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The result of the discussion was Speedy keep: nomination withdrawn, and no deletion recommendations (non-admin closure).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]

• (Weak) Keep. I agree that many of the things mentioned on this userpage appear not to be directly related but on the other hand, such lists are very useful for others since it shows clearly what views this user has and thus allow them to easily check whether this user is biased when editing a certain topic. UPNOT and SOAP are clearly important but they are also rules where the person of the editor in question actually can make a difference. For a regular, much-editing contributor like JRSpriggs I think it's possible to assume good faith that he made those statements to pre-empt any biased editing or to reveal his biases for everyone to see while a new editor with no other edits than those can be assumed to indeed wish to use Wikipedia for soap-boxing. I believe it's possible that those statements are just a longer version of what others use userboxes for; his willingness on the talk page to heavily trim those statements after asked to by Will Beback (talk · contribs) also attests to the fact that he wishes to act within our policies and guidelines, so I don't think deletion is required. Regards SoWhy 18:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As I said on my talk page, "And is my user page not intended to represent me to those who want to learn about me? Anyone who is uninterested in my ideas is free to ignore it.". JRSpriggs (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It is an excellent userpage down to "Other issues". Above this section header, he has a nice clear introduction to himself, and then a number of brief but well articulated positions. Below "Other issues", it changes to become largely bald faced assertions. I suggest to James that he work on the presentation of his "other" views. The amount of material on the userpage is quite reasonable considering James' total contributions to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep oh, please. Is this serious? To state the obvious, this is a user page. It doesn't have to be neutral or even accurate. There is so much more work to be done on Wikipedia, but this page isn't part of it.-- Taku (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep lets not waste time even discussing such trivial matters, we have an encyclopedia to build! We can all have a userpage, it doesn't have to adhere to the policies relating to article content. Provided they don't contain personal attacks or copyvio users are generally free to manage the content on their own webpage freely. I don't see any reason valid to delete. Polyamorph (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if some of the content on JRSpriggs's user page violates WP:UPNOT, deletion is not the answer. Ozob (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a user page, and the editor has the right to present himself and his views. While his views are distorted by the usual American black-and-white view on everything in the world, and his taking by word what a radical says about his distorted interpretation of Islam is exceptionally naive, I defend his right for freedom of speech – on his user page, that is. Nageh (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the page is useful. If you write about your personal ideas and beliefs on your userpage, then when editing articles with peope who hold different views, people can better understand your position. Count Iblis (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with Count Iblis, but a user page is a fine place to expose one's opinions about the world, for one thing because it makes it clear to other editors where one's biases and non-neutralities are. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Even with the trim the section on Muhammad would still be offensive to most Muslims. I happen to live in southeast Michigan and have had Muslim coworkers, and it bothers me to think that they might see these comments on WP when I've recommended the site to them. So I'd request that the entire section be removed (even the title is offensive). I'm not trying to say no one should ever criticize Islam, but it should be possible to make a point without insulting a large segment of WP readers.--RDBury (talk) 16:19, 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]

• Note: this discussion has been listed at the following WikiProjects: [1], [2], [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• While deleting the whole page is overkill, the offending paragraph strikes me as disappointingly stupid. The (lack of) logic is not essentially different from this: 'Roman Catholics believe they should obey God's Law. But God does not exist. What "God's Law" really means is that they must obey a guy who calls himself the Pope of Rome. By depriving Roman Catholics of finding out for themselves what is right and wrong, he is interfering with their ability to live a pleasant life in the real world. Roman Catholics should abandon Catholicism and embrace hedonism.' Why is it again the Muslims who are singled out as a target? Why not Hindus or Mormons, shouldn't they equally be informed of what their convictions "really" mean?  --Lambiam 17:34, 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]

• Speedy Keep I don't see why this user page should be deleted. Agree with Count Iblis that the page is useful because it clearly shows his beliefs and biases.--В и к и T 18:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. While having a modest amount of non-project information in one's userpage is to be expected, it's not intended to be used as a forum or platform for large amounts of material unrelated to Wikipedia (per WP:USERPAGE). Most of the material on this page is detailed opinion essays that would be better off on a personal web site linked from the userpage, not on the userpage itself. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since JRSpriggs is an editor then it makes sense that he has a user page. If the contents are an issue and violate WP policy, then it should be brought to WP:ANI where he could be asked to delete the content of the page or failing that he would be blocked and the content blanked. TFD (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • AN/I handles problematic behavior, not content disputes. They'd send it right back here. This actually happens pretty often over there. Only material that's really blatantly offensive/meritless results in unilateral admin action from what I've seen. Any claim that JRS's material falls into those categories would be very quickly contested, based on the reactions above. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:37, 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.