Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

new compromise

I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page. It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page. All images stay per default visible.

The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.

Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image, those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad can just click the link in the ambox and read our article with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.

Unfortunately this solution needs some additional javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).

If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll need to copy my monobook.js to your monobook.js. You can do so by adding

{{subst:js|User:Raphael1/monobook.js}}

to your monobook.js. Remember that you need to bypass your cache after saving. Afterwards you should be able to see my compromise at User:Raphael1/Muhammad

Before we implement this in the main article space, we should think about a more general approach, something like a Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox). And we'd need some help from WP engineers to add the javascript code to common.js.

What do you think about that compromise?--Raphael1 16:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on previous discussions, I don't think there's a good chance it'll pass. We can't have disclaimers in articles, and both image hiding templates and imageless versions of the article have both been resoundingly deleted at AFD. Will ^(talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think, that it violates the Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles style guideline as it does not duplicate any of the information found in the five official disclaimer pages. Regardless of what others might think about my compromise, what do you think? --Raphael1 16:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how an empty ambox is "offering our readers to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click." I also don't see how this is a "compromise". How is a giant orange exclamation mark not a disclaimer? Amboxes are for marking articles that have issues which need to be fixed. If you have to adapt your stylesheet for this to even work, why not ask people to configure their stylesheet to not display the images directly (WP:NOIMAGE)? Raphael, I really don't think we are looking for a compromise. The issue has been debated to death, and the consensus is about as rock solid as any consensus is going to be on Wikipedia. The discussion merely keeps going because of the petition thing, and because some people can't stop beating a dead horse. I commend you for looking for a technical solution. This is discussed at WP:NOIMAGE. I do invite you to help all complaining Muslims configure their browser or stylesheet to their liking, case closed. dab (𒁳) 16:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You will only have to adept your stylesheet for this to work until a WP technician implements a Template:CTbox that mimics my hack. Please read my post again, if you want to see my demo version. How can you claim a "rock solid consensus", when there is a petition with 300.000 signatures and almost constant edit warring over the images? WP:NOIMAGE is neither a solution for readers w/o account nor for readers who just don't want to see depictions of Muhammad. If you are not interested in discussing this matter, you can always go somewhere else. --Raphael1 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The petition is signed by people with no knowledge of Wikipedia policies. It's irrelevant. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are arrived at by consensus. Debate on specific articles takes place within these guidelines. If you want to change the present consensus, you want to edit Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles. If you succeed in changing consensus on that guideline, you may then return to Talk:Muhammad and argue for a disclaimer in agreement with the new guideline. Before the Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is altered, there is simply no reason to discuss disclaimers here. And yes, people who want to read Wikipedia's Muhammad article and not see the images (how many can there be? All the image-protesters surely think they know all about Muhammad already?) can follow the instructions at WP:NOIMAGE to configure their browser not to display any images, no account needed: problem solved. dab (𒁳) 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreement with dab - this would be seen as trying to runaround policy and would be removed on sight. If you want to add this, you need to get the policy changed first and then apply the changed policy to this specific article. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me, where you can find my texts in any of the five official disclaimers? From: Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles#What_are_disclaimers.3F "For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages" and "Templates that provide content warnings but do not duplicate these disclaimers, such as {{current}}, {{disputed}}, or {{POV}} are permitted.". --Raphael1 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically covered by disclaimer area 5 - Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But I don't say anything like. Warning: This article contains images that some cultures restrict access to. My text reads: Even though Wikipedia is not censored, we do respect the religious sentiments of our readers. Do you claim, that Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer prohibits us from respecting the religious sentiments of our readers? Wouldn't that contradict WP:NPA which states that religious epithets are never acceptable or Wikipedia:Etiquette which states that Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion. It seems, that we are not only allowed to respect the religious sentiments of our readers, but even encouraged to do so. --Raphael1 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you are trying to twist what I am saying, so I'm done having a conversation with you - wikilawyer to your heart's content - the bottom line is that the community will never agree to your proposal, so it's not worth discussing on this article page. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you speak for the community? Your voice is worth as much as mine. I'm sorry, if I put words in your mouth, that wasn't my intention.--Raphael1 19:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

the community has said no to disclaimers. Want to revisit that discussion? Go to the guideline talkpage. See also Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. dab (𒁳) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to alter Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, because my box doesn't violate it. It doesn't disclaim anything. It just offers our readers to hide the depictions of Muhammad. And Wikipedia:Perennial proposals is entirely off-topic. --Raphael1 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You are effectively trying to use an ambox as a disclaimer. Wikipedia:Article message boxes are templates which go at the top of articles/sections, and identify problems or issues with the article. This is a WP:SNOW proposal. Have fun trying to implement it. dab (𒁳) 20:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all article message boxes identify problems. Some just point to a notice like Template:Current. I changed the icon to reflect that. dab, I'd really appreciate, if you'd tell me what my notice disclaims. And in respect to the Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles guideline, what information does my notice duplicate, that is already in one of the five official disclaimer pages? --Raphael1 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Snow? more like a nuclear winter resulting from it being nuked from space --Fredrick day (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't even looked at it. How could you know? Please let other editors decide for themselves.--Raphael1 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What's to decide? as soon as you move it into main space -someone will nom it for del and within two hours it will be gone (note this is my view on what will happen, so please don't lecture me on "let other editors decide" - I'm just telling you how I see this going down). However you try and spin it, you are trying to end run current policy - me and you can argue the toss about it all night but the real test is when you try and implement it - if you think there is going to be no problem, move it into main space and let's see what happens, my take is that it's DOA. Oh and I don't need to install it, I can read the disclaimer just fine by viewing the .js page. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when I say someone, I mean I (unless someone beats me to it). --Fredrick day (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you want to nominate it (the template that still doesn't exist) for deletion, I'd like to know beforehand, how you would explain your nomination. You keep on asserting, that it is a disclaimer, but you still haven't told me what it disclaims. And you haven't explained how "Even though Wikipedia is not censored, we do respect the religious sentiments of our readers." duplicates the information, that "articles may contain images that some cultures restrict access to."--Raphael1 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See here, I'm currently working on a more extensive version off-line. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you are fearing a slippery slope. What articles besides Bahá'u'lláh do you expect the template to be used? (Besides I never claimed, that we respect religions.) How does adding a message box circumvent censorship? Please work on the disclaimer assertion, because it still needs some justification.--Raphael1 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

because it still needs some justification I don't think it does and I'll let it ride at TFD when you move it into project space. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

well, I suppose the only thing at this point is ask Raphael1 to be bold and implement his piece. If Fredrick is right, it will be speedied by an uninvolved admin (per Templates that try to do the same should be removed from all mainspace articles and then speedily deleted at Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles) or else nuked by a regular TfD, and we'll just chalk it up as another iteration of a perennial proposal rejected once more. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What Template tries to do the same? If there is one, I can save work. --Raphael1 09:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just the same old thing, different approach. Jmlk17 09:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it the same old thing? It won't change the display of the images for you, does it? --Raphael1 09:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly the point, but I digress. It changes many things... the biggest being our issue with disclaimers. Let one little loophole go through (even if it won't and has no chance), and the entire system has an issue. No. Jmlk17 09:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Raphael, you've heard the arguments now. If you're not convinced, go ahead, implement it, suggest it on WP:VP/T. There is nothing left for you to discuss here. Either believe us and drop the idea, or implement it and see what happens. dab (𒁳) 13:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose- it's nice in theory as it's a way kind hearted of you to try to resolve the issue. But I believe the methodology is flawed, in execution, and in precedence. Anyone who uses the internet is aware that they might see things they don't like or agree with. That's the world we live in, you accept that or you don't.

As for the larger issue of the images. I feel one image is sufficient. More would be nice of course for "educational value" but I think at this point other wikipedians are just rubbing WP:NOT#CENSOR in the face of muslims. I'm not islamic I couldn't care less if muhammad was depicted or not. But I feel the level of depiction is being done out of malicious intent and with prejudice to those of islamic faith.

My suggestion is to show one image in the Muhammad article, tell muslims that wikipedia is not censored, and then don't add anymore out of respect. Really there's no other reason to depict muhammad, except in articles that directly relate to the controversy... articles like Depictions of Muhammad and that Dutch guy's cartoon (where I feel the image is directly relevant). Anyway, I don't believe in censorship, but neither do I feel you should completely flaunt disrespect in peoples faces and call it education (and that's what they feel your doing... as far as I understand it). Thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

I'd like to know the definition of "censorship" applied here. Censorship occurs when with reasonable amount of energy you can not get access to the information you are looking for. Removing images alltogether might be censorship but adding a note, or hiding the images does not seem to me to be censorship. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding a note would violate WP:No disclaimers. Hiding the pictures would constitute censorship by almost any definition, but even if it did not, there is an editorial consensus to keep the pictures. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I know there is an editorial consensus to keep the pictures; I am saying that censorship only applies only to some of the solutions and that should be explained on the relevant pages.

Hiding the pictures would not constitute censorship if their very existence is noticeable & accessible to readers --Be happy!! (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOIMAGE makes it clear that avoiding images one does not want to see is the responsibility of the individual viewing the article. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To address the point Aminz has raised: hiding/collapsing the images probably wouldn't constitute censorship, you are right. I'm not sure what the proper term for it would be. I think it would be opt-in display, whereas the consensus seems to be that "opt-out display" is the best way forward for the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be quite the precedent to hide images. We work as a no disclaimer site... no words, actions, nor persons are to add anything of the sort. Jmlk17 01:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Aecis^Brievenbus 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that to be a different issue altogether my friend. :) Jmlk17 01:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it? In one case, a group of people opposed showing images for medical/psychological reasons, in the other case, a group of people opposes showing images for religious reasons. In one case, the image is collapsed, in the other case not. I'm not saying I would favour collapsing the images of Muhammad, but it has happened before on other articles. It won't set a precedent, because the precedent had already been set. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, that's really bad. I never saw that before. I can't believe that's the consensus at that article. It really makes a hash of a lot of the arguments we've been making here. I can't see any reason why we can argue that collapsing Muhammad images with a spoiler here is unacceptable but that doing it at Rorschach is okay. The only difference is whose ox is being gored. Of course, the solution is not to collapse images here but to un-collapse it there... but I don't know if I feel like wandering into the middle of that long-running battle right now.—Chowbok ☠ 04:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

that needs to be dealt with - I'll check out the talkage and see why they have done that. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Been dealt with (although like here, that's sure to run and run). --Fredrick day (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Wikipedians who are in good faith looking for a solution that would allow "opt-in display" will need to look beyond the Muhammad issue. Wikipedia has very few core policies that are non-negotiable: WP:NPOV and WP:NOR/WP:V plus immediate corollaries like WP:DUE/WP:ENC. Wikipedia:No disclaimers is not a non-negotiable core policy, it is a style guideline subject to community consensus. Therefore, "pro disclaimer" Muslim Wikipedians need to come to see themselves as part of a larger "pro disclaimer" minority within the community (which notably includes the "no spoilers" people). They will need to think of moderate suggestions to soften the Wikipedia:No disclaimers guideline in ways that are not Islam-specific but address the whole spectrum of "objectionable content". Any such suggestion will need to be aware that the majority's objection to any such softening is due to very real concerns of a "slippery slope". It may be "this article contains an image of Bahaullah" today, and "click here to collapse Muhammad images" tomorrow, but who will stop other lobbies to go to "click here to opt out of content informed by the pro-evolution pov", "click here for a feminist language version of this article" or "click here to for an Afrocentrist version of this article" or "click here to show the Serbian flag instead of the Kosovo one" from there? Muslim Wikipedians need to understand that they are just one interest group among many, and evaluate their chances of influencing Wikipedia guidelines from that understanding. Your first address to initiate such a change is Wikipedia_talk:No disclaimers, not this page. dab (𒁳) 10:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Guardian article on Muhammad images

Wikipedia once again used Shia to justify images of Muhammad (SAW) where all Shia editors are against the images too. In fact we all (Muslims wikipedia editors) agree that there is not such tradition in Shia too. I will post Guardian to publish more details and truth about wikipedia ugliness. Until now enjoy their current article Guardian:Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet --- A. L. M. 10:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the observer, not the guardian. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this. Are you trying to encourage the removal of images? If so take it to the image subpage Talk:Muhammad/images, also take a look at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for some more reasons that the images are included. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bah... usual article. Same story, different date. Jmlk17 10:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But this time the author seems biased in its presentation of various arguments provided by the side arguing for deletion of the images. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I know all the FAQs. No need to talk any more on this. I will send emails to as many newspapers and magazines as possible. --- A. L. M. 11:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unable to find this source -

"its editors state: 'Wikipedia recognises that there are cultural traditions among some Muslim groups that prohibit depictions of Muhammad and other prophets and that some Muslims are offended when those traditions are violated. However, the prohibitions are not universal among Muslim communities, particularly with the Shia who, while prohibiting the images, are less strict about it."

However the article does go on to point out WP:NPOV and WP:Content_Disclaimer.--Garycompugeek (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the bit quoted sounds very similar to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#But doesn't this offend Muslims? Perhaps it was an older version and the exact wording has since changed? James086^{Talk | Email} 10:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My Frequently Asked Question

I'd like to add this question to the FAQ. Please provide some answer for it so that it can be posted in a neutral way to the FAQ page. After all, wikipedia is not censored. Thanks.

What about the restrictions on freedom of speech?

