any factual information". Then file RFCs, take your case to mediation, and actively debate with the users on the talk page. This article has not seen debate since almost a month (19 Jan - 14 Feb).
"conversion by the sword which were Mohammed's primary methods". Seems like you have a very POV agenda of your own, one that is no less than the POV you accuse others of.

Lastly, you shouldn't say "abusively edit warred" when it has been shown on your talk page that you have used sockpuppetry for ill purpose.

Three editors, all members of the Muslim Guild, are the first posters. Coincidence? I do not know. I see coincidence every day. I don't TRUST coincidence one bit. Backroom vote stacking seems likely. I've not contacted anyone for this outside of the proper notice on the page and the AFD page.RunedChozo 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no "Muslim Guild," and i'm not a member of any "Muslim Guild." ITAQALLAH 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirects from "Wikiproject Islam: The Muslim Guild" So you renamed yourselves to hide your POV grouping better, big fat hairy deal. RunedChozo 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Muhammad, Muhammad before Medina, Muhammad in Medina, Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca. The title of the page causes POV issues, as every event described on the page carries with it an accompanying debate about whether Muhammad was behaving "as a diplomat" in the given situation. By its title, the page asserts the POV that many of Muhammad's actions were fundamentally aspects of diplomacy-- contradicting the opposing POV that Muhammads actions were, say, military conquests or religious conversions. Merging into the other pages will allow us to present all POVs without asserting one over the other. --Alecmconroy 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful content per Alecmconroy. Description of the events discussed in this article as diplomacy is problematic for POV reasons and in most cases constitutes original research. For instance, Constitution of Medina found a place in the article on the basis that one source says Muhammad showed great "diplomatic skill" in that instance. Editors have pointed out that one can show diplomatic skill without being a diplomat, for example, in setting a family quarrel. There are similar issues with other events included in that article. Beit Or 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Constitution of Medina is described by Lewis as an act of "skillful diplomacy" (The Arabs in History p. 39), the Encyclopedia of Islam describes it as an example of Muhammad's "diplomatic skill." other academics tend to describe it similarly, using words synonymous to diplomacy. ITAQALLAH 11:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, no good reason to delete has been presented, and the article is intresting in it self. --Striver - talk 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Beit Or. The article is hagiography and the title is offensive. Arrow740 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The subject is too important not to have its own article. The name of the article only indicates the subject, not the conclusion that must be drawn about whatever diplomacy Muhammad may or may not have engaged in. POV problems alone aren't enough reason for deletion, and there's a different solution for that and for lack of sourcing. (Even if the article only had the Koran as a source, it would still be useful and it could always be improved.) We're going to have disputes over Islam no matter how we organize the articles about Muhammad. In a religion with Jihad, the topic of Muhammad and diplomacy has got to deserve it's own article. Noroton 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Muhammad had ever engaged in diplomacy instead of his preferred methods then the article would be warranted. The POV that he was a diplomat is merely that. Arrow740 05:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Muhammad as a diplomat" might be construed by some as making him seem diplomatic when that seems to be in dispute. Even though I think the title shouldn't be seen that way, if enough people do see it that way it's a problem. Would "Muhammad's foreign relations" work better?Noroton 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All he did was tell people to obey him and kill the ones that didn't. Seriously. Arrow740 07:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

