Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Muhammad/images. |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 26:
The purpose of the long-lasting denial is not new. Jesus has said in the Bible not to picture anything above the skies and under earth, however, Christians and Muslims don't follow it now. There's some artists that respected Muhammad's wishes of not picturing his face, so they drew pics w/o the face nor skin color.
These are all oily arts, so I don't think the pics are weired or anything. Can anybody look at [http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_face_hidden/ this link] and give his opinion. It should stop all debates and respect everyone. PEACE! [[User:adamrce|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
:I don't think it will have any effect on debates here. Nobody has problems with pictures that don't show Muhammad's face. It's those that do that create problems.
Line 33:
::Most of them are from the same narrow cultural milieu as the existing article pictures, and for that reason, IMO, have the same problem. But the four 19th century paintings by Mohammad Modabber and the modern Shia pics/internet homepages (at the end) are worth considering (subject to copyright etc) as a replacement for some the existing pics to introduce some diversity. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 16:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::: A few years ago I had a discussion in college on the historical "Depictions of Muhammad", and I actually made a couple of claims based on what I found on that website. Unfortunately, after reading more into the subject, these claims turned out to be false. For instance, some of the images there are said to be from the 11th century, but all reliable sources state that the earliest extant images are form the late 13th and early 14th centuries. Also, some of these images are not even depictions of Muhammad (e.g., the image at the end, showing the 12 Imams, three of which are shown in large figures, and Prophet Muhammad is not depicted anywhere -- they seem to have now corrected that one in the caption, though). It is unfortunate that some of these false claims have been copied verbatim to Wikipedia, and stayed here for years, which I have only recently corrected. All in all, that website contains errors and it isn't reliable. [[User:Wiqi55|<b
Even the FAQ says that the pics aren't a real picturing of Muhammad, as no-one in his generation pictured him. My suggestion was replacing pictures in the article with the ones that are without faces, as none of the artists are reliable anyways (there is '''no''' real drawing of him. [[User:adamrce|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
:The article contains images with and without faces. The presence or absence of a face is an irrelevant consideration for making editorial decisions; what matters more is how the image illustrates the article. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 01:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
::I don't agree with AA, but there is logic in what he says, as that is why the faces were blanked in the first place. But most previous objectors seem to object equally to images with or without a blank or a veil. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 02:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Blanked will keep the topic less-stressed. However, my suggestions '''only''' apply on availability: preferring an image without a face, '''if''' it gives the same meaning. I know it's against WP's policies, but it will stop orthodox believers' offensiveness (not seeing the picture, but publishing it in the first-place against the willing of Muhammad himself). I liked [[User:Amatulic|Amatulic]]'s recent edit on [[Splitting_of_the_moon]], as he used from those pics and pointed out which one is Muhammad. Thanks guys for your opinions [[User:adamrce|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
== In fond memory of the infobox image ==
Line 57:
The first one is pretty cool although I'd prefer something less modern. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 23:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
:I suggest we include a picture of Muhammad, as we do with all other major historical figures. Why should we have what are to most people just meaningless squiggles? <
::This has been considered before. The most common depiction is calligraphic, so that's what we use. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 00:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Line 69:
After reading your posts I've come to the conclusion that you have no care for Islam or Prophet Muhammad or Muslims in any way, shape, or form.
Don't write an article about somebody if you just want to be annoying. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.181.32.153|124.181.32.153]] ([[User talk:124.181.32.153|talk]]) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Who are you referring to? The article was written by 100s of different editors. [[User:Doomgaze|<
<offensive comment removed> IP editor, please understand no one is trying to be offensive, we just have different ideas about what constitutes the proper way to pass on knowledge. Please note that in the FAQ above it explains how you can block images from being shown on your computer if you wish. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 06:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
== Remove blasphamous pictures of Holy Porphet Muhmmad (peace be upon him): ==
{{hat|We are not listing to the same IP come back 1-2 times a year repeating the same message. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 22:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)}}
Please remove all blasmphamous pictures of holy prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) episode of the Black Stone.[79] is big blasphamy against our prophet(peace be upon him).We would be thankful if you remove all of the blasmphamous pictures as soon as possible.Bye the way why do you guys put pictures of Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him), are you blasphamous.You must remove these images all at once.