Q.What about the Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense" that is used to restrict freedom of speech: 1. There are non-consenting readers who might involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images when visiting Muhammad article; people who visit pornography articles do expect to see such images but Muslims do not have such expectations by the virtue of visiting this article. Another point is that if someone wants to get some information about Muhammad and googles "Muhammad", this article is the first website that comes up. 2. The informative value of the pictures would not be reduced if an opt-in display is shown. Censorship after all occurs when with reasonable amount of energy you can not get access to the information you are looking for. 3. Muslims, for obvious reasons, form a significant group of those who are likely to visit Muhamamd article AND a good portion of them experience "shock, disgust, or revulsion". 4. English language is the scientific language of time and because of that many from all around the world use this language to do research. So, the English encyclopedia particularly is not for people living in US or England 5. The reactions show that the intensity of offense for the offended editors is high (e.g. count the number of reverts per day, or the number of editors blocked for removing the images from the article).

--Be happy!! (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a neutral version (unlike the emotional leading question you ask):

A. Wikipedia is not censored THE END.

Fredrick day (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - for full transparency, I should state that this was originally posted to the FAQ, though I reverted (which was later re-reverted), suggesting it was more appropriate here (for reasons raised in the edit summary, and also on Aminz's talk page here. The user then moved it here of his own accord. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A. 1. There are no non-consenting readers. By coming to WP they consent to WP:Content_disclaimer.

2. Opt-ins are generally discouraged by WP:NDT as the community is afraid of the slippery slope: Opt-in for Serbian viewpoint on Kosovo, Opt in for Geo-Centric Universe, Opt in for US sucess in Iraq.

3. I'd be willing to put a stake on more non-Muslims visiting this page to look for information on Muhammad than Muslims looking for info. Muslims would probably know more about Muhammad due to culture and upbringing, and non-Muslims would know less. Since the goal of this site is to teach and inform, likely visitors are people with gaps in thier knowlege. Since non-Muslims know less tham Muslims about Muhammad, they would be more likely to visit.

4. English is a global language, but English language publications need not be global. See WP:Content_disclaimer and WP:NOT.

5. We mean no offense. While we are sorry they have taken offense, those who are offended should keep in mind that WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and WP:NOT#CENSORED. -MasonicDevice (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can't change our minds, changing our FAQ is unlikely to do any better. The content is freely licensed, so you are welcome to make your own copy on your own servers and not show anything you don't want to show. On our website, we have decided not to remove the pictures, you don't have to look. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not making it personal. I am simply trying to show the arguments presented and against the images faithfully. The conclusion drawn from the discussion is personal and as of now I understand where consensus is. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A change

I'd like to make this change to the above text. Please update the answer correspondingly. Thanks.

Muslims, for obvious reasons, form a significant group of those who are likely to visit Muhamamd article

-->

Muslims form a significant group of those who are likely to visit Muhamamd article because they would be interested to see and read what wikipedia has to say about Muhammad (like others, they might not do this more than once however). Furthermore due to the high rate of anti-Islam polemic in the internet, many Muslims who don't know much about the details of Muhammad's life may visit this article through goggle.

Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

there is no chance you are adding that - for example,Furthermore due to the high rate of anti-Islam polemic in the internet yeah, real netural POV there, no special pleading involved.

If you remove the special pleading, the inferences and your original research this is what we are left with "Muslims may visit this article". Why on earth, being a long-term editor, do you think those leading "wikipedia beats it's wife" types questions are going to accepted by the community or added to the FAQ? --Fredrick day (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can reformulate it to avoid "anti-Islam polemics"; but for the record one can easily cite many many academic sources that discuss anti-Islam polemics, one I remember was exactly about that on the internet websites. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

and what does that have to do with us, it's a cheap psychological trick to make an association between our article and what other sites do. In addition, Furthermore due to the high rate of anti-Islam polemic in the internet and many Muslims who don't know much about the details of Muhammad's life may visit this article through goggle is a complete non-sequitur, the first is unconnected to the second.

Do you POV pushers think we are just going to roll over if you keep flogging this dead horse?

would you accept

Christians form a significant group of those who are likely to visit Muhammad article because they would be interested to see and read what wikipedia has to say about Muhammad (like others, they might not do this more than once however). Furthermore due to the high rate of pro-Islam polemic in the internet, many who don't know much about the details of Muhammad's life may visit this article through goggle, thus we have to keep the images to satisfy their needs --Fredrick day (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to continue this line of discussion with you Fredrick. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do what you like but don't think you can try and inject POV that is transparently obvious into articles or FAQs and not get called on it. My loyalty is to the project not this article or it's editors. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add what you consider POV. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Break

If you would like to remove the section, please argue for it first here. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I also made one change here [1]. Please change the answer correspondingly.--Be happy!! (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The points covered there has been brought up many times on the discussions on the talk page of Muhammad if you were available here, Edgarde. That page is supposed to summarize that all and there is no point in not censoring the arguments. Feel free to improve the responses to the arguments. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remove this section. I have done so, and explained to you directly my reasons, which you have also heard from other editors. You are wikilawyering in order to defend your edits. This does not help the situation.

As I have explained in my edit summaries, which I presume you have read:

• The FAQ is (by definition) not the place to introduce new questions.
• The FAQ is (by definition) for consensus answers. It is not the place to ask questions, or to advance new arguments.

As pointed out above, you are injecting your POV into the FAQ. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record this is your first contribution here after your edit-warring.

The FAQ page has no definition and nobody can stop others from changing it(like other wikipedia pages). It is a place to add the frequently made arguments on the talk page of Muhammad, in support or oppose of the images. See the first sentence of the page.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not willing to apologize for not jumping through the hoops you impose in order to retain your edits. I have indicated in my edit summaries my reasons for removing this question (which included my own edits); I have also communicated directly to you on your Talk page. My reasons are consistent with concerns brought up by other editors, including Fredrick day, on this Talk page.

You have still not established a consensus for your adding your new question to the FAQ here, or anywhere that I can see. You are essentially WP:OWNing that section by granting permission for other editors to refine the replies, but insisting on retaining your leading and POV question.

Please remove your question. It does not represent the consensus of Wikipedia, so it is not reasonable to include on a page that gives advice to readers and editors new to this discussion. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can not see anybody objecting here to the answers given. That's how wikipedia consensus works. You make an edit, if someone objects to it, he/she should raise the objection clearly and specifically on the talk page. And then people discuss and make a change that makes all happy. If you think the answer given to the point is not enough and is lacking in something, you need to explain clearly what you want to be added or what you want to be changed. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that lesson. Please remove your FAQ item. It is leading and POV. It does not represent the consensus of Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. Nobody has objected to the response given to the point. If someone says that it is not enough, we can discuss it and the consensus can change. That's how consensus forms over time and changes over time. The community does not get together to answer a content dispute or anything like that.

And the question is an argument and is of course a point of view (like other questions mentioned) --Be happy!! (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have given you clear reasons which you have ignored, preferring instead to lecture me condescendingly about Wikipedia procedure. Please remove your FAQ item. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have given you clear reasons which you have ignored. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I also object to your additions to the FAQ, that is 3 editors who have objected, if you continue to add material to the FAQ a) without consenus and b) over the objections of fellow editors, then I will move to have a topic ban placed upon you. In addition, under no circumstances tell another good faith editor (such as Edgarde) where and what he cannot edit - there is no minimum service required on a page for a wikipedian editor to get involved and act - this is WP:OWN on your part, do not do it again. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Is a Frequently Asked Question a question which as been asked frequently by one user, or a question which has been asked frequently by many users? (note, I do not have an opinion for this question, I am just searching for the proper definition of a Frequently Asked Question, if any exist).

2. Isn't the correct answer the the question: Presuming freedom of speech, shouldn't the Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense" guide Wikipedia's choices? just no? I don't see any reason to involve Mr. Feinberg in any way, as he has (or should have) absolutely no influence on editing style on WP. That is what policies and guidelines are for, methinks. Iafrate (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1. It should be the latter.
2. You could say that. My very slight complaint about the question at issue is that the numbered sections don't really seem to flow from the lead, nor does the lead explain what Joel Feinbeg's "principle of offense" is. It seems that if you're going to invoke it, it should be sourced. The numbered questions and numbered answers seem relatively neutral. I'm not sure if numbered questions have been frequently asked, but it seems like they have been. -MasonicDevice (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on, this has gone a little too much...

First of all I am a muslim. These pictures were drawn by Muslims, and are not depicting our prophet in a bad way. Save your protesting to something that is really offensive. And keep this in mind, we cannot control the world, in other words The whole world doesnt follow the Islamic Shariia. Plus, you are making the whole Islamic world look as freedom suppressors. These pictures are little things that are here to stay, and the more you fight it, the more the whole world fights for keeping it. We should not make a problem for everything, I mean pick your fights, not just go fighting everything. This doesn’t make all of us look good.
Remember the whole Denmark issue, at first there were about 12 cartoons of Muhammad that were a little offensive...but then after the people rioted, burned flags, attacked embassies, threatened to kill the cartoonists.. another bunch of really offensive cartoons were made in response to the over reaction...so probably the over reaction made everything worse, not to mention our image... So take a second to relax, and think what you are doing will probably lead to...look at the bigger picture. I hope nobody gets offended by what I said. Regards, Abdallah (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Abdallah, I get your point. And I think you are right though not completely and entirely :) --Be happy!! (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In my time on Wikipedia I have experienced name calling, harassments and even death threats over issues as small as advertising ones blog. I would like to say that even though some of the Muslim community on Wikipedia has very strongly disagreed with me on subjects dear to their faith that they have never resorted to such tactics towards me. I have found that while persistent, and stubborn, they have been for the most part very polite.

Just wanted to say thank you for that. Reasonable people can disagree without resorting to nastiness, and while we do have a very significant disagreement it does seem we are dealing with reasonable people. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears obvious that any educated or intelligent Muslim realizes that this petition is just another instance of the Ummah, as represented by over-zealous and naive kids, shooting itself in the foot: as The American Muslim puts it, a "gift to those who seek every opportunity to decry Islam and ridicule Muslims". dab (𒁳) 06:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is probably some sort of over-reaction involved but I doubt that those who initially uploaded the images had found these to be good representations as a result of an honest research. Also I can not see why an opt-in image or a clear notice at the beginning of the article could not be provided. These do not seem to be inconsistent with wikipedia's main purpose which is enhancing access to information. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

you have a point. you just keep making it in the wrong place. See my comment above. It is correct that WP:NDA is not a fundamental non-negotiable policy. If you could abstract from your own Islamic issues and see the problem from Wikipedia's perspective, you will realize that what you want is alter consensus on WP:NDA. You are not the only one with this aim. You find yourself in the same camp as the people disagreeing with spoilers in articles. If you are at all interested in pursuing this within Wikipedia, I do not see what you are doing on this page, rather than compiling a decent proposal on Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles for which you think it might be possible to find consensus. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. As long as the readers are notified of the content of the article, they can exert their free will and make a choice as to what they want to do (e.g. not to follow or turn off the images all). I'll try to bring the matter to the Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles page and see if anything comes out of it. Meanwhile, I'll try to complete the FAQ page which argues for disclaimer or something else. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Solution?

I think it is possible to resolve this dispute without violating any of Wikipedia's rules (which by the way aren't as sacred as some of us think as wikipedia itself allows the occasional exception).

In the article, let us create a paragraph on "depictions of Muhammad(SAW)" and write text only about the depictions, and include a link to the article "depictions of Muhammad(SAW)" in the form "main article: depictions of Muhammad (SAW)". It is common practice to include a paragraph summarizing the content of another related article and provide such a link. That way, only those who want to view the depictions will visit that link. There is no need for a disclaimer then, the images are present but on a different article, so nothing's censored and no one is forced to see the images.

Configuring one's browser to not show images might be practical for regular wikipedians, but not for the first time / occasional visitor. Moreover, the proposed configurations cause the browser to not see any images at all from Wikipedia. Suggesting that as a permanent solution is just stupid.

Mushoo (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

being discussed, being dismissed as a solution, sorry. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Mushoo (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia call upon its editors to use common sense and even ignore certain policies if it helps improve or maintain wikipedia. a solution that does no harm to the article in question, pacifies protesters, does not censor or disclaim does certainly come under common sense. Can we please overcome our stubbornness to continue to hurt the feelings of many at no gain whatsoever. Wikipedia does not gain anything if depictions of Muhammad(SAW) are on the main article nor does it lose anything if they are on a separate article. The arguments for showing the images on the main page are pointless because they do not benefit Wikipedia in any way nor have basis in a legitimate reason for opposition. The offensive images of Jesus cited in the consensus are not on the main Jesus(AS) page by the way (though that doesn't mean that they should be transferred over there. I respect him too). Mushoo (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that the article does not benefit from the presence of images is incorrect. It is improved by them, and we would lose a lot by removing them. As for the images of Jesus you refer to, those are deliberately offensive images and as such do not belong on the main article; deliberately offensive pictures of Muhammad would similarly be inappropriate here.—Chowbok ☠ 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the "a lot" that we would lose by moving those pictures to another article? Delight at the indignation of others? I am not talking about removing them altogether. Why don't you understand? I am talking about removing them to another, easily accessible, existing article You do see that we should reach a compromise instead of a "solution" wholly tilted towards a particular group of editors, don't you? Mushoo (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And why would moving them to another article solve the problem? You are missing the point, this has neverbeen about the position of the images, it's about the fact that the they are displayed at all. When the images are moved and then the bandwagon moves onto the deceptions article - what's your answer then? The only reason that doesn't get hit at the same rate as this article is that the direct link hasn't been circulated in emails, on web forums etc. We will not censor wikipedia, so it's pointless moving the battleground to a different page but it will be just the same there. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"You do see that we should reach a compromise instead of a "solution" wholly tilted towards a particular group of editors, don't you?"