most academics concur that there are numerous episodes where he assumed the role of diplomacy, whether that was with other rulers, other tribes, or even his own followers. your opinion seemingly remains unsupported by respected academics. ITAQALLAH 11:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is not supported by sources. As already pointed out, the description of the article's events as diplomacy is original research; POV at best. Beit Or 12:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yet you yourself have conceded previously that a number of the events described in the article are indeed examples of diplomacy. academics consider things like the Constitution of Medina and the Treaty of Hudaybiyya as examples of Muhammad's diplomacy/political aptitude. if there is a particular academic POV you think is missing, you have yet to specify (and have not done so for a number of months). ITAQALLAH 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misrepresentation of my views. In particular, I've always insited that the passage from one source talking about his "diplomatic skill" supposedly showed in the Constitution of Medina was not about diplomacy as conducting international negotiations. That was a figurative passage taken out of context. You seem to admit, though, the rest of the article does not have even such a flimsy basis. Beit Or 13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution was unilateral lawgiving, the other treaty was after a loss and he evenually broke it. Arrow740 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset>well, as far as i can remember, there were a few sections you considered valid examples of diplomacy (as per your GA comments). i suppose that Lewis' statement that i provided above concerning the constitution is another "figurative passage taken out of context"? i believe that all the events cited in the article are appropriate examples of diplomacy. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - what's next? Christ as a Masseuse? This would be very appropriate and thought-provoking on an Islamic or Theologic wiki, but I can't really justify it on Wikipedia without justifying a lot of other esoterica. --Action Jackson IV 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) After review, I'm going to go with Delete or substantially rewrite - the primary sources / documentary evidence should definitely be elaborated upon. I'm still not wholly convinced that this is not Original Research, nor am I convinced in the factual accuracy. As such, the tone of the article should strive to present this as a school of thought (as opposed to historic fact) until convincing documentary evidence can prove otherwise. I still think the article would do better in a theology-themed wiki, though. --Action Jackson IV 05:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep However much I disagree with much of this article, it has substantial content to at least merit a re-write. --Hojimachong^talk _con 05:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : If a person is looking good in an article then is it necessary to add some trash to the article to make that person look good+bad ??? Is this a peroblem why people look good? If you are beautiful then is it necessary you put some mud on your face to make it NPOV? I wonder if NPOV has become the babbling disease of some wikipedians? (and would you take my argument to be at least partially true?) VirtualEye 06:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "trash" is necessary. In your eyes Muhammad may be perfect; however, others see him as quite the opposite. Both must be expressed in the form of opinion in order to make the article neutral. --Hojimachong^talk _con 06:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and request immediate close per WP:SNOW. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete per Kirbytime. (really per Alecmconroy). Αργυριου (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Alecmcconroy, Beit Or. There is some useful material here, but the thematic organization of the article is unencyclopedic and inherently POV. For example, while the Constitution of Medina is presented as a triumph of diplomacy, the fact that the Jews of Medina were exiled or slain soon after it is said to have been proclaimed was excluded on the basis that this didn't count as him acting "as a diplomat."Proabivouac 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:do you also thus believe that similar thematic organisations in terms of Muhammad as a general, Muhammad's slaves, Muhammad and the Jews, are "unencyclopedic and inherently POV"? it's quite clear that academics agree upon certain instances where Muhammad engaged as a diplomat and used political discourse as opposed to military action. i see nothing wrong with a topical organization on an intricate subject. ITAQALLAH 18:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speady keep The topic of the article is encyclopedic. --Aminz 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin - Arrow740 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in attempted votestacking by informing editors of a known and specific viewpoint.[1][2][3][4] ITAQALLAH 14:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate itaqallah's report, but the reason I did so was because of the request to end debate citing WP:SNOW. Arrow740 17:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surely you must know that that's not a valid justification. ITAQALLAH 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah, informing a relatively small number of people (especially if they've edited the article in the past -- and I'm not going to bother to find out) is not against policy and is only "controversial" to a degree. Keep in mind there's no demonstrable consensus here for delete, so relax. I know it's easier said than done, but turn the heat down, keep cool, and you might find you like the ultimate results: likely an improved article. Noroton 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