:Please read: [[WP:NOTCENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored]] and [[Talk:Muhammad/FAQ|the FAQ on Muhammad]] about why the pictures will not be removed. [[User:Jarkeld|Jarkeld]] ([[User talk:Jarkeld|talk]]) 19:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Line 147:
::::::{{ec}}Ludwigs2: Policy FORBIDS us from taking that into account. Policy FORBIDS us from biasing the RfC process. And Policy FORBIDS us from asking an RfC in a fashion where every question asks or implies "should we delete the images for this reason or this one?". And IAR is NOT a magic wand you can use to get your way, which is all you want. Nearing completion of an RfC of my own, which such BAD FAITH efforts above may soon require. <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 16:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::You should start at [[Aniconism in Islam]], where I expect you will find the "doctrine" less emphatic than you expect. It is essentially all based on [[hadith]], and interestingly specifically condemnatory of those who ''make'' images rather than consume them. Note also that the [[Persianate]] tradition of images developed among Sunnis for a couple of centuries before the rulers of Persia turned Shia. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::: The Sunni claim is merely a modern speculation. I'm not aware of any concrete evidence for such a claim. Also, idolatry is only one side of this debate, the other being misinformation. It goes without saying that images convey information (or misinformation) more effectively than text. [[User:Wiqi55|<b
::::::::If by "Sunni claim" you mean my point just above, I can well believe you are not aware of "any concrete evidence" but reading a basic book or two on the subject would solve that problem. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Guys, please decide whether you're going to accuse me of being a Muslim advocate or of not knowing enough about the faith; you can use one ad hominem or the other, but trying to use both is confusing. Funny, but confusing. {{=)}}
Line 187:
== Very offensive ==
I find these images of the holy prophet muhammed offensive. If I may I would like to provide an alternate photograph. May Allah guide your ways.
:New comments at the bottom of the page, please.
Line 493:
:::I have to agree, in part, with Ludwigs2 here. Tarc, your contributions to this discussion seem to get more and more insulting over time. As far as I can tell, you're saying that any Sunni coming to this article does not have "average common sense". Still, I think that, probably, "least astonishment" supports inclusion of the images (at least, some of them), but I don't think it is appropriate to say that no one of good sense comes here and is astonished to find the images. In fact, I was a bit surprised myself, in that I assumed that there were no pictures (at least, outside of those drawn in contemporary times by non-Muslims, which clearly wouldn't be appropriate here). Of course, that points to the notion that some images should be included (as others have said), but perhaps not nearly as extensively as we currently feature them (up to the possibility that the images would more appropriately belong only in a sub-article like [[Depictions of Muhammad]]. Again, I'm not trying to take a strong stand here one way or the other, but only to say that this is a question worthy of discussion and an RfC. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::::If you feel insulted, then you should work on some skin-thickening exercises. This is EN.wiki. Not Middle.East.wiki. Not Iranian.wiki. A reader reading an article in the English Wikipedia, which like it or not presents topics in a Western-centric point-of-view, should ''not'' be astonished to see an image of Muhammad in the Muhammad article. Ludwigs has no leg to stand on on this tangent, and neither do you. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 01:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::I more or less agree with that; I, for one, was fascinated when I finally saw an article on Muhammad that gave me insight into what people's impressions of him were. Incidentally, the fact that Farsi Wikipedia has these images in their Muhammad article without the accompanying talkpage theatrics should perhaps indicate that many Muslims (certainly all the Muslims I know; in my area, we have a few Iranians and a lot of Albanians) are not so closed-minded as they've been portrayed by the images' detractors; if I were a Muslim, I'd find the idea that an encyclopedia needed to "protect our beliefs" rather patronizing. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
:::::::Good point - can't get a link to work, but there are 5 images, two veiled, three full-face; and its a featured article. Some are the same as here, where we have currently 6 images, one veiled, one flame & 4 with face visible (including the Russian one). [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: The Persian wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is also in the interest of Persian nationalists (and the theocratic regime in Tehran) to turn their article into the "Persianified Muhammad". But here on the English Wikipedia we should try to be more balanced. We currently have too much Persian imagery in this article. One gets the impression that the Prophet was revered only in Persia (or Persianate cultures) or that he was a [[Persian King]]. Last I checked, even pages of Persian kings do not have this amount of Persian imagery on their articles. And it's not about protecting one's beliefs, but rather having a balanced and accurate presentation of a historical figure and his teachings (which this article's placement/selection of images terribly fails at). [[User:Wiqi55|<b