I hope you see the irony in the fact that you are proposing exactly what you say you don't want. That we enact a "solution" that is wholly tilted towards a particular group. What you propose is no compromise, but rather, as Fredrick says, simply a shift to a new battleground. There's already been more talk about the potential for another round of controversy surrounding our use of the Danish cartoons. Resolute 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

If this point is addressed on this page, I am unable to find it. If images of the Prophet Muhammad are considered by Muslim's themselves as distortions, perversions, inaccurate, untruthful, etc., then why would they be included on a page that is to be Wikipedia's definitive explanation of this historical person? Why not create an entirely different page for what is now becoming a small tome on the question of images, or add it to those already existing pages on that subject. Readers should be able to read the best, most accurate portrayal of this person. Excepting for a few apologetic spirits, some on this page, the entire Muslim community states that pictures of the Prophet Muhammad are NOT a knowledge of him (and this has been the answer for centuries). So then why does Wikipedia incorporate them here? Go back and look at the debate between Plato and Aristotle on images, and perhaps include this kind of debate in that context. Discuss this subject in relation to other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity. That is interesting. By putting them here, in stong objection to the experts(!) (the ummah, the Sharia, and/or Muslim scholarly community), we are spinning in sophomoric harangue. Pictures of the Prophet Muhammad are not educational, and that is according to the most foundational of Islamic writings. They are like drawings in public restrooms, but worse.Rtwise (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ where these precise points are addressed. dab (𒁳) 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How Muslims view these images is irrelevant. How scholars of art, art history, and history view them is relevant. The latter veiw them as depictions of episodes in Muhammad's life. Ummah and sharia don't matter. WP:VER and WP:NPOV do. Fork a site if you don't like it.-MasonicDevice (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, it seems preposterous to say “how Muslims view these images is irrelevant,” or “Ummah and sharia don’t matter.” Within the sea of art scholars from all over the world, it would be the Arabic, Islamic ones that would have the definitive word on their own culture/language/religion. Right? This statement makes no sense to me. Would we say American scholars view on their own culture/language/history is irrelevant to how America should be understood? I can not follow what you are saying, and sorry.? Rtwise (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

I don't know why I'm carrying on with you after you compared rare Turkish and Persian art to bathroom graffti, but it's WP and consensus is golden. Look at how the images are used (but don't look at the images if it offends you). No one is saying that these images are acurate representations of Muhammad. All the article claims is that they are historical depictions of episodes from his life, and examples of how he was viewed by medeival Muslims. This much verifiable, and it's all that is importatnt. That some or all Muslims believe them to be inaccurate/blasphemous/graffti representations of the prophet is, by policy, beside the point. The images are being used for the purpose of depicting events of Muhammad's life, are properly sourced, and the article as a whole leaves no doubt as to tradition or prohibition on depiction. I suggest you read up on WP:VER, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#CENSORED and check the article's sources.

You are rasing no new points my friend. Go back and read the nine pages of archived discussion. You'll learn alot about WP in there.-MasonicDevice (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to “carry on.” Again, there may be a place to discuss Turkey and Persian art, surely so, especially rare art. The point is that on the subject of Muhammad, the scholars of this particular person, his time/context, etc., have consistently stated that this is NOT how you understand this subject. If someone told you to tune into 98.5 FM, but you were at 99.5 FM, you miss the entire subject matter. Right? We are clearly told, by those who know, that pictures should not be used. Where is the problem? Words can be used to describe episodes of the Prophet Muhammad’s life, and have been. Use those, and leave the images out. Also, you should not presume that someone is “offended” in the argument that is raised here. I am addressing this from the point of view of knowing a subject. Bring us the truth, the “real” stuff. I think we need to “decolonialize the mind” here, and not press a model or agenda. What do the people themselves say about their own religion, history, culture? Let them tell you how it is done… Rtwise (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

This is spurious and circuitous…. There are some points to be answered here.Rtwise (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Your radio analogy is flawed. The station I'm listening to tells me everything on that other one and more. But then, I'm an NPR member so I'm down on 88.5 anyway.

Would you please admit that the pictures are well cited? We are told by those that know that these are depictions of the life of Muhammad. Others tell us that we should not look at pictures, as they are inaccurate and do not add to knowlege. They are dismissed because their scholarly opinion is irrelevant to what the pictures are and because their opinions on whether or not to use them to educate runs counter to WP:NOT#CENSORED, WP:NPOV (but is mentioned d/t WP:UNDUE), and WP:VER. They are also, in this case, wrong as these images were initally created and used to educate others. Clearly this prohibition has not always been so strong, and that should be noted and reflected in the article.

People are free to speak on their own culture so long as they keep WP:NPOV and WP:VER in mind.

Finally, that last bit wasn't an argument, and therefore was neither "spurious" nor "circuitous". It was advice and a request. -MasonicDevice (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

the crux of what you are saying here is that somebody at some point, obviously much later than the time of Muhammad and obviously in another culture and setting because of the clothing and depiction, said this was a picture/image of Muhammad… But, so what? The spirit and teaching of the entire Islamic religion are against what is done here, to depict the Prophet Muhammad through pictures. What is the problem with Wikipedia? Why can they not stick to the context, the epistemology of a subject? Also, clearly the percentage of Islamic oriented cultures that “use” images “to educate” is such a small minute percentage. To hold these few examples as the standard, as to what the vast majority of Islamic culture does use to educate and inform, is just shoddy scholarship. To be honest, I think there is a pathetic lack of awareness of what is going on here. Again, based on an earlier statement, do you think the world should ignore American scholars insight into American culture, because they are American? I think it is an uneducated statement to say that “Muslims, Ummah, and Sharia,” in short Islamic scholarship is “irrelevant!” With all do respect, it seems absurd to hold and print something like that.Rtwise (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Stil strawmanning, huh? I (and WP) hold that ummah and sharia are irrelevant. Cultural heirtage, customs and religious law have nothing to do with scholarship. GWB and some Americans would probably perfer that this article or this one be smaller, or absent, but WP doesn't cave to that either. Muslims scholars are a different matter entriely. They should not be excluded on any issue, but their propositions and claims should be weighed against scholars of other faiths and creeds on the scales of WP's policies. On this issue they make unverifiable or irrelevant claims, and are justly dismissed with respect to inclusion or exclusion of images. Their claims and traditions are noted and described in the article, and no one who reads it will leave it thinking that depection is common. Thus, NPOV is satisfied.-MasonicDevice (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is too much a priori here…you dismiss whole perspectives from the get-go, “ummah, sharia are irrelevant.” All/nothing thinking… “cultural heritage, customs, and religious law have NOTHING to do with scholarship.” It isn’t a matter of priviledging someone, simply because they said so. Some people know about things more than others...Rtwise (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

You're damn right there's a priori exclusion going on. It's called WP:NPOV. It basically prohibits writing an article from a culturally sensitive/specific point of view. Maybe that's bad scholarship, but it is completely and totally irrelevant. "This is maddness!" you exclaim. "This is Wikipedia!" I reply. If you don't like the policy, suggest it change over on Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view. You'll probably be tilting at windmills, but everybody needs a cause, right? You might affect change, and you'll definitely learn something about WP in the process. Good luck -MasonicDevice (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I read that page. In my judgment this point is not answered. The FAQ page is right in stating that the pictures are not accurate, as it is possible to see the style of clothing and general depiction are not even from the time period or setting of the Prophet Muhammad. Simply because some sources depict caricatures of historical figures (which are not even accurate), does not address whether pictures of the Prophet Muhammad should be made. Plato was right to a degree, knowledge is not found simply through a democratic vote, as is done here. The reasoning is not compelling (to me) in FAQ because it does not address the uniqueness of this subject matter. For this subject, the experts on Muhammed have consistently stated, for centuries now, that pictures of this person are not an accurate form of knowledge or understanding. We are "free" to do whatever we want, paint nice pictures, but they are neither informative or authoritative, something that "encyclopedias" are supposed to be. Let us differ to the experts...Rtwise (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

First of all: The subject matter is not unique. Muhammad is one of many historical or religous figures with articles on WP. Secondly, your assertion of "inaccuracy", while true, is a red herring. No accurate images exist of many people, events, or objects on WP, yet those articles contain depictions (see Last Supper, Christopher_Columbus#First_voyage. Taking this, point one, and WP:VER into consideration, Muhammad's article can contain images which can be verified to be depictions of events in Muhammad's life. To do anything less would be to treat Muhammad diferently. Your're right on one thing: WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, so petitions and votes don't matter. -MasonicDevice (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, the subject matter IS unique. Is there some kind of WP cookie cutter, procrustean bed? One of the glaring problems in this discussion is the sweeping generalizations. Again, you are referring to "many" others who have had images depicted of them, and you argue that "no accurate images exist" for "many" people. You make my point. This discussion on images belongs with Aristotle and Plato, et. al. You SHOULD treat this subject matter differently, because it is. While not sui genre, it has a context. You must look at the emic point of view here, the insider one. You must ask people who at least read Arabic to interpret the Koran, and you must also refer to people that know this subject matter thoroughly. Not all subject matters are "equal." We discern this from that. Also, there is a place for petitions (you introduced this), if there is something discriminatory and/or prejudicial. I am referring to the philosophical quest for the "real, true, good, and beautiful." We do not take a vote for what is true/real. For this subject matter, the expert Islamic scholarly community has said you can NOT grasp it through images of the Prophet Muhammad. You then must ask why people insist on doing it? Here is where you have questions... I would like the essay to go to the experts and not press another agenda...(talk) 19:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC) rtwise

It's not different. It is just another article. From the view of WP, all subject matters are equal, though some are more notable than others. There is some kind of "WP cookie cutter, procrustean bed" as you call it. You'll find it at WP:LOP. To treat this article differently would violate a number of policies. Until you understand that, you'll understand nothing that has been said in any of the talk pages, nor anything I'll say to you. Foremost, this is not the place to quest for "real, true, good, and beautiful", but rather for encylopedic, neutral, free, civil, and bold. -MasonicDevice (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I just read that and I don't know what your point is. There is nothing there that supports your argument that "Muslims, ummah, and shariah," in short, Islamic scholarship in total, including art scholars, etc. are "irrelevant." That is the procrustean bed I am referring towards, not the policies on the WP:LOP page. Here you make a "straw man" fallacy by setting up a false dichotomy between "truth" and the policies on the WP:LOP page (i.e. this is not the place to search for the truth!?). Nothing here stated excludes one from the other. "Until you understand that...you understand nothing...??" This sounds a little imperial and/or pretentious... To get back to the point, there is nothing in these policies that supports your statement that Islamic scholarship is "irrelevant." Again, the subject matter IS different. This is what bothers those who know this subject. It behooves any encyclopedia to inquire to the experts, who have the eye and the sensitivity towards an emic understanding of this subject matter. You dismiss the experts...On what basis do you take this position? Rtwise (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

I dismissed no Islamic art scholars, because you have provided none to dismiss. Islamic scholarship is not irrelevant, it just makes no claims that counter the claims cited in this article. Islamic scholarship on whether or not these are accurate (they're not, we're not saying they are), the prohibition of naturalistic images, and laws based on that scholarship are irrelevant. Wikipdeia is a US-based non-profit who's servers reside in Florida.

I made no strawman. I did not mischarchterize your argument and then argue against my mischarachterization.

I made no false dichotomy. You right that I'm being pretentious, and you continue to fail to understand why. The policies of WP are what they are, and what they are not is the search for "real, true, good, and beautiful". They are the search for the encyclopdeic, the verifiable, and the neutral. It's really rather clear and well defined. Write what is factual. Write what can be proven. Write what is commonly accepted. Anything else will be reverted per policy. It's not a dichotomy at all as the two often overlap, but when they do, it is a happy coincidence and nothing more.

This articles has 199 citations and you want to claim it "dismiss[es] the experts"? Really? Nearly every sentence is footnoted.

Finally, this article is exactly like countless others on WP. It is an article about a historical and religous figure. You're free to attempt to change that, and make it "different", but such attempts will be swiftly reverted per policy, and repeated attempts may lead to blocking and banning.-MasonicDevice (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but you set up “truth” as a no, no, over against policies… Are you saying the policies are not truthful??

You have covered your perspective in a blanket of policy, but you don’t really address the points. Being pretentious about anything isn't "civil, free, and bold."

The list of scholars and writers who have stated that imagery of the Prophet Muhammad is unacceptable, is so numerous. It is easy to find them, even if they are not on this page. For a start, look at Talal Eid, Juan Cole, John Esposito, Mahmoud Ayoub…. It is just too long, even if you go back 200 years.

