Talk:The muslim program

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... I'm using the page to describe the founding tenets of the Nation of Islam. It is not meant as an advertisement but as a link from the Nation of Islam page to accurately describe an organization's principles. I referenced "The Muslim Program" in my NOI entry and saw that a linked page did not exist so I was attempting to create one.

"Promotion" applies not just to articles on companies, but also to ideas or ideologies. An article about "The Muslim Program" might be appropriate for Wikipedia if it meets the policies on notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view, but an article in which more than 90% of the text is a verbatim copy of a group's platform statement is not appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I quoted verbatim as I didn't want to place my own interpretation on another group's directly stated views. I will re-write the page to simply discuss their ideas and the purpose of the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostoncommon (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add your own interpretation. That is original research, which is not allowed. Any and all claims made in this article – especially if they pertain to living people – must be referenced to a reliable source. Click on any of the blue links in any of my comments for additional information. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfair, Kuyabribri. Bostoncommon puts up an unbiased example of knowledge without any interpretation or promotion, but that is promotion. Then if the author puts up anything interpretive, be it theirs or otherwise, it is considered original research. Bostoncommon used primary source documentation and it doesn't get any better than that. Please cite the 90% figure and guidelines therein so that we might be able to take them into account. SignoreMachia (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"90%" is a number I made up, but my argument was based off the Wikipedia policy on copyrights, as well as the core content policy of neutral point-of-view. The version of the article in which the overwhelming majority consisted of a verbatim copy-paste is a copyright violation, and even if the text is not copyrighted or the copyright owner agrees to license the text to Wikipedia, such a large scale copy-paste is almost never appropriate for Wikipedia. In this case, where the copy-pasted text completely drowned out any other text on the subject, a reasonable, uninvolved person could have easily interpreted the article as an organization using Wikipedia to promote their agenda or ideology. That is why I tagged the article as promotional. Now that I understand the intent of this article, I do not intend to tag it as such again, but I must insist that that text not be re-added on that large a scale. You are welcome to include brief excerpts of the text in direct quotes for the purposes of providing commentary (see the policy on quotations as well as my comment below).

Also I never said that no interpretation is allowed. If an interpretation of this text has been published in reliable, independent sources, you are welcome to include it with a citation to that source or sources. You and I are not allowed to publish our own interpretation unless that interpretation has been published in reliable, independent sources, though in the latter case you would need to go over the policy on conflict of interest.

Wikipedia is not a re-publisher of original source material. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means that it only contains a summary of what is covered in secondary sources. Linking to a page that contains original source material is acceptable and in this case is welcome. If the source material is not copyrighted, then it may be appropriate for Wikisource. I am not an editor on that wiki and am not familiar with their policies, so you would have to check before attempting to publish the material there.

I hope that addresses your concerns. Click on the blue links throughout any of my messages for additional information, and let me know if there are any further questions. You may also place a {{helpme}} tag with a specific question on your own user talk page; such a request will be responded to by a team of volunteers of which I am not a part. If you still disagree with me, we can also request the assistance of other uninvolved editors. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]