:::::::Oh yes, having a Russian image of Muhammad ''totally'' drives home the idea of Persian nationalism; nice try at now framing it as a nationalist idea, but perhaps you should apply Ockham's razor here. It ''could'' be a giant Persian conspiracy to Persianize Muhammad... but it might also just be the fact that the images are quite informative, for reasons I've elucidated above. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
:::::::: No one said anything about a Russian image (or a conspiracy for that matter). The fact that we have too much Persian imagery in this article has been raised before by other editors. I'm just saying that comparison to the Persian Wikipedia should be more reserved. We shouldn't copy other Wikipedias. Their take on the subject sometimes reflect national interests and cultural or religious beliefs. [[User:Wiqi55|<b
:::::::::Well we've just discovered (below) we've had an image from Kashmir, and the 19th century, all along without realizing it! [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: Erm. Dear me. I really [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/images&diff=next&oldid=458199105 did not mean] to cause so much controversy. Perhaps we should all reflect on historical figures such as the [[Solomon|King]] who was purported to have been wise. One wonders how [[Sulayman|such a person]] would have dealt with mediating this thread! --[[User:Senra|Senra]] ([[User Talk:Senra|Talk]]) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: Johnbod. it may have only been found or copied in Kashmir, but possibly produced somewhere else. In any case, the illustrated book ''Hamlat i-Haydari'' has been studied and categorized as a tradition of the [[Qajar]] dynasty, which is Persian. [[User:Wiqi55|<b
:::::::::::Copied, very possibly, but if they didn't think it was produced in Kashmir they wouldn't have catalogued it that way. With such a specific date it presumably has an inscription recording the circumstances of its making. In fact we currently have 2 Persian, 2 Turkish, 1 Kashmiri & 1 Russian image, which seems reasonable balance. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::: I meant ''originally'' produced. It is thought to be [[Qajar]] (Persian), not Indian. Also, the Turkish miniature tradition is a continuation of the Persian one, with Persian works often served as model to Ottoman painters. Considering these facts, a better count would be 5 Persianate and 1 Russian. That doesn't seem "balanced". [[User:Wiqi55|<b
:::::::::::::As usual, any specious wiggling to avoid the facts. One might as well call all Western art Greek. If it is made in Kashmir it is "originally" Kashmiri. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Perhaps Wiqi55 is saying we need to find more images to provide even greater balance? I'm sure that's ''achievable'' - though I am not sure if more images is ''suitable''. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 21:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Johnbod, it has been studied as part of the Qajar tradition, which is Persian. The ''Hamla i-Haydari'' is also a book of Persian poetry, composed by a poet in the Qajar court. It can't be more Persian than that. [[User:Wiqi55|<b
:::::::::::::::Oh yes it could - it could ''actually'' be made in Persia, by Persians. You know perfectly well that [[Persianate]] culture covers almost the whole Islamic world to varying degrees, but that doesn't mean there is not a difference between what is actually Persian and what is not. Or would you classify the whole of [[Mughal painting]], and other arts, as Persian? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: Kashmir was ruled by Parisian dynasties in the 16th century (and perhaps later too). There were also Persian courts in Kashmir. Thus the fact that it was made by Persians cannot be ruled out. Also it was a Parisian poetry book. Regardless of the patron's ethnicity, the fact that they were interested in a Persian poetry book is enough to determine their cultural affiliation. Concerning your other point, we are dealing with a single artistic tradition. The same artists and their direct disciples often moved from one dynasty to another. For instance, the Persian miniatures boom in the Ottoman empire was largely caused by many masters and their disciples moving from various Persian cities (most notably Tabriz) to Istanbul. It is rather reasonable to assume that the images we have here are the result of a continuation of a single artistic tradition at different phases. This tradition happens to be distinctively Persian. [[User:Wiqi55|<b