Your language sounds strong, severe but there isn’t much said here on the point. I think that the treatment of this subject appears patronizing to many and obviously isn’t solved very well. Rtwise (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

What is patronising is being dictated to about what wikipedia(or i) can do because of someone elses religion. Wikipedia is NOT subject to sharia law. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

but who is doing that? Rtwise (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

You are. Notice in the top comment of this section you appeal to the "ummah, the Sharia, and/or Muslim scholarly community". Only one of those belongs on WP. -MasonicDevice (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is somebody "dictating" something? We just let people who are knowledgeable about something, tell us what they know and see. Rtwise (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

I did nothing of the sort. I said truth was not something to quest for because it's not the standard as set by policy. Now who's setting up strawmen? The list of scholars stating that images are "unacceptable" does not matter. "Unacceptable" violates WP:NOT#CENSORED. It's that simple. Scholars who say, "We shouldn't look at these pictures because it inhibits understanding", without providing a reason are not scholars in the Wikipedian sense. Their claims, such as they are, don't meet WP:VER and don't merit inclusion. You've got to verifiably tell me why looking at a pitcure of the raising of the Black Stone inhibits my understanding of the event. Thus far, no one has been able to do that. Saying it's not "culturally halal" doesn't cut it. -MasonicDevice (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

but who said “culturally halal?” I am talking about epistemology and approach to a subject matter. Again, not sui genre, but emic.Rtwise (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

If you mean culturally specific, we don't do culturally specific. We write from a culturally neutral perspective incorporating all information.-MasonicDevice (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a false statement, or at least a very naïve one. “We write from a culturally neutral perspective” and even “incorporating all information.” Neutrality in the arts and sciences has long since been left off. Do you know anything of hermeneutics? Go back and read Heidegger, Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty. It is not “are we prejudiced” it is “how are we prejudiced”…circles within circles of judgments. Most of what you argue for seems straight out of old Enlightenment thought, for example. Current writings in ethnology, history, literature, say that context is everything. You don’t get to the universals without staying specific. In fact, the tact argued here is exactly what hit the American Indian. The narratives that were overlayed on their language, religion, culture come straight out of the supposed “neutral” educators, writers, protectors of a method. Lets not lay another number on an entirely different culture. Let’s let them tell us how to see this issue.Rtwise (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Rtwise, I suggest you write down your arguments in a paragraph. If you want to support your argument with a theory or a current intellectual understanding, please provide enough references so that a person who is not aware of the field can track them. Then post your arguments in a new section and ask people to write an answer on that. There is no way that people all agree on such matters but both sides can provide their arguments on the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and let the readers that come by later make up their mind. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and that makes sense. The trouble is that there are some foundational issues being debated here. You have a lot of fixed ideas going on.... It might be better to address this elsewhere. I imagine there are quite a number of people that see things the way Masonic Device does. The above references are just to general scholarship since 1960's on so called "neutrality" in scholarship/science. It doesn't exist. We also have all the post-colonial writers out there, showing how texts and method crunch every last squeeze on indigenous cultures. It seems like there is just a flagrant insensitivity going on in this debate about how Muslim's (scholars!) educate about something they DO know quite a lot about. There is a take it or leave it (eat it?) approach. My own view is we need to let the culture, the people who hold these beliefs, in all their subtlety,let them tell you how to understand this. That goes for any other subject as well. Thanks for your great suggestion!Rtwise (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

So... You come on here and make a series of suggestions, the implementation of which would contravene numerous WP policy and then have the gall to call those explaining policy to you... naive? Are you joking? Do you understand that there are rules that govern the inclusion and exclusion of material, and that wikipedians are very attached to these rules? Without WP:LOP this already chaotic place would be unmanageable. Do you understand that the neutrality you deride is a core principle of WP? Neutrality does not exclude people from telling their own story, but it also does not limit people to telling only their own story. When certain actors refuse to tell an aspect of their story, others step in. That's the incorporation of all available information. You're not a troll, because one of those would have just removed the pictures and been banned. But what are you? I'm not quite certain you "get" this place, yet. -MasonicDevice (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the neutrality page you reference and I would invite others to look at it for their own assessment. I would say it needs a lot of work, and looks to be fairly incoherent mess. I would suggest that this is probably why there is a problem here, because basic approaches haven’t been thought through very well. You create a regular Tower of Babel, people babbling all over, offending and confusing quite a lot of folks. I don’t think I would take much confidence from anything I saw on that page. Neutrality is actually something that died in the 1920's, but some want to keep the facade up. It is not just naive, it isn't informative. Rtwise (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

You're inviting others to look at WP:NPOV? Thanks. Have you even looked at the talk archives? WP:NPOV or it's derivatives come up in nearly every single thread on both sides of this issue. An element of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE was used to justify changing the lead image to a more traditional caligraphic image as well as only using naturalistic images that are topical to events described in the text and not unnecessarily insulting. And then you go on to dismiss WP:NPOV, call it a 1920s relic, and declare you intention to flout it? Well, I was right on one thing and wrong on another. You most certainly do not understand WP, its communitiy or its policies. I'm sorry I've continued to feed you. -MasonicDevice (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this "US based" stuff? Look, you miss the elephant that is in the room. Muhammad himself, his followers, 99% of the religion, scholarship, history, and art scholarship agrees that images of the Prophet Muhammad is the WRONG way to approach teh subject. Why do we still have people that push an agenda? When the Lakota Indians practice the sundance, they don't want pictures of it taken, and claim that you can't understand it through picutres. Yet, some dimwits go in, take a picture and proceed to the expert commentary. By supporting this kind of arrogance, you take away from teh integrity of the project. No matter how many discussions that have been gone through, no matter how many discussions archived and so, on, you end up with an unsolved situation. The pictures are not accurate, not contextual. The prophet M. had a long beard, didn't wear fancy duds, and the turban wasn't even around at that time. Teh prophet Muhammad asked that no pictures of him be made, stated this is not the way to understand what he was about, and Arabic culture/scholarship has stated this clearly. Yet, you have people that push forward. Why do that? If this is to be a "US" take on reality, then you should fold up the entire project entirely, because it just becomes another exercise in cultural imperialism. AGain, if you are going to accurately, respectfully inform the general public about the Prophet Muhammad, you do NOT do that through images of him. You actually MISINFORM them.Rtwise (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Stop tearing down the straw man. My implication with the statement in question was quite clear. WP does not hew to Sharia. That you wish to turn it to something significantly larger than it is says more about you than it does about me or the project. We don't exclude scholars on the basis of who they are, but rather on what they say versus what other scholars say. That's how NPOV works. -MasonicDevice (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the meaning of mentioning that Wikipedia is "US based" within the context of the statement? Also.. While it may sound like no one is being excluded, believe me, no one is hearing Muslim sources on this article, particulary regarding the use of images with the Prophet Muhammad. There is no level playing field, with sweeping generalizations and pronouncements of "irrelavance." This article, and this page, has effectively silenced the Muslim perspectiveRtwise (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

The context is that Sharia-based law has no meaning for WP because it is based in the US. That is all. On your charge that no one is hearing Muslim sources: Fix it. Add them in. What do they have to say about Muhammad that is not said by the article? You're setting up a dichotomy where on the one hand you have the article as it is cited out now and including images, and on the other hand you have the view of the ummah and Muslim sources. It's a false choice, and not really even relevant at all. Images and the "Muslim view" can coexist, and the inclustion of one does not necessarily preclude or invalidate the other. Problems occur, however, when one viewpoint or people holding a specific viewpoint hold that it is the one true view despite what evidence and other views might say. That makes wikipedians a little queasy, and as consequence, those viewpoints are dismissed as non-NPOV. The might be mentioned if they meet notablity requirements, but will not cause the deletion of other views. Now, in the case at hand, we have verifiable historical depictions of Muhammad being included in spite of Muslim scholarly objection. This objection comes in a variety of forms, but none of the objections actually address what the images are and why they are included(biographical articles always have images - custom, maybe guideline). Instead the objections are along the lines of "It's a minority view" (Great, we'll note that - WP:NPOV), "It's not customary/It's illegal/It's sinful for us" (We're not you - WP:NOT), or "It impedes understanding of the subject" (How? - WP:VER). If someone objected and said, "I have new research showing that this image was not, in fact a depiction of Muhammad, but rather was of the Artist's cousin Cleatus", then we'd take it down forthwith, because it wouldn't be topical. But no one has done that. All of the objections have been of such a form that they run afoul of WP policy. This is what I mean when I say that "Muslim views" on these images are irrelevant to this article, because objections to the images based on those views have been found by mediation to run afoul of policy. This whole issue will probably end up in arbcomm.-MasonicDevice (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough - I think you two should take a break. This is getting nowhere.--Garycompugeek (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree... second that. Jmlk17 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm out. Can an admin just zap this section or archive it? It's really pointless and rehashes discussions made over the course of many months. I won't go into the archives to bring it back. I'm reminded of Macbeth (Act V, Scene 5). -MasonicDevice (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this subject is certainly not solved.Rtwise (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Since it won't be solved to you until the images are gone, it will likely never be solved -MasonicDevice (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering what the big fuss about Muhammad's pictures is all about. For example, just because the Bush Adminstration is offended about the article on the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia should remove the article. Also just because Muslims are offended by the pictures does not mean we should post warnings or remove those pictures. A person who choose to come to Wikipedia does so under their own free will. If a viewer doesn't want to see the picture look in the FAQ and block the images on their own computer. If the trend of blocking offensive pictures were to continue then there would be a chain reaction until Wikipedia has no pictures at all. Just because a group of people doesn't like to see pictures of Muhammad does not necessarily mean that other people should be deprieved of the same privelege of viewing these images whose value in this article is explained in the FAQ because WP:NOTCENSORED. Janus8463 (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the right place to point this out but this analogy is a complete mis-match and a failure to understand offence. I wonder if you really think that there are no images which Wikipedia would find too offensive to show? There are ones (e.g. of some of the twin tower deaths) which the US media shied at after all. --BozMo talk 09:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they are here somewhere? --Fredrick day (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, although there are issues of copyright as well. "Diana death" pictures come in to a similar category. Some of our concepts of privacy are as strongly held: so enshrined in law. --BozMo talk 11:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

These are good points. I would add that I sincerely doubt these drawings on the Muhammad page add to anyone's understanding, from whatever orientation. There is a lot of special pleading for their showing historical episodes. You see a little action figure, but without any writing you don't even know what it is. I would bet, that if you showed a sincerely grounded Muslim Arab these pictures, he wouldn't even recognize what they are or where they come from! And the other point, is they are not even artistically instructive as a discription of Muhammed. They are drawn from a different time and culture. Read Ed Said's "Orientalism" or "Covering of Islam." But, you can take any art class and see how medieval/renaissance artists distorted 1st century depictions of the nativity scene. So, even when you utterly ignore the specialists, the authorities on Muhammed, as is done here with the image policy, you have to ask yourself what is added by these pictures? If less (much less) than one percent of Islamic cultures use/d pictures of Muhammad to teach about him, then how is it that we are exposed as if we are getting an education? I smell an agenda, a very "unneutral" effortRtwise (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Indeed, there most certainly is an agenda, several, in fact. I'm rather curious why your agenda, and that of Muslim religious experts means anything more than anyone else's agenda. Rather, the view from such religious types is clearly stated in the article, both in the lead, and in the Depictions of Muhammad section, so your accusations of being "unneutral" are unfounded. As far as the value of images, would you support removing every image in this article? Some random calligraphy doesn't add anything to the article either based on your argument. Truth is, both the images and the calligraphy do add to the article. They place into context how this individual has been viewed and venerated throughout history. This is not an article about an Islamic legend. This is an article about a real historical person. How this person was viewed throughout history is of great educational value, and both the images and the calligraphy offer a far greater impact to the reader than text alone can. Resolute 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would add that I sincerely doubt these drawings on the Muhammad page add to anyone's understanding, from whatever orientation.

How presumptive of you. I suppose you would say that the stained glass windows in a cathedral did nothing to add to parishoners understanding as well?

And the other point, is they are not even artistically instructive as a discription of Muhammed. They are drawn from a different time and culture. Read Ed Said's "Orientalism" or "Covering of Islam." But, you can take any art class and see how medieval/renaissance artists distorted 1st century depictions of the nativity scene.

Are you suggesting that we should have no images that were not contemporaneous? That would be a curious position for an encyclopedia to take.

So, even when you utterly ignore the specialists, the authorities on Muhammed, as is done here with the image policy, you have to ask yourself what is added by these pictures?

Experts are not ignored. Their opinions are cited in Muhammad#Traditional_Views_of_Muhammad. An encyclopedic visual element and historical context are added.

If less (much less) than one percent of Islamic cultures use/d pictures of Muhammad to teach about him, then how is it that we are exposed as if we are getting an education?

Because WP is not a Muslim insitution and therefore does not conform to Muslim laws and cultural taboo.

I smell an agenda, a very "unneutral" effort

Calm down there. WP:AGF makes everything easier. If you're looking for conspiracy theories in WP though, happy hunting. It's a pretty chaotic place and chaos is one thing that kills conspiracies. I doubt you'll find many, execpt maybe here, here, or here. -MasonicDevice (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How presumptive of you. I suppose you would say that the stained glass windows in a cathedral did nothing to add to parishoners understanding as well?

It is interesting that you choose a stained glass analogy. Mosques don't use stained glass. There is no connections with teh numinious in stained glass, as is often attributed through the use of light and glass in Churches. Pictures of the Prophet Muhammad have a feel of mockery, not the same feel as with stained glass. If you feel indignation, then you are approximating how these pictures are received, as education on this person. Maybe you could move it to a history of art section...Rtwise (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Are you suggesting that we should have no images that were not contemporaneous? That would be a curious position for an encyclopedia to take.

Again, if someone doesn't simply delete this. It isn't all that curious for an encyclopedia to take... there are numerous articles that have no images. Rtwise (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Experts are not ignored. Their opinions are cited in Muhammad#Traditional_Views_of_Muhammad. An encyclopedic visual element and historical context are added.

Because WP is not a Muslim insitution and therefore does not conform to Muslim laws and cultural taboo.