informing a partisan audience of an AfD is regarded as votestacking (see WP:CANVASS). these are all editors whom Arrow740 shares a specific viewpoint with, as is evident to anyone who frequents the disputes on Islam-related articles. regardless, thank you for your comments and advice. ITAQALLAH 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is serious question as to whether you in the Muslim groups have done the same thing in your own back channels. This seems routine behavior for you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.50.47 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge or Keep While your initial point may be true, I'm relunctant to vote to remove an entire article because of POV. It is sourced and has a good deal of material that should be included in some form. If there is a difficulty in the POV area and your edits are being locked out through numbers, a NPOV tag should be applied instead of deletion and hopefully over time a balanced presentation can be achieved. 66.75.8.138 03:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or seriously rewrite: Very pro-Muhammad point of view, with very little criticism. I doubt it can be rewriten neutrally. --Boris 1991 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- can you specify which academic opinions have been neglected, apparently making it biased? ITAQALLAH 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extermely POV pushing article. This article is the same thing as praise to Muhammad in disguise.--Sefringle 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- putting this to one side, could you please explain what about the article is "extremely POV pushing"? as i have asked throughout this whole AfD, which academic opinions here have been neglected? and are apparent neutrality issues justification for deleting an article? ITAQALLAH 03:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lets see- the opening sentence, for example. The mention of verse 48:18, the giving excessive weight to the "convert to Islam" letters Muhammad sent (which has little to do with diplomacy). The article also depicts Muhammad's enemies as evil, which is very POV pushing. Anything relevant in the other sections has already been mentioned in the Muhammad article. The article is very POV pushing indeed. --Sefringle 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i see nothing wrong with the opening sentence.
communicating with other heads of state is diplomacy, plain and simple.
the relevance of 48:18 is mentioned by the Encyclopedia of Islam.
"The article also depicts Muhammad's enemies as evil" that's a very general statement. please be more specific.
you haven't argued what academic opinions have been neglected, you have simply outlined issues where the article is not in conformity with your viewpoint. as you may understand, that is subjective judgement. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by muhammads enemies are depicted as evil is this article gives the impression muhammads enemies were violent, war starters who treated the muslims like dirt, while saying Muhammad tried to work with the muslims. That claim is very POV pushing, as it is trying to instill sympathy for muslims. The opening sentence further helps push foreward that POV. Reguarding 48:18, I said it was POV pushing, not irrevelant. --Sefringle 04:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm getting the feeling that when you say "POV pushing", you actually mean "not in conformity with my POV". i didn't know an academic publication, perhaps the most comprehensive and scholarly on this subject, would be regarded as "POV pushing" also. ITAQALLAH 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I don't care if there's a POV problem, the subject is notable. Everyking 07:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I think we should keep this articles for the following reasons:
- The subject is notable and written well.
- The Article is written with many references.
- The subject and format of the article is encyclopaedic.
- Muhammad article is too long to be merged with this article.

Also i think that fact that the nomination was made by a socket puppet make this whole discussion strangePalestine48 12:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

outside comment: Taking count, the tally was 8 "keep", 4 "delete", with substantial and not unjustified questions of vote-stacking given that EVERY keep vote just "happened" to be a Muslim editor at that point, at the time when a Muslim editor filed a very bad-faith "SNOW" justification to try to quick close it. This continues to present time: 90% of the "keep" votes are former members of the supposedly disbanded Wikiproject Islam: The Muslim Guild. These users are now trying to attack those who are voting the other way. Wikipedia has serious bias problems with organize POV gangs and this is turning into a classic example of how they work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.50.47 (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: per this IP's contributions and general behaviour, he seems to be related to the indef-banned RunedChozo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ITAQALLAH 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: from your contributions, you seem to accuse anyone you can of this. It must be nice to have such an easy accusation to throw around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.50.47 (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per Alecmconroy above. Whilst neutrality concerns on their own are not enough to delete an article, there does seem to be significant problems over what constitutes 'diplomacy'. And I do think that the participants in this discussion need to calm down a little. Hut 8.5 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move Muhammad's article is too long and because there are numerous issues about Muhammad, there should be separate article in each case and we can't delete or merge them. But on the other hand originally Muhammad was a prophet and not diplomat. Thus I prefer to move this article to "Diplomatic affairs of Muhammad".--Sa.vakilian 20:08, 19 February 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.