:::::::::::::::::*Honest questions: (not familiar with art topics really) Does the fact that they were ruled by them invalidate their own cultural contributions? Inotherwords, does the art of the time reflect their own culture, or the culture of the Persians they were taken over by? If their own culture, how much weight should we give to who ruled as opposed to the cultural aspects of the art? Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 22:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::: The style will certainly reflect the artist and his school. But the content (including the interpretation of certain events, or which events to highlight and illustrate) will be left to the patron. Now the patron could either be a Sultan (i.e., someone affiliated with the court) or a rich merchant. [[User:Wiqi55|<b
:::::::::::::::::::Ok, so we need to become more informed/knowledgeable on these images then? And we need to know if the artist/school moved on to Persian artistic influences or kept their own cultural influences? I think that's the gist of what I am getting out of this... and from there we can make an informed decision on this? This may be a case for better variety or better citing/information or removing ones with the same artistic influences? Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::That would be a help. Wiki55 has a moderate amount of knowledge, but unfortunately he uses this advancing distorted arguments to marginalize the actually very widespread traditions involving Islamic depictions of Muhammad into a "Persian" box, which he then feels able to dismiss. Applying the same logic to Europe, all post-Renaissance art would be described as "Italian", as it is certainly influenced by the Italian Renaissance, and forms part of the same tradition. And all Western art from the last 2,000 years would be described as Greek for the same reason. Like other countries, the English court in the Renaissance imported several Italian and Flemish [[artists of the Tudor court]] who influenced English art; that does not mean that all art made in England for centuries afterwards was "Italian" or Flemish". That the Mughals and Ottomans imported small numbers of Persian artists (among others from elsewhere) for a brief period equally does not mean that these empires did not develop their own traditions. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Line 549:
::::I'll clarify my position in light of Anthonycoles' request/point. I do not object wholesale to all images of Muhammad, nor do I think that we should interpret the recent WMF resolution to mean that we should remove these images (side note: I do 100% support the creation of tools that make it possible for ''others'' to block the images; I myself, for example, will use such tools to block pictures of nudity, etc., while I'm at work, as I need some images blocked but not all images, as the current work-arounds require). I do believe that we are probably over-using images in this article, because, as has been pointed out by others, these images all come from a fairly narrow time frame and area, and using them to represent Muhammad throughout the article is excessive; in other words, I consider the over-emphasis of a narrow category of images to be a violation of [[WP:UNDUE]]. I also believe that we should have more calligraphic or other abstract images (assuming we can get them as free/fair use files), given that that is how Muhammad is represented the overwhelming majority of the time in Islam. I do believe that we should have a section in this article that acts as a summary (see [[WP:Summary style]]) of [[Depictions of Muhammad]], and that said section should contain one or two visual (picture) images of Muhammad. I believe that the [[Depictions of Muhammad]] article should contain as many images as we can reasonably fit, keeping in mind the constraints of [[WP:UNDUE]] (i.e., not overemphasizing one specific time period/artist/whatever). In other words, I'm not coming at this from a "potentially offensive" position--I'm coming at it from the requirements of [[WP:NPOV]], which I believe this article violates. Finally, one of my main points so far in the last week or two is that I consider it insulting that some editors have constantly lampooned this as a dead issue, as one of pandering, of accusing some people of bad faith, and of attempting to prevent the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]] from being used by those who feel that their voices are not being heard. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Qwyrxian: There are definitely points I agree upon. I have no idea why some editors would (a) try to remove an opponent with WQA, (b) try to do an end run to ArbCom when valid RfC proposals were on the table, (c) misstate their position at ArbCom, (d) propose RfC's that through implication or direct wording make the questions "remove or remove or remove" and so on. You're correct, if that isn't bad faith, I dont know what is. Nonetheless, in good faith, with numerous conversations being derailed because I wont agree to removing all images, I've proposed an RfC that addresses your concerns. The "all or nothing" ones on the table will not work to do that. Nor will the "none or none" proposal. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 02:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::I pretty much endorse this entire post, Qwyrxian, it's a common sense approach to the page. [[User:Noformation|<