If someone doesn't delete this again... No one is asking to "conform" to "Muslim institutions and laws." Look to an emic perspective...Rtwise (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Calm down there. WP:AGF makes everything easier. If you're looking for conspiracy theories in WP though, happy hunting. It's a pretty chaotic place and chaos is one thing that kills conspiracies. I doubt you'll find many, execpt maybe here, here, or here.

"Conspiracy?" it is just not a "neutral" position as you state.Rtwise (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

NB: that was me who wiped you because you're fouling my comments' format, using improper indentation, and not quoting at all. It was becoming impossible to determine what I had said and what you had said. Therefore I reverted you. It had nothing to do with your content. Read your talk or read the edit summary. Or both. -MasonicDevice (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So you delete entries...call people troll's...cuss...and have an penchant with housekeeping? You are an interesting fellow. I will try to watch indentation and quotes. Perhaps you could refrain from deleting people's entries.Rtwise (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

WP:GOODFAITH is not being observed here.--Garycompugeek (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! MasonicDevice talks a good talk about his being for "civility," but he deletes, for what he says is due to grammer and indentation, but what he can't admit is that he is actually a policeman and censor. Let's keep the discussion going, and stay in good form.Rtwise (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

That was directed at both of you. User:Rtwise your edits have been a bit choppy and User:MasonicDevice has been cleaning the section where you have been talking. Some things have been move to your User talk:Rtwise to show continuality of discussion. Everything is in the logs. Do not worry you are not being censored.--Garycompugeek (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that is good someone isn't being censored. What are you directing at me, if I can ask? There is some circular discussions going on, but where is there not "good faith?" Also, what is your role in picking and choosing what is in logs? Thanks...Rtwise (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Everything goes in the logs. Every single character anyone writes or deletes goes in the logs. You can see them up in the history tab at the top of the page. -MasonicDevice (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your were both being critcal of each other. Stick to the subject at hand and WP:AGF. As for logs no one controls them and anyone may look plus they record everything.--Garycompugeek (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let us stick to the subject. I believe we all can amplify and critique as a part of disovering these ideas. I am critical of some ideas... I don't cuss, delete people's entries. I appreciate some pointers on procedure and rules of order, to a point, if it doesn't obscure the subject. Well, thanks. Let me know if you see poor form. Onward...Rtwise (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

(Apologies to folks for putting this in this this space, but this user doesn't seem to read his talk page. I've posted the below comment there as well).

I would welcome this discussion under the rules and guidelines that exist at this site. Rules and guidelines you ignore (commenting inside of others' comments, thus making the discussion hard to follow and changing the mean of the comments you split) or dismiss (NPOV). Until you follow the rules, no one is going to want any part of you. For the last time: I deleted your comments once, after numerous GF refactors of other offending comments, because it was obscuring my comment and I did not feel comfortable that I could rewrite it w/o changing its meaning. I left a message on your talk page, stating what I had done, where I had done it, and why I had done it. What more do you want from me? It's not my job to ensure you comment clearly, but it is my job to ensure that my comments are clear. Furthermore, I'd watch the slander. The strongest language I've used is "hell", last week, in a conversation with User:Wolfkeeper. It's in Archive 8 if you want to look it up. That's the good thing about the logs: if you're claiming someone said something they never said, everyone knows your full of it. Good day. -MasonicDevice (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"You're damn right there's a priori exclusion going on." A quote I lifted from the above text. It is a bit difficult to trust someone that deletes other's writings on this medium. Looking forward to good form on this topicRtwise (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

I'm not going to continue this pissing contest here, as it's really silly and off-topic. I've put a post on your talkpage if you really want to continue. -MasonicDevice (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not off topic when people begin to cuss and delete other people's entries. Please follow through with your statement of "not going to continue." ThanksRtwise (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Rtwise, you do know you have a talk page do you?

I believe this is rising to the level of a personal attack as I've tried to disengage here, explained myself, my actions (for which I have not been sanctioned), yet this user persists. And for what purpose? To publiclally take umbrage? Is this constructive? Ontopic? How will this user's continued attacks improve the article or WP as a whole?-MasonicDevice (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

muslims demanding images of moehamhead removed is like scientologists demanding images of zenu removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.23.25 (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Scriptural Question

As a well meaning non-muslim Wikipedian who agrees with the consensus that including the pictures in this article makes it more informative, I would just like to ask - purely out of curiosity - what exactly the scriptural support is for the view that pictures of Mohammed drawn by Muslims should not be included in a secular encyclopaedia. I ask this in order to foster understanding and perhaps discourage knee-jerk protests by asking for more a more solid statement of their position and the reasons for it.

As I understand it, there are hadiths which warn against idolatry which are interpretted as prohibiting visual depictions of any living thing. However, I fail to see the connection between this, and the belief that inclusion of depictions of Mohammed in this article on Wikipedia somehow inherantly causes offense to Muslims. Is the mere act of accidentally viewing an artistic depiction of Mohammed somehow sinful in Islam? Even if that is so, how does the possibility of this happening on Wikipedia actually _actively_ cause offense?

I suppose my question is - Where exactly does the 'offense' that these images causes come from? And can anyone show that there is cause for this offense in this context using scripture?

I think that the lack of response to your question is quite enlightening. You can bet dollars to donuts that Muslim's that can quote you chapter and verse, probably don't trust this process. Check out this article though. There are several suras given, some writings in the Hadith, and some pointers to history. It is very brief. The more you look into it, the more ubiquitious the "offense" is. It seems related to the complexity and depth of what is meant by an "idol." There is a general peevishness about all images, but one's of religious figures are considered the wrong way to understand them. Thanks....Here is a start: http://lexicorient.com/e.o/mus_iconoclasm.htm Rtwise (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

I have read the Depictions of Muhammad article, and it does not seem to indicate the answer these questions.

Any serious responses from knowledgeable people would be greatly welcomed.

'I would strongly remind everyone that this is purely to encourage understanding on both sides, and whatever answers are given will in no way affect the current status of the images in the article.' Lor (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"...in no way affect the current status"... sounds like status quo. Why not see where people take things, and evaluate later as to whether there needs to be a change. Where is the solution? Thanks...Rtwise (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

I wrote that part simply because my question demands replies supported by scripture as evidence - and as such they would have no bearing on the actions of a secular Encyclopedia that strives for a Neutral Point of View in the presentation of their articles.Lor (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I like that you qualify with a "strives for," but I wonder if there ever is anything like a neutral point of view. Do you believe in it? There is fairness, I can understand that, but I can not comprehend a purely "neutral" position. Also, "secular" is a bit ellusive as well. Secular/sacred, it all depends on how you position yourself. I think that the entire world is open for information, including "scripture as evidence." It just depends on the context. There may be ways that scriptural texts provide information as to how a subject is approached, how things are understood. I think it is a bit much to say scripture sources "have no bearing" on a "secular" Encyclopedia. If you mean they shouldn't have a priviledged status above all facts, I agree. But, as information to an emic grasp, they may bring you into the subject matter. I wonder what you think about it.. thanks...Rtwise (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Because I think this question of "neutrality" sits dead center as relevant to whether images of Muhammad should/ought to be used to educate others. I think that many actually have a false sense of confidence and inability to critique a prevailing view, because of this belief. If you believe that you are neutral, then those outside that circle are irrational, dictators, the maddening crowd, etc. You raise above all that to a "pure" mental topography. But,if we are honest, there is no such thing as neutrality (there is a long list of scholarship on that, Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, et.al.).

Somebody is erasing things again. The above entry is from myself. 209.191.217.163 (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

For a history on how "neutrality" died in the sciences, literature, and scholarship, please refer to Hans Georg Gadamer's work, "Truth and Method." If we want to transcend simply a clash of cultures or competing cultural beliefs, we would need to lay to rest the idea that there is some "value free" "objective" "neutral" place that some people talk from and others don't, or that anyone can even find. This would help in removing an "us/them" type orientation, which is shown up and down this page. It is fairly standard to begin with "neutrality" as a practice, a form of civility and discourse, however if you use it as a way to silence people or obscure a subject matter, it is just another cultural belief like any thing else. A big sophisticated opninion. As a tool for discover, a useful way of seeing, an inclusive way of reporting, fine, but if you push it as an absolute, or as a way to distort, then we should be very much against method. (cf."Against Method," Paul Feyerabend.) Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

This is not the place to discuss the merits of WP:NPOV. Take it over to Wikipedia_talk:NPOV. Editors and admins over there will be able to answer your questions more definitively. -MasonicDevice (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this is the right place. People are regularly stating and assuming that the inclusion of images on the Prophet Muhammed is done from a "neutral" position, while it most certainly isn't.Rtwise (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Here, there? Where, where?Rtwise (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rtwise

You ask if there is a ever a neutral point of view and asked someone what they though of NPOV in general. This is a talk page for discussing images in the Muhammad article. It is not for general discussion of existence, scholarly qualities, or general nature NPOV. You're off topic.-MasonicDevice (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone is deleting entries...bad form.Rtwise (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Rtwise (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Read your talk page. I grew tired of moving your poorly formatted comments from my attribution blocks and levels.-MasonicDevice (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get how the article isn't conforming to WP:NPOV... I see that claim above. Jmlk17 03:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Additions to the FAQ

To overcome the current deadlock on the proposed additions on the FAQ, I suggest we take Aminz's proposed additions one at a time, discuss them and see what agreement we can come to about their addition (the full list can be seen here: here).

Question 1 'There are non-consenting readers who might involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images when visiting Muhammad article; people who visit pornography articles do expect to see such images but Muslims do not have such expectations by the virtue of visiting this article. Another point is that if someone wants to get some information about Muhammad and googles "Muhammad", this article is the first website that comes up.

OK - I have a number of problems with the formulation of this question in terms of it's suitability for wikipedia - I'll leave possible answers to a later post. First, the concept of non-consenting readers is irrelevant in wikipedia terms and is covered by the general disclaimer clause (and the general disclaimer is included in the FAQ at length). The second part is inference because it presupposes who is visiting the pages, we have no hard data on the matter. We can guess that a lot of Muslims visit the page but we cannot present that as fact. The last part is also a problem because it presupposes that everyone uses google and that it's relevant how they arrived at the article.

A more neutral form of this question would be:

readers who visit the Muhammad article may not wish to view the images or be unaware that the images will be presented

I don't think this solves the original question. Another way of looking at this problem for Wikipedia, is that those who protest the use of images do so, not only out of respect for another culture, but in relation to the epistemological concerns presented through an “indigenous model.” An indigenous epistemology strives to reflect an indigenous reality. In short, such an approach works from the “ground up,” which usually REVERSES the “top down” epistemology from the privileged, typical Western model. Inside out, rather than outside in/emic, not etic. If the conceptual framework of an indigenous setting does not support a framework from outside that setting, we do not simply proceed by forcing the outside framework. That is not knowledge; that is ideology. The indigenous model goes beyond the surface structure of cultural competence, to the actual realities of indigenous people, which is what we want. If we want representations of the people from Sioux City, Iowa, we don’t illicit descriptions of Iowans from people who have lived in outer Mongolia (that would be in a separate section, showing us about Mongolians). If the indigenous approach- including the indigenous experts on the figure of Muhammad, states that you should not and CAN not obtain an accurate, true, and real grasp of this figure through images, and you dismiss this point of view through a theory of “neutrality” and general consensus (from those outside this context), then you have replaced knowledge for ideology. Now what is encyclopedic about that?Rtwise (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Once again, you seem to think that the images are presented as an EXACT, 100% image of Muhammad. They are obviously not. We don't even know for sure what a person looked like for sure until the technology of photography came into widespread use... probably around 100 years ago. Any picture or image produced before that time is not 100% accurate, be it of a man or of a time in history. Good Lord, look at any random painting of a battle from the past 2000 years. That alone shows how people picture(d) and represent(ed) their ideas. The images aren't there for any other purpose except to inform and share cultural views... sorry if you disagree, but it is a fact. Jmlk17 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They are obviously not exact. I completely agree. Saying that they inform is an opinion. The Islamic oriented cultures that produced this figure say it is a distortion and offensive. These are the facts. Action figures of this individual misses the point entirely as to understanding this subject. ThanksRtwise (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Herein lies the crux of your folly: Saying they inform is a fact that can be verified by checking the references. These are depictions of Muhammad, and go in his article. That some people think them distorting and offensive is also also a verifiable fact. This too goes in the article. That the pictures are distorting and offensive is opinion, and has no place informing an encyclopedia's editorial desicisions. -MasonicDevice (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments? --Fredrick day (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

in my book, Aminz is guilty of WP:POINT here. He is trying to sabotage the FAQ by making the questions argumentative (of his pov) and the answers unsatisfactory. This is not constructive. Aminz has been going in circles for weeks now, it is time he took a break from this. Let him take up my suggestion and discuss the "no disclaimers" page. As long as the "no disclaimers" policy stands, there is no point in harping about "non-consenting readers". Wtf is a "non-consenting reader"? Are we prying people's eyelids open with matchsticks and chaining them in front of their screens? A person googling "Muhammad" is obviously far from non-consenting to be exposed to anything the depths of the internet will ooze his way. I daresay Wikipedia is one of the more civilized items among that. If you don't want to be exposed to the internet as it is, don't use google, or at least, for the love of baby bears, use a web filter. Stop giving us grief because you have failed to install a net nanny on your end. thank you. The online Ummah is also free to google-bomb muhammad.net into beating Wikipedia on google. Nobody here will grudge them that if they can pull it off. If they cannot, again, why whine about it here? dab (𒁳) 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This question is, once again, irrelevant. While it might be true that 'Muslim' readers might not expect pictures of Mohammed to be in this article, and might therefore be unwittingly exposed to them, it is true that the 'average Wikipedia user', and I propose the vast majority of people who visit this page, 'would expect there to be pictures of Muhammad' and therefore will not be 'unwittingly' exposed to anything.

