Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Islam In The World

Point of View exercise - removing POV content leads to blank pages. Does not and cannot reasonably ever be a text box suitable for WB Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The Wikibookian that was working on the project was not welcomed into the project and no attempt was made to address any issue prior to the proposal for VFD, this should be avoided if we are attempting to build up a community. --Panic (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This book is quite ironic given U.S. president Obama's speech requesting that people of the world find a common ground to get along with one another. Propaganda like "Non Muslims are allowed to enter the country even thought the Phrophet (sic) Mohammad said before his death to get them out of the Arabic peninsula" on the Saudi Arabia page does nothing to further that goal. Given the content on the pages and what was on the USA page before it was blanked, I'd even propose that this book would encourage terrorism. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Hold on: I like where the book is now heading, with points now being stated to be based on the Quran rather than being put forth as though they were someone's personal point of view. The author is eager to make the changes needed for it to be from a neutral point of view. The book has not had much time to mature, either. In light of all this and comments made above, I am changing my position to one of wait-and-see.-- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Lists things that the author approves of and disapproves of, presented in an inherently POV way. No realistic possibility that this could ever be transformed into anything NPOV. --Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now willing to wait and see. --Pi zero (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - please don't delete I wonder do you want to delete because you didn't like what it's their? where is freedom of speech that you claim? I just started the book I didn't support my claims with evidence yet? should I look over my shoulder every time I write something, and be afraid that my work might be deleted before I get time to prove it? I'm ready to support every word I say. again the book isn't ready yet. I will work on it. if what I mentioned was true would you accept it? your organization (like HRW and Amnesty) is claiming that we violate the human rights and keep moaning about it and they don't stop trying to change our systems, can't I write about that? can't I write what is mentioned in our books? Do you think terrorist will take their order from wikipedia page?

please tell me... الحارث بن همام (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, this is not about censorship. Wikibooks is a forum for educational textbooks, and in order to serve that purpose effectively, it has to limit itself to works consistent with that purpose. The basic policy page about this is Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks. In this case, we've been referring especially to "NPOV", which is short for "Neutral point of view". We don't decide whether or not to remove things on the basis of whether or not we like them. --Pi zero (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - The book is still very empty and it can be argued that as it is it can be classified as humanistics/social sciences project (depending on how it will be evolving) and we do need some books on that section.

I've examined the complains and addressed some. If people are willing to be productive and cooperate this work can be made to be very informative, and a platform for mutual understanding, as is I'm willing to support a keep to see how it evolves.

I also have the opinion that the book should be renamed to a explanatory title "Islam in the world" or something that relates to the content. --Panic (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on renaming the book الحارث بن همام (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think about defining a proper scope of the book first (taking in context the criticism made here, there were indeed some NPOV issues exposed, creating unsubstantiated list of issues was prone to raise problems) and then advance some ideas for names.

If it helps create an area on your userspace to build up the content in a way that when you add it to the book it doesn't become objectionable.

I will gladly help selecting a few topics that would like to see covered/clarified about the Islamic culture, economics (the banking systems for instance) and politics (the differences in structure from occidental democracies, Israel and USA, the Palestinian issue, terrorism etc..) there are many interesting subjects that could be covered. I will try to continue to contribute to the work. --Panic (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete It's not a textbook, it's a religious soapbox rant. ---PurplePieman (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This assertion is incorrect, even on the unrevised version it was a stub with a few issues on the NPOV. It still is only a stub and the NPOV issues seem to have been addressed. This types of conflict could and should have been addressed first with the contributors on the works talk page before a VFD unless the subject matter is not fit for the Wikibooks project, this doesn't seem to be the case. We have some works on religion like Biblical Studies, Christian Theology, Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book, Christianity, Yeshua and Kabbalah, Satanism, The Ten Commandments, History of Islam, Islam Way of Life and Koranic Law of Nature to name a few.

For what I gather from the text this book and what makes it an interesting project is that it doesn't seem to be only about the religion but about the interaction with policies and social/cultural aspects around the world from an Islamic perspective. I'm not stating that this work will evolve to be useful but as is we should give it a chance... --Panic (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamic perspective", or "Islamic bias"? For one thing, naming it "God's Rights' doesn't exactly scream NPOV. I only see one side in this book...the Islamic side. ---PurplePieman (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the book seems to be about the Islamic perspective it only becomes bias if the content inhibits impartial judgment from the reader. The creator of the project is willing to fix the problems if addressed in a non aggressive manner, but the issue is not about this particular author/editor but the book project as a concept. You are free to participate and help build it up so to avoid NPOV violations... --Panic (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point is that covering only the Islamic perspective when the book title is "God's Rights" makes it biased. There is the Jewish perspective, the Christian perspective, etc. to what God's Rights are too. There are two possible solutions to that problem. Change the scope of the book with the intent to cover every religion's perspective, or change the name of the book to better reflect its scope and audience. You previously suggested the book should be renamed and the only contributor seems to be open to changing the name, so that solution should probably be done. "Islam In The World", "Understanding The Islamic World" and "Understanding The Rights Of Islamics" would all probably better reflect the scope of the book. Even with that the book would need to be sure not to limit itself to only one Islamic faction's perspective. --darklama 11:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to rename the book to "Islam In The World". what should I do to rename it?. thanks for your help all الحارث بن همام (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move link next to the edit and history links that is used to also rename pages. I've already gone ahead and renamed the book for you this time. --darklama 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see it now. Thanks for doing it الحارث بن همام (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I was ready to delete too until I read Panic's assessment. I think this book does have potential, but the authors do need to be very careful about maintaining a NPOV. It will not be easy. --Jomegat (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: What is the clearly non-advocacy objective of this book? (It really needs to explicitly embrace such an objective, otherwise advocacy will be its naturally stable state.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too early to say for sure, but I think the non-advocacy objective of this book might be to compare how Islam is perceived by various countries and organizations, and how Islamics are treated in different parts of the world. --darklama 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep and rename per Panic's suggestion. It appears this is more of an analysis of countries, organizations, and people against the Koran's teachings. As stated by Darklama, this book will be treading a thin line on NPOV unless it takes on all of the Muslim views, not just author's view/interpetation of the Koran. It appears the contributor is foreign, so the ability to properly articulate a NPOV may be hampered. The community can assist with the development of the book, which is its purpose. Retropunk (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep active and still developing book with clear goals. If you're still concerned later then nominate it again.--ЗAНИA  ^talk 22:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment For this book to succeed in the long run (as we all have great hopes it will), its goals will have to evolve to be more clearly NPOV than they are now. The objective now stated on the main page begins with the words "point of view". --Pi zero (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]