This is also in response to Antonyhcole's comment. I also do not object automatically to every and any image of Muhammad here. Two aspects are capable ''in principle'' of being illustrated in such a way in spite of the (unreasonable, in my opinion) offence to some Muslims: (1) Muhammad reception in the West. (2) A discussion of the image prohibition. However, even if we ignore, for the sake of the argument, the inane argument that offence taken by a large number of people for religious reasons doesn't count on an article about the very religion whose members take offence, there are enough arguments left to reduce the number of illustrations to at most two:
Line 563:
::::'''Johnbod:''' I suspect those would be the only images that were not objected to - though I do suspect if another en-masse removal attempt is made (though unlikely due to the semi-protect), that such images would simply be associated casualties - and not due to an objection to them specifically. I guess, either way, that leaves us some work on finding an image that's PD or that we can use a fair use claim on. Definitely against the imbalanced portrayal that Tiv has pointed out. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 17:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Anthony, as for point 1, I am sure ''some'' people would object to images of Muhammad in [[Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad]] (if it ever gets written). Having such images there would not be vital, given that there would be a link to the main article. If we had an image, I would advocate that it be a veiled one ([http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg example]). Points 2 and 3 I agree with. --'''
::Hi Jayen! Thanks for that. I messed up this thread with an ambiguous title. :( I was really just trying to clarify the position of editors presently here advocating removal of images. They've now mostly chimed in, so I'll just let this thread ramble on, as these things do, until something shinier pops up. :) --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 13:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:Jayen, that section ''was'' written. Someone took it out (see thread with related title on this talk page). Anyway, from following page after page (which are now all in the archives) about the images, you may find their existence here is the issue - not where they are located. BTW, thanks for the image link. I'll be proposing an image change/addition (will see who wishes which) as not having such a representation seems not to be balanced. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 03:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Line 569:
::Here is quote from the archive that clearly suggests that the number and location of images affect the amount of objection to them:
::{{quote| We got along fine with one picture at the Muhammad article for more than a year, I think it was. It was a Persian miniature, it was small, Muhammad's face was veiled, and I thought it was a sensible compromise between some Muslim sensibilities and reader's right to know how some Muslims depicted Muhammad. The other pictures were at the Depictions of Muhammad article, where we had space to treat the subject thoroughly. That seemed to be acceptable to all.}}
:: Anecdotal evidence, yes, but still useful. Full post here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/Archive_10#Pictures] [[User:Wiqi55|<b
:::Not even the slightest bit useful. We have no idea at all what piques the SPAs and vandals ire at any given moment, whatever incites them to come here and post their harangues is beyond the purview of this board. What is interesting though is that in the several weeks since Ludwigs2 initiated this fiasco, we have not had a single comment in this discussion by a non-established, regular users. No IPs, no SPAs, not in any of these topics or even to file an Edit Request. If you wish to ponder anecdotal evidence of editor behavior, ponder that one for a bit. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 04:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Not really related anyway. It was a veiled image. Not really a compromise either, since it's accepted as ok (which means one side gives nothing). As for the Depictions article, it didnt make press - though it does get some removal requests (all archived now). And a lot less since this article no longer has a decent sized section pointing to it. <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 04:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks, Wiqi55. I must say I agree with the general sentiment expressed in that 2006 post you linked to. --'''
::::May I ask, in all seriousness, how a picture of a veiled Muhammad in any way is representative of how those perceived his face to look? The information presented is not the same. In the example at the link above, the Quranic calligraphy was the subject matter - not the sleeveless woman. In this, Muhammad and how history perceives him is the subject matter - not one single perception, not a veil (except as a representation of '''part of''' one perception). The comparison seems rather inapplicable. Best, <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small><small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></small> 21:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::The style with the veiled face would seem to have been the dominant style in the depictions that were created, making it the representative type of image. --'''