The concept that these images are in this article unexpectedly is once again based purely on a Muslim point of view. Most users of other cultures would expect there to be visual depictions of Muhammad. Lor (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with this statement. I think that you have a strong support from ethnology writers, as well as heremeneutics, anthropology. PLease examine the differences written about from an "etic" to an "emic" point of view. While not "sui genre," there are some experiences and aspects of human culture that can not be understood without an "emic" or insider point of view. Religion is often cited as one of those type of subjects. There are many, many people who do not want a general, average joe commentary. When people want to hear about a specific Indian tribe in North America, if they are really wanting to know, they want the particular tribe to describe what it is that they believe or are doing. It is now quite passe to have alledged academic experts come in for a comment from the outside, rather a native, or insider view actually educates. This point of view would go for many other religions and subjects. On this subject, the insider point of view is telling you that it is completely the wrong way to understand the subject. Once people understand this fact, then they ARE surprised of the ignorance, pretention, and lack of respect. Again, there are lots of articles that have no images in encyclopedias and we can't assume everyone expects pictures in them all, so why leave of the pics of Muhammed here? Also, as has been said elsewhere, the pictures are not historically or contextually at the time of Muhammed, and less (much less) than 1% of the Muslim world ever uses pics of Muhammed for any educational purpose. Why not give a single article on Muhammad, and have an entirely different article on this subject? No blinking lights or buttons to click or warnings. It is quite obvious that these pictures have offended a good deal of the world's population, and rightly so. Muslim or non-Muslim, let's have good, informed scholarship, and appropriate use of images in encyclopedia articles. Don't mix topics and don't offend an entire people. What do you think? ThanksRtwise (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

yes, but the (tongue-in-cheek) point is that these FAQs are questions frequently asked by Muslims. Nobody else is even likely to read the FAQ page. It is the whole idea of the page to address Muslim concerns, but Aminz is trying to abuse the FAQ page as a soapbox. I consider this disruptive. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was confused as to the changes to the FAQ, please ignore my arguments above. Lor (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question, it is a series of statements and points. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one other point. Edward Said wrote about this issue so well in his "Orientalism." The West used very selective pictures from the "Orient" to understand Arabic culture. The "haram," pronounced "haaraam" instead of "hairemm," which is the place in teh house and/or tent where only women or relatives of the women can go, was mostly a fantasy of European sexual life. The nature and structure of what it is was almost completely distorted, and this was done through pictures and art forms. There are numerous examples. When in popular talk the West says "sheeek," coming from the arabic "Sheikh," pronounced closer to like strawberry "shake," it is understood as "exotic," or in 60's slang "really cool, far out..." The sheikh is a guardian of honor, leader, wise person, etc. You have the representations that seem like understanding, but they are characterizations and distortions. The people from the culture should play a role in gauging what pictures are most appropriate, if any. Thanks. Rtwise (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

yes? we have an article about Orientalism. "The people from the culture should play a role in gauging what pictures are most appropriate" -- we have a full article about depictions of Muhammad. Notable positions of "people from the culture" certainly should be, and are, discussed there. Wikipedia has some inherently "Western" attributes built in: the radical anti-bias policy, its reliance on academia and its aim of being an encyclopedia. If you are unhappy with any of these core principles, you are free to visit some other website, possibly one with aims and principle more compatible with your own. dab (𒁳) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But I think that these concerns are directly related to this particular topic and should be dealt with here as it relates to this specific issue. The point is that the "anti-bias" policy, if there is such a thing as "anti-bias" (and recent scholarship says there most certainly is not!), is not evident here on this issue. Your own statement is conflictual, as you say an "inherently Western" attribute is "built in" which is somehow also "anti-bias." Rather than a general philosophical debate about what "academia" actually is or is supposed to be, I think it is best to frame things contextually and conceretely. On this concern regarding pictures of the Prophet Muhammad, the Islamic expert opinion, the "academic" point of view within the context of the experts on Muhammad (When I say Islamic, I refer to the full gamut of scholarship within the broad sweep of Islamic culture/s) is that pictures distort the subject matter. This might be the inherently "Eastern" academic attribute. Core principles may be debated elsewhere, as you suggest, but the offense and distortion are so clearly visible here. It isn't related to being pleased or happy either, you can be socratic about it. It is just not good scholarship to ignore the emic frame of a subject, here within this article. There is much within academia that would support a less distorted view on this cultural-religious subject, especially for an encyclopedia that purports to be international and comprehensive in scope.Rtwise (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

"conflictual"? Indeed. Radical anti-bias has a strong anti-bias bias. This is pure sophistry. It is simply not true that anything is being "ignored". You want to discuss Islamic aniconism? You are welcome to do that, in article space, go to Aniconism in Islam. We aren't subscribing to aniconism, but how is it necessary to subscribe to something in order to discuss it? Are you proposing we should subscribe to Communism, Satanism, Paraphilia and Veganism before we can host articles on these topics? No? Then how can you propose with a straight face Wikipedia needs to subscribe to aniconism before producing satisfactory articles on aniconism? I am sorry, you are not making one grain of sense. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sophistry is a waste of time and attention. It is great that you identify an approach, a bias. The bias is "anti-bias." But there are circles within circles of this, and it does seem like the dog trying to grasp its own tail if you don't address specific examples. Read the first statement I wrote above. If you really are supporting a project of anti-bias, which is the manners and rules here, then why don't you start with the people that are from the culture which birthed and have so thoroughly studied this topic? It would seem that if you are practicing "anti-bias," that you would include the emic point of view. Do you yourself speak Arabic? Are you within an Islamic culture? Do the writers of this article belong inside that circle? If not, where? Our orientation points are not in place very well in this obviously unsolved issue. We say "Middle East," but middle and east from what and who? In textual and iconic representation, we need a proper orienation to find out what the subject even is. Standing in Ohio with loads of books, for example, isn't the same as the fluid insights gained from inside indigenous Arabic, Islamic culture. My point is that the "core principles" you point to, are not practiced very well, conceretly in this setting. Thanks Rtwise (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Someone asked what "non-consenting reader" ment, I believe that is the same notion which censors for instance american tv, that you can't swear or show nudity because perhaps a child might glance at the screen and be ruined for life. While I don't like that particularly could a compromise for this article not be that the main article itself does not immediately display the images, but that one would have to click a link to see them - perhaps labeled something like "Follow this link to see an artists rendition". That way nobody would "stumble" on the picture, but it wouldn't have been removed from wikipedia either. --IceHunter (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

very deep. I did read your statement. It boils down to your disliking the fundamental idea of the Wikipedia project. There is no problem with that, you are not the only one, see Criticism of Wikipedia. You can open a blog dedicated to it. But it is perfectly clear that what you are discussing has nothing to do with the purpose of this talkpage. If you write a book about your "fluid insights gained from inside indigenous Arabic, Islamic culture", I'll be sure to include a reference to it on our Arab world article. If we started looking for "indigenous" editors to expound their "fluid insights" into their own culture, then we would be failing to "practice our core principle" (viz., WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV) and be running some sort of multicultural blog/myspace site instead. dab (𒁳) 15:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't find your response to Rtwise satisfactory dab. The point Rtwise is alluding too is deep. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

very deep. He should hold an existentialist colloquium about it, on his blog. This is far outside the scope of WP:TALK. Wikipedia has foundational principles. You accept them: you are welcome to contribute. You don't accept them: you are welcome to stay away, and even to bitch about them off-wiki. That's the long and short of it. dab (𒁳) 11:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a take it or leave it approach. Also, existentialism? Again, staying with the subject of displaying pictures of Muhammad. The subject of method and bias, as it relates here is something to note because of how it has offended so many, and because it is so clearly against the "core" literature from the culture that birthed him. I am sure you don't mean to say that indigenous knowledge is irrelevant for the "anti-bias" point of view (be assured it most certainly isn't; here is where your attention should be). In principle, "anti-bias" is admirable/appropriate as a project and program. There is nothing wrong with that, fairly normal stuff. You want to have an approach. But at least from teh time of Kant forward, we all know it is "as if." We have a practical way of approachig something, fine. We operate "as if" we locate a "bais" free point of view. We can even say "anti-bias." I have no problem with people contributing to the method's page you refer, it is just that here a very clear problem has emerged. This problem is real news, beyond debates of method. Briefly, in his "cave metaphor" I doubt PLato would have called it "existentialism" for someone to climb down into the cave to solve the problem of appearances/reality. My own reaction is it seems tautaulogical for people to simply revert people back to core principles and then believe something is solved or taken care of.... especially when it quite obviously hasn't. That is the procrustean bed (the Greek fellow that would strech people to fit his own bed or remove anything that went outside the frame). It isn't existentialism to look "deeply" into a cultural setting for what they see and experience. It is just something to be found, is there all over, in the books, the scholars, the writers, scientists, etc. You just let experts on the subject report what they know and see. Finally, if you yourself, or others, don't read or write Arabic, if you are not trained in an Islamic context (in whatever field you choose), aren't you at a great disadvantage as to determine if "anti-bias" has even been achieved? Shouldn't you take Wikipedia's tool box and "anti-bias" principles within the context of Arabic scholarship? If they respond back to you, that your approach to "anti-bias" is quite clearly biased (distorted and offensive), who then decides the point? In short, I don't think that dab has really addressed the point of an "emic" orientation, but has simply referred to rules of order and Wikipedia principles. The problem has most certainly not been solved by this redirection. Thanks Rtwise (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Okay, rtwise, all the isms aside, how do you feel that your diatribes should apply to the article? Remember that this is the talk page of a Wikipedia article, not a philosophical journal. What, concretely, do you think we should do? Aecis^Brievenbus 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? What Rtwise is arguing is: the best "unbiased" and "Scholarly" treatment of any subject, in this specific case the article on Muhammad, can best be achieved from an indigenous point of view. And that indigenous point of view is the Arab and Muslim point of view of the subject, which strictly restricts pictorial depiction of the subject. I am in agreement with every word of what Rtwise is saying and would like to add that, treating a subject from indigenous POV is fully consistent with Wikipedia policies as well. WP:NPOV defines NPOV as representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. If we take a census of all published reliable sources on Muhammad in all languages, there is absolutely no doubt that a sheer majority of them will be ones written from a modern Muslim point-of-view without any pictorial depiction. Arman ^(Talk) 09:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's only one problem with that reasoning: keeping the images out is not a neutral point of view, because an image is not a point of view. An image is just that: an image. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

At most, WP:UNDUE might be seen to apply, but the article also notes - in no uncertain terms - that naturalistic depictions are rare. -MasonicDevice (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Arman, this is nonsense. "NPOV" does not mean "indigenous point of view". "mainstream" does not mean "numeric majority throughout the centuries", it refers to current (2000s) academia. Third, and not least, the images do show a "Muslim point of view", viz. a late medieval Shi'a one. That's why we display them in the first place. dab (𒁳) 21:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Offensive? Haven't we been over this ground before? WP makes no editorial decisions to avoid offense. It's hardly a tautolgy to say that in the context of this site, "Y is an inviolable. To do X would violate Y. Therefore, we cannot do X." Context is key. It seems to me that you harbor disagreements with the policies in general, not just this application of policy. Get a blog and write on it there, but please, stop jamming up the talk page with your railing against "long" established WP policy. If you really don't like it, take this discussion to where it belongs: the policy's talk page.

Your charges that this bio offers a "distorted" view of Muhammad (solely?) because it contains pictures continues to ring hollow. You still fail to provide a single shred of evidence to back up the assertion that viewing an image of Muhammad impairs understanding of who he was, what he did, or his importance to society. This failing is not yours alone, as most of the scholars that also advance this viewpoint provide little in the way of evidence to back their assertion, either. Ask yourself, "What distorted viewpoint are these images promoting?" If you're going to make such charges, then you had better be sure you have an answer to this question. The nebulous answer "It's a distortion" won't cut it, nor will the complaint that "It's not customary," "It's not scholarly," "It's not how Muslim's see him." The first is too general, and circular to boot. The second is addressed in the article, and has a link to a subpage for a more detailed discussion. The third is wrong (several other dead tree or online encyclopedias include pictures of Muhammad). The fourth runs counter to policy, and isn't even a reason to remove the images, but rather to add text to explain how they do see him. No amount of Muslim scholarly agreement can make these pictures go away. Their existance and subject matter is verifiable and encyclopedic, and these are the only bars that we need meet to include them. I'm sorry you don't like the ruleset that WP operates under, but 'dems 'da breaks. If you can convince enough people over in the policy pages, you can affect a policy change.-MasonicDevice (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would go further and point out that anyone is free to create their own Wikipedia fork. All the text here can be copied, and the software is open-source, so there's really nothing stopping people who don't like the policies here to build on the work here but change it to their tastes. That's what Conservapedia and Citizendium did, and more power to them. Let a thousand flowers bloom. —Chowbok ☠ 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The zenith of cultural relativism. -MasonicDevice (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be an unacceptable approach to method as it relates to this subject. There are several good reasons why. Back to Procrusteus, the guy was a Greek robber/thief. He put people to sleep with his method (his bed) to steal something from them, and also create injury. American Indian literature is filled with charges of "ethnocide" from scholarly writings about them over the years, that they stole something. What? Identity, dignity, knowledge, a lot of stuff that people take when they hide behind methods... Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the "bias against bias" approach. But, if we are honest, it is fairly standard, bread and butter stuff. The statemetns written in Mason Device's post, that perspectives "runs counter to policy" and "dems 'da breaks" if you question them, is actually not good scholarship in my view. This is tautology in the end, back the rules...take it up with management. The oft quoted statement of "orders are orders" by the soliders that killed innocent people in Nazi Germany, applies. They deferred to the method and order...what do you expect? This is what the orders have said, so we have to continue doing this stuff. When you come up to something that an entire people, ,or an entire city of living Arabic/Islamic scholars tells you,that it is distortion and that it does offend, you have climbed into a problem. If going back to the play book doesn't work, then you have to look at other ways to represent something, ways that can fit into your method, and so on. Surely this can be done if you try. A great book, that is often called the definitive work on truth and method, is Hans G. Gadamar's "Truth and Method." You have to read through the development of all this to see the PREJUDICE camouflaged in a "bias against bias" method. Teh "bias against bias" is just the same old "prejudice against prejudice" of the Western Enlightenment (rose by another name..). You have a little trick going on in that, a play on language, because no one can escape prejudice, or pre-judgments, because we are all thrown by langauge and circumstance. There are circles within circles of judgements. No one can function with out them. Saying that we have a "bias against bias" or a "prejudice against prejudice" does not make prejudices disappear. But it is a good method to use ..... As far as methods for this problem....again, go to the culture, the expert scholars, the setting and let them direct you. I would think that someone would have to at least read Arabic, to have been recognized by the culture itself as an expert. There are lots of them. They would need to be thoroughly familiar with the main corpus of writings on this subject. Let them guide you if you don't know how to read Arabic, haven't read the sources, and are not from the culture...etc. Finally, for us Western types, I would refer you to Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method." There are situations you ditch method to really find something, important situations. In short,method is something we play with and should never be taken so seriously that it obscures a subject matter. Thanks...Rtwise (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Ho boy... I think we just got Godwinized. Look, man, no one here (on this page you're looking at right now) cares about your dead Greeks, your philosophy of scholarship, or epistomology, because they have zero to do with the list of policies that regulate this insitution. Thay don't tell us what can and cannot go into this article. Got that? You don't even attempt to apply your scholarship to WP policy? Why is that? Do you feel that your scholarship should superseed? I doubt even you'd be that arrogant, after all what makes you better than anyone else? The policies aren't absolutly good or absolutly bad in and of themselves, but they do absolutly regulate and stipulate the current MO. We can't just ditch our method whenever we feel like it, because we'd just end up with a bunch of articles of fashionable nonsense. WP is not anarchy. While a discussion on the general nature of scholarship is a good one to have, trying to have it in this space is a waste of your time. You're trying to fight a much bigger battle than you think, and you need to take it over to the NPOV, VER, and NOR talk page, and possibly the Village Well, to have any hope enacting the changes you seek. As the old saying goes, "Your princess is in another castle." -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MasonicDevice is right Rtwise. You raise some valid points, and they are definitely worth discussing. But since they touch upon the very basics of how Wikipedia works, this talk page is not the place for such discussions. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The assertion of the existence of one "indigenous POV" is highly questionable, as is referring to "the Arab and Muslim point of view of the subject." Races of people do not have a point of view; only individuals do. In the case of Islam, it has been demonstrated clearly that there is no historical unanimity on the question of portraying Mohammed or living beings, i.e. it is not wholly aniconic. Even if there were, imposing or adopting such a POV would contradict much of what Wikipedia stands for.

Operating on a basis of cultural relativism (even assuming definable "indigenous" POVs) results in a shouting match, with the winner being the loudest shouter or the one having the most shouters on his side. I don't get the attempt to one-up "prejudice against prejudice" - but I do agree there can be "anti-bias" extremism where methods become more important than the value itself (of being unbiased). When support for Western-style intellectual freedom itself is labeled as bias, you lose me though. To me, it's axiomatic - and a superior position because it encourages learning and growth and extends a courtesy to multiple viewpoints and worldviews that is certainly not reciprocal. Twalls (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay…maybe I went a little over the top… Can I respond to the above comment, that “Western-style intellectual freedom itself is labeled as bias..?” Again, I refer to the history of the American Indian who was surrounded by Western style intellectual freedom. Look at the critiques that are leveled at well meaning scholarly writings on the American Indian over the years, and to the present date (Deloria, Churchhill, Duran, et.al). They all thought they were being fairly “objective” and neutral. It is utterly fascinating how we, who are in the center of Western culture, can not conceive that this perspective IS a bias. Isn’t that something? This is a larger question…., but I think you really ought to relook at the idea that Western-style intellectual freedom is not a bias. You can go back to the beginning, (cf. Nietszche on Socrates in the Birth of Tragedy), but you really have over 90% of our current mindset/culture at the time of the Enlightenment….and this is all packed with bias. M. Eliade wrote that the Enlightenment philosophies are themselves a “decomposition product of Christianity.” This is where I think this entire issue is not addressed very well because people behave “as if” there is not bias here, when there is. It is very similar to pressing people to be “free” “equal” and “democratic” because you believe that is some how more developed to be that way, and/or not a biased point of view (when it is a belief and a bias!). There is a bit of scariness to this, because we are unconscious that their own culture and point of view is itself culture bound (I think your statement about “shouting matches” shows some awareness about what can be underneath supposed value free efforts). But, historically, the British empiricists all of them, are circles within a cultural project. Gadamer pointed this out in his Truth and Method; there is an entire historical development to the “prejudice against prejudice.” It is birthed within a cultural frame, with a bias that is evident like any other cultural project. Finally, it depends on what you mean by “cultural relativism” I don’t think anyone can argue for a complete/total cultural relativism. We are human beings. I don’t argue for a sui genre approach to this subject, I argue for an emic/etic distinction. Western style presentations of Muhammad, using pictures, are just neo-Orientalism. While it is true that there is no complete anti-iconic history in Islamic countries or total “unanimity” (Islam encompasses many cultures and many centuries), the occurrences of making pictures of prophets are far less than 1% of the total. The injunctions against picturing Muhammad are not debatable within an Islamic context, and the exceptions to this prove the rule. I would suggest...one more thing about this dilemma… We are doing the same things here that people did over 200 years ago, the same mistakes. It is top down rather than ground up. Let the culture and community who birthed this person guide you in how your essay is presented. ThanksRtwise (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

This article is not Islamic in context, and barring a policy shift, never will be. If that's a bias, it's a bias that the project and most of it's editors are willing to live with and attempt to explain on numerous meta-pages. - MasonicDevice (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It most clearly is a bias. I find this take it or leave it approach disappointingly unscholarlyRtwise (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

This is not a scholarly journal, and said bias is stated. See WP:ENC.-MasonicDevice (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

By what aspect of the WP policy is the Islamic oriented contribution on this topic removed?Rtwise (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

I'll not dignify that question with an answer. The criteria for inclusion of all (yes, even Islamic) information and sources should be clear to you at this point. It is clear to me that you disagree with policy as currently stated. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What about this practical idea? Why don’t you submit Wikipedia’s policies on “anti-bias” to the major centers of learning in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, etc., and ask them to work up an article for you on Muhammad using the most widely known experts and authors on the subject? Give them some time to come up with a consensual presentation, and send it back for a look over from Wikipedia? Use established criteria, but with the caveat that the article must be representative from within an Islamically conscious setting, that the writers be able to read/converse in Arabic, and that sources quoted are representative of Islamic and/or Arabic scholarship. Request that all the policies must be followed, but within an Islamic, particularly Arabic context (I say Arabic because of the basic corpus of writings are in Arabic). This would hopefully allow for an indigenous response to a “Western intellectual style,” as found in the “bias against bias” approach of Wikipedia policy. Thanks Rtwise (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Assuming that WP:NOR is followed, editors are free to add references to scholars in these "major centers of learning" in the Muslim world and modify the article based on their work right now. I fail to see how your solution improves upon the current state of affairs. What editors are not free to assert is that Muslim understanding of these images, or the subject, is just cause for the image's removal. No amount of relativisitic understanding of the subject can change what these images verifiably are: depictions of Muhammad, the subject of this encylopdia article. We can't set aside policy to conform to some nebulous concept of cultural relativism, but policy can change.-MasonicDevice (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear that there is an identifiable prejudice here when Masonic Device states that writers are “not free” to “assert” “a Muslim understanding” of these images or use thereof. How did/could anyone neatly excise the Islamic context/culture as a, if not the, major contributor on this subject? If someone went to the Lakota tribe of South Dakota, and set up a method of discovery that said something like, people are allowed to share about what they know of the Sundance, but if you actually practice it, we don’t want to hear about it. Does this make sense? Also, if a Lakota sundancer does tell us about his ritual, about the founders (if they are nice to do that), does that mean the exchange is to be understood as dictatorial (which is often the projection thrown on Islamic oriented writers)? Can’t they say what the experience is without an idea or need to believe that everyone is “equal” to the task of describing what the sundance is, how it should be represented, and so on? Surely Masonic Device doesn’t intend to exclude the totality of Islamic culture (I hope?), but appears to not want to give an Islamic oriented point of view any privilege status. Here is the unsolvable conundrum, the place that the talkpage group seems stuck (failure of nerve and/or trust?). I would argue that WP policies are best served within (not outside) the cultural context of persons that know about the subject and I would seek a consensus within the specific cultural circle or context (as you are able). Cultural relativism may seem nebulous, or even nefarious in the abstract, but if you look at this specific instance, you see that cultural sensitivity is required. It is wreckless disregard to press forward with representations about a specific culture or an individual founder of a culture, especially when the vast majority of the people within that culture, say that these representations are a distortion and offense (use of pictures to portray the Prophet Muhammad). Again, nothing has been solved by a simple redirection to WP policy…. Also, if the issue IS actually already solved, why patronize people here? Just shut the page down and move forward…thanks. Rtwise (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

What I said: "What editors are not free to assert is that Muslim understanding of these images, or the subject, is just cause for the image's removal."

How I was quoted: ...states that writers are “not free” to “assert” “a Muslim understanding” of these images or use thereof.

You distort my position greatly. Please, acutally read what I write, as your denunciations of a postion I do not espouse are tiresome and wordy. Simply stated, just because a group claims that something impedes understanding doesn't prove that it does. These claims, and the evidence that supports them, must be weighed against opposing claims and evidence. All this bison dung about Lakota sundancers proves nothing. You seem to know something about them. Go write an article. Once people know it's there, they'll add to it. After a while, it could become a good article. A really good one would have a historical and cultural description from the outside citing sources on the inside and outside, maybe a link to a video of an example if a verifiable example could be found, and probably a picture or two. In both the case at hand and your Lakota example, objections to depiction would be weighed, found to be unsupported by any verifiable evidence, noted, and explained in the article, but said depictions would remain due to the measureable increase in the encyclopedic value of including them in the article. When you weigh verified evidence against empty claims, the evidence wins every time. Some things aren't relative to frame of reference. If it's sitting right in front of you, some things just are. This isn't a cultural anthro journal, it's an encyclopedia. Encylopedias are, by their very nature, etic, as they seek to compile information and write in a manner that eases cross-cultrual comparison.

You're right that sending people to WP:LOP doesn't "solve" the problem, but that's because you can't see the forest through the trees. Nothing is ever "solved" on WP WP:CCC. The point of sending people off to the policy page is to tell them that current consensus is that policy prohibits honoring their request. You're free to accept policy as it is or try and change policy or its interpretation.-MasonicDevice (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but it is tantamount to the same thing. They and their perspective are irrelevant, in your position, particularly regarding the removal of imagesRtwise (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

"bison dung about Lakota sundancers?" Mason Device shows how he sticks to his professed principles of civility, by cussing, insulting cultures, and deleting other people's messages. If you had read my point, you would have noticed that I said that after a consensus was found within an Islamically oriented cultural setting, then the article would be referred back to Wikipedia for their assessment. First things firstRtwise (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