::::::I see a point in that, but, assuming unveiled depictions did not gain a lot of notability due to "controversy" (for lack of a better word), that would simply argue towards a better balance. Currently, I think it is 2 veiled, 4 not veiled. But, here's an interesting thing (and a follow-up point): when I searched Google for images, using the word "flame" in the search terms, all but one image were unveiled and unflamed (and there was a bunch of calligraphy). Note, I only said that such was interesting. On to the follow-up point (and perhaps this is the reason my search results ended the way they did), either due to changing perceptions in various sects of Islam or perceptions of those who are not necessarily Muslim but venerate Muhammad (or have interest in him), or due to the "controversy"(for lack of a better word) surrounding the images, or a combination of those, it seems the other (non-veiled) images have a very high degree of notability. But that's just my opinion. Best, <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small><small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></small> 05:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
== Religulous Pastafarians ==
Wow it took me hours to read this latest talk page and I've not commented here in quite a while but I noticed it pinging away on my watchlist. This reminds me of the guy who created the Flying Spaghetti Monster to prove his point about creationism. Let me use my use my own very simplified analogy for all those islamist who wish Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad because it offends them or they believe their religious dotrines do not permit it.
My god says "PIZZA IS EVIL, DO NOT EAT PIZZA". I ask all of you to please stop eating pizza, it offends me and my god. Should I now start going to known pizza parlors starting picket lines? This might seem silly because it is silly. There are literally hundreds of different religions with conflicting dogma. Shall we cater to them all or just pick out the ones we like or are the most vocal? This encyclopedia is supposed to be a reflection of human knowledge. It is [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] and never will be. [[User:Garycompugeek|Garycompugeek]] ([[User talk:Garycompugeek|talk]]) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
: so your solution, then, is to force feed people pizza even if there are other things to eat? There are plenty of places to get pizza and no one's going to close them; a rule that requires pizza be served with every meal is just downright silly. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 20:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
After reading Ludwigs response I'm wondering if maybe there is some kind of language/communication barrier. [[User:Garycompugeek|Garycompugeek]] ([[User talk:Garycompugeek|talk]]) 00:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::Tools and instructions, top of this talk page, indicating how to avoid seeing the images. Additionally, almost 100% of the people who have complained (see talk page archives) are one off accounts who fully knew that coming here would expose them to such images - and chose to view this article anyway. That was their choice. They could simply have listened to whatever news report they saw or read and realized the images are here - then chose not to come here. Big difference, IMHO. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 20:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::I think his point was that it would be [[Reductio ad absurdum|absurd]] to expect the pizza places of the world to stop serving pizza (eviscerating their purpose in the process) in response to a religious group shouting outside their window. Furthermore, as I've said above, I don't think most Muslims are so closed-minded as you make them out to be. Where I live (not far from Bridgeport, CT), we have a few Iranian families, some Bosniaks, a significant community of Albanians, and a couple of Indonesian families. I can safely assure you that ''none'' of them would find these at all offensive; indeed, my Albanian friends were disgusted when they couldn't find the Jyllands Posten cartoons, because they wanted to see what could have possibly been so horribly offensive. When they finally saw them (through Wikipedia), they thought it was ridiculous that anyone could get so angry given the myriad ways everyone else's deities are parodied (incidentally, the vast majority of "protesters" were teens who wanted to make noise, not true-believing Muslims). [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<span style="font-family:MS Mincho; color:black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 22:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Blade - you know, I'm aghast at the constant misrepresentation of the problem here. It's as though most editors on this page are incapable of principled behavior (most of the arguments I read here sound like [[Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development#Stages|Kohlberg]] stage 1 or 2; maybe one argument strays as high as stage 4). I wouldn't believe that possible in conversations with otherwise normal adults, but I can't argue with the evidence, either. it's disturbing.