That is exactly what I thought and mentioned above....just a lot of venting and patronizing blah, blah...good luckRtwise (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Firstly, no. It's not tantamount to the same thing. If it had been, why not quote the whole thing? It would have been easier, no? It just didn't say what you wanted it to say, so you cut off the entire second half of my sentence. That's dishonest. The clause you so conveniently left out restricts and narrows the scope of the statement to say that emic claims should not be taken as gospel when evidence lends credence to opposing claims. Secondly, back to the swearing charge, eh? Whatever. You're so predictable. Do you wonder why I said "bison dung" instead of something else? If you were any sort of a serious anthropologist, you'd know that. Bison dung or chips are useful stuff - in the right context. When you're burning it in your winter fire, or using it to cook pottery, it's great, but stepping in it during the summer can make a pointless mess. Likewise, your opinions on the construction of WP policy are fabulous for a discussion on policy, but as out of place as a foot in a pile on the prairie in a discussion of how an article can be constructed while conforming to policy. Do try not to judge, ok, hon? I insult nothing except your choice of venue. -MasonicDevice (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dishonest...funny. You are just argumentative, circular, and avoidant. I said the consensual emic point of view that you would receive, would then be directed back to Wikipedia and thrown to the winds for etic others. To be honest, if someone reads all of your posts, they are worn out, reworked, rehash of the same thing over and over, so that after about five readings, you stop paying attention. What would motivate someone to quote chapter and verse of "core" principles of Wikipedia, principles that you don't even follow, over and over? Also, nice try with "bison dung" in relation to what is for them a sacred ritual. Try that out on a Lakota to see how far you get. This is an example where "core principles" brings a near total disconnect from reality. If it were arranged for you to come and present your association of Lakota dancers to "bison dung" inside the reservation, the absurdity of what you say might leak through. Oh, but you wouldn't see any reason for an emic first step. In short, you do delete other peoples messages, are hostile in tone, cuss, and are offensive to culturally senstive issues. Smell the coffee.12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Look, I could have said "bull shit", but I didn't because it didn't say what I wanted. In addition to being unecessarily crude, it was neither apropos nor specific. Note also that I didn't call the rituals themselves "bison dung" but rather your use of them. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I should expect as much from an anthropologist. Not dying from exposure in a North Dakota winter, while not a sacred ritual, was critical to the survival of the Lakota. Like bison dung, you're points aren't bad, but they're horribly non-constructive in this context. Perhaps you're just upset I got a high hard one by you on your supposed subject of expertise? I choose my words very carefully, and sometimes the subtlety takes a reading or two. It's also why I undo your comment splitting. As for civility? You lecture me? Frankly, how dare you? You're the one that keeps posting out of place, splitting comments, making absurd ad hominem charges about "cussing" and "censorship", and carrying on about an issue that has a clearly reached a consensus in accordance with the principles that guide WP.-MasonicDevice (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This statement by Mathias Schindler, who works for the German-language version of Wikipedia, said "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for an inner-Muslim debate." I would say that Mathias, and his group, should relook at this either/or dichotomy. Is it possible that the current polarization of the West with Muslim cultures has allowed people to be less fluid, flexible in how they approach a subject. Also, doesn't the closed nature on the subject, show a level of defensiveness on Wikipedia's side? Why begin a page that says no matter how much you say or demonstrate, we will not change our decision. How is this academic freedom? What precident is there for something like this in encylopedia history? The "inner Muslim" context would be your emic point of view.Rtwise (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Your ontological essay about the general workings of Wikipedia aside, Rtwise, could you please explain why a secular project like Wikipedia should obey the rules and regulations of a religion? Because that is basically what you are saying. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rtwise, you've told MasonicDevice: "In short, you do delete other peoples messages, are hostile in tone, cuss, and are offensive to culturally senstive issues." I can understand that discussions like the one above can be very frustrating, but please try to keep a cool head and remain civil. This is not a matter of life or death, the two of you are basically arguing over a bunch of pixels on a screen. If this discussion makes your blood boil, take a short break, have a cup of tea, do the groceries or the laundry, anything but Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Is it possible that the current polarization of the West with Muslim cultures has allowed people to be less fluid, flexible in how they approach a subject." No, i think its certain.

"Also, doesn't the closed nature on the subject, show a level of defensiveness on Wikipedia's side?" Yes, thats due to constant attacks on wikipedia (by many different groups).

"Why begin a page that says no matter how much you say or demonstrate, we will not change our decision." Because we won't, thats because we know if we give in to one groups demand then ALL gropus will want special treatment and this will destroy this encyclopedia.

"How is this academic freedom?" Freedom isn't free and needs to be protected, no wikipedia no freedom.

"What precident is there for something like this in encylopedia history?" No.

"The "inner Muslim" context would be your emic point of view." No it would be that german guys, lots of different POV's here but most are western and don't want to be forced to obay Sharia on a project we created. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Your ontological essay about the general workings of Wikipedia aside, Rtwise, could you please explain why a secular project like Wikipedia should obey the rules and regulations of a religion? Because that is basically what you are saying."

This is a good observation. Basically I would ask Wikipedia to think beyond an old Enlightenment paradigm (secular vs. sacred). Trying to be parsimonious… One of my doctorates is in the academic study of religion. As you know, it is possible to discuss religious topics academically and include them as a subject of study. Now, if you add to this the most recent writings in ethnology and anthropology regarding the emic point of view (and I apologize for repetition), then you can see that the red line between “secular” and “sacred” is not so clear or distinct. In other words, we really ought to treat religion and the topics of religion just as you do a foreign culture. If you come at them from the outside, then you are not only superficial (as in Orientalisms), you may be recommitting the worst kind of academic colonialism and suppression of genuine knowledge. I only mention American Indian literature as one example because it is so full of this critique, of how textual representations were overlayed on top of their own setting. Go check out the historical trauma literature on this subject, to appreciate the comprehensiveness of the objection. It should give pause for reflection, as to the wide spread rejection of most academic presentations of their own culture/s. If you care about such things, then why keep this kind of approach going…? Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

" If this discussion makes your blood boil, take a short break, have a cup of tea, do the groceries or the laundry, anything but Wikipedia."

Point taken…maybe there is also a little humor and irony… Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

"No, i think its certain."

When you say “its certain,” I don’t know what you mean. Do you mean that the tension would still exist prior to 9/11? A certain clash of perspectives? Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

I'd say it's fairly certain that some clash of perspectives exisited before 9/11. I have a similar arguement when my conservative friends say that on that date, "Everything changed". It didn't really (WTC 1, USS Cole, Kenya and Tanzania, OK City, etc.), but this time it was on live TV. -MasonicDevice (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly MD. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Also, doesn't the closed nature on the subject, show a level of defensiveness on Wikipedia's side?" Yes, thats due to constant attacks on wikipedia (by many different groups)."

I think when you are on the defensive, and with so many groups, you have to re-look at things. Don’t you think this makes sense? Maybe something is on the wrong footing. Are a all these different people and groups, who on the attack, mistaken? Is there something to their critiques? Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

This might be the case, but it isn't the place. -MasonicDevice (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Are a all these different people and groups, who on the attack, mistaken?" Yes or just dishonest. The Catholics don't like use mentioning how many thousands of kids thier priests have raped and abused, Scientology does not like use giving away made up secrets of the universe they sell for thousands of dollars, companies try to get thier products preferencial treatment etc etc etc it goes on for ever! And they are wrong! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"'Why begin a page that says no matter how much you say or demonstrate, we will not change our decision.' Because we won't, thats because we know if we give in to one groups demand then ALL gropus will want special treatment and this will destroy this encyclopedia."

I don’t think you really can know this… we can’t predict the future. Stand on your policies, but also adapt them to the subject matter. I think that Wikipedia got placed in the bullseye on this one, but they could avoid it. Side step it a little…. Look at how Australia came out an made a public apology to the indigenous people there. You make a good faith alteration and go forward. Placing images of the Prophet Muhammad in this article on him is something that 98% of the Muslim oriented cultures will not appreciate ten, twenty plus years from now.Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Are you really comparing the rape and pillage of indigious populations and lands to the publication of an image? That's a bit of a stretch. I'd say that the Aboriginal slightly more than didn't "appreciate" their treatment by white Austrialians. But then, how would I know? I'm not an Aboriginal Australian, Native American, nor First Nations member. - MasonicDevice (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Are you really comparing the rape and pillage of indigious populations and lands to the publication of an image?" Of course he is, infact wikipedias crimes are worse. How dare we not obey Sharia and submit to Allah right now. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"we can’t predict the future" Yes we can, we read history books. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"'How is this academic freedom?'" Freedom isn't free and needs to be protected, no wikipedia no freedom."

Can you explain this a bit? I don’t know what you mean by “no wikipedia, no freedom.” I am trying… Do you mean that you have to create policies that protect academic freedoms? I would agree with that. Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

When an article is attacked by "Meat puppets" and this was the biggest attack of its type yet, you have to stop them doing what they want or its going to keep happening. We did and they have gone. The enlightenment which you hate so much is why we have electricity let alone computers, because academics were free atlast of religious oppression. If wikipedia is forced to obey sharia there will be no academic freedoms. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"The "inner Muslim" context would be your emic point of view." No it would be that german guys, lots of different POV's here but most are western and don't want to be forced to obay Sharia on a project we created."

I appreciate the struggle you mention here. I do think the concern about “obeying” Sharia is somewhat of phantom fear of Western types…”the sky is falling!” If you maintain an academic point of view, Sharia is just one source out there. It does happen to be one of the major inside sources on this subject. You walk into that setting, as you walk into a deep cave, and you start to document the story. If you stand outside the cave, you can miss quite a lot.Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

If the cave is the subject, than what you're describing is akin to a tour in the dark by guides wearing night-vision goggles. They can describe in great detail what the cave looks like, but you can't see it. Wikipedia is more like a selfguided tour, or a torchlight guided tour. The descirptions from those in the know are there, but anything that can be seen is fair game.-MasonicDevice (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"I do think the concern about “obeying” Sharia is somewhat of phantom fear of Western types…”the sky is falling!”" Then why do you keep demanding we change what we do in line with Sharia teaching. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Heck... I'm not even really arguing with him anymore. I'm just asking him to write somewhere where he can actually implement the changes he seeks. -MasonicDevice (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys have taken this argument entirely too far here (at least in my opinion). It's become an argument over religion and values, and we just don't need that here. WP:FORUM anyone? Jmlk17 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Archive?-MasonicDevice (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed this has strayed to discussions not covered on this talk page. Archive - yes.--Garycompugeek (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete the pictures

Delete those pictures! These editors @ wikipedia are shameless and arrogant. They are hurting the sentiments of world's second largest religion by brazenly depicting the pics of its Prophet. I believe every person should respect the beliefs, customs and sentiments of other religions, Even if he/ she doesnt believe , practice OR is attached to it. Shame on you Wikipedia ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.82.64 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My God says "Pizza is evil" and no one is allowed to consume it therfore everyone please stop eating pizza. Same principal as above with componets changed seems a bit silly doesn't it. We are not arrogant. You are pretentious. Look in the mirror. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

GaryCompuGeek, To correct your analogy- It is something like this : " My God says Pizza is evil , so I donot want it to be mixed with my food ". I wouldnt mind you eating pizza, unless you are eating it in my plate ! Sameway - ( I am not being sarcastic) I wouldnt object if you put those pics in your own personal page or any other insignificant page.It matters a lot when it is put in Prophet Muhammad's page. Its against his teachings. This 15 page Wikipedia article wudnt have been created if Muhammad werent the prophet (of Islam) and if he were just some ordinary 6th Century resident of Makkah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.82.64 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not the meaning I am trying to convey. Your presumption is false. Please do not try to twist my analogy into to what you think it should say. I meant exactly what I said, nothing more or less. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Long answer: Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Short answer: "No." _(1 == 2)^Until 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

IP address 76.95.82.64 you have just become an editor at wikipedia and so you have just insulted yourself. Also since when do you represent and lead all the Muslims world-wide. Since you are not some sort of supreme leader of Islam please do not presume to speak for the entire religion. Also keep in mind that some sects of Islam do allow depiction of Muhammad. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and is WP:NOT#CENSORED nor does it follow the Islmaic sharia. Next time, please see the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and previous talk archives as we have discussed many of these questions and issues ad nasuem already. Also by coming to this site you already agree to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, and if you find such pictures distasteful or otherwise feel free to leave at any time. Please do not continue your trolling actives and rants, instead support your arguments with facts and try to change the consensus. Cheers.Janus8463 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Janus8463, I dont think I have insulted myself. It just happened you did not give weight to the word 'these'. I have great respect for the other editors who are doing great job by writing / editing different articles on science, entertainment and current affairs etc. Reg the 'some sects in Islam do allow depiction of pictures' , I am not a Harvard grad in Islamic Studies but I believe there is a big majority of Muslims in the world belonging to Sunni sect which discourages the picture depiction of the prophet. To further strengthen my argument, If some sections of people question the ability of my president (Bush) based on his public speakings, I still wudnt allow them to put anything in the main Bush article which would embarrass him. Because I respect him for being the President and representing the whole US population to the world. And would not like to justify saying some sections of media allows it. I believe my opinion is still valid: "Give Due respect and Donot hurt the feelings of other people, Particularly when you can deliver the message without hurting them".

Your opinions are valid, but your argument is not here. Read the link above, and that will answer your concerns. Jmlk17 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All too often, the actions of some in the West do ignore the values of Muslims etc., particularly when it comes to external policies. Even so, Wikipedia is not a stage for playing out or reflecting these schisms. It is a neutral, coherent repository of information, and the editors agree to not favor one opinion or group over another. There is indeed a problem that many Sunnis have with Shia depictions of the prophet or other important figures. As I have stated above, this is a disagreement between them alone. The depiction of religious art depicting Mohamet is historical in nature and in no way "shameless and arrogant." Some members of one group believe it to be haram and others do not. In contrast, if editors were to insert into this article a cartoon of the prophet with a bomb in his head, yes, that would be shameless, arrogant and provocative, and I would consider that a brazen attempt to incite people, not to mention in poor taste. The pictures in question, however, are tasteful, historical and very relevant to religious history. Thanks, Twalls (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole issue has been beaten into the ground countless times. It's the same thing every time, and the argument will never change. The pictures will stay, end of story. Jmlk17 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I thought it important to identify the question of such depictions as mainly an internal debate between different traditions within the Islam, and to make the point that the inclusion is not some attempt of Wikipedia to rile anyone up. Of course it's patently wrong and quite presumptuous to demand their removal without reading the disclaimer or even looking at the article, but the response of some is just a little knee-jerk. You have to assume (as with any product) that people don't "read the directions." Twalls (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

'The pictures will stay, end of story' - I think thats where we see the arrogance and thats where the story actually starts. Anyways, everytime some person feels that article is disrespectful and unethical he/she is going to write down his/her opinion. Jmlk17 you might want to reconsider if you want to repeat the same lines redundantly. -Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.82.64 (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to arrogance and disrespect, I'll refer you to your original post above. But I digress from not feeding the trolls. This thread should be archived. Jmlk17 04:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)