:::The 'principle' of the matter is that we are pithily snubbing a belief of a major world religion for no real reason and without any clear gain for the article. Are there Muslims who don't care about this issue? I'm sure their are lots, just as I'm sure there are lots of Jews who don't care one whit about [[holocaust denialism]], and lots of Christians who wouldn't bat an eye at the theory that [[Jesus bloodline|Jesus was banging Mary]] in his off-hours. Somehow we manage to be respectful enough of Judaism and Christianity not to spout off about these theories except in places where it is appropriate and necessary. Yet when it comes to ''this'' page, those are taboo considerations - we somehow ''must'' do the disrespectful thing, and it is (if you listen to the some of the arguments here) apparently a violation of policy even to ''consider'' the appropriateness and necessity of the images.
:::I am faintly disgusted by the continuing effort to fanaticize the opposition that I see you and a number of other editors engaging in. Your arguments seem mostly to involve a search for different derisive labels to slap on people who disagree with you, in order to make them appear ignorant, unknowledgeable, extremist, unrepresentative, or otherwise 'bad people' who should be ignored. It is a ugly approach, reeking of bad faith and prejudice (and non-falsifiable as well, since ultimately the only criteria for them being labeled 'bad people' is that they oppose you). If you honestly cannot craft a better argument than ''"our opponents are too worthless to consider"'' then you don't have a credible argument to offer, and you ought to stop trying.
:::Harrumph! End of rant (for now…) --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 01:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::You say: "I'm sure there are lots of Jews who don't care one whit about [[holocaust denialism]], and lots of Christians who wouldn't bat an eye at the theory that [[Jesus bloodline|Jesus was banging Mary]] in his off-hours." - these are gratuitously offensive and insulting remarks, as well as totally inaccurate comparisons. The comparison shows you have failed to grasp the situation here at all. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 18:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::We have no obligation what so ever to respect any religious belief and we don't have to justify depictions of Muhammad in a Muhammad article with an appeal to Islamic tradition; their traditions are their own and in what they publish they are welcome to develop their own rules. We are an encyclopedia, and if depictions of Muhammad in a Muhammad article offend some portion of the world, to be frank: tough shit. Religious beliefs should ''never'' shape this secular encyclopedia and the only time offending people (and I don't care if it's 99% of the world's population) should be a consideration is if it could possibly lead to legal action against us. We didn't capitulate to Scientologists when they complained that publishing information about [[Xenu]] was out of line with their religious practices and we sure as hell should not capitulate to Islamic beliefs either. To further the pizza analogy, no one is forcing Muslims to use Wikipedia, nor to view the page on Muhammad; if someone doesn't like it they can find another online encyclopedia, and a non-pizza dinner establishment for that matter. [[User:Noformation|<span style="color:black;">N</span><sup style="color:red;">o</sup><span style="color:black;">f</span><span style="color:red;">o</span><span style="color:black;">rmation</span>]] [[User talk:Noformation|<sup style="color:black;">Talk</sup>]] 02:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for proving my point. You've basically just said: ''"we're free to insult any religion when and where we feel like it, and if they don't like it they can go find another encyclopedia."'' In one fell swoop, you've turned Wikipedia into the worlds first 'yellow press' encyclopedia. congratulations! --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 04:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::I didn't say we're free to insult, I said we should not consider ''offense'' when determining article content. Not caring about offending someone is not the same as insulting someone, it is very very different both in MO and intention. Some people are offended by things you and I would find tame, there's a difference between not considering what offends them important and calling those people dicks - big difference. [[User:Noformation|<span style="color:black;">N</span><sup style="color:red;">o</sup><span style="color:black;">f</span><span style="color:red;">o</span><span style="color:black;">rmation</span>]] [[User talk:Noformation|<sup style="color:black;">Talk</sup>]] 04:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Exactly. I recognize that there are people who get up in arms over images of Muhammad, just as there are many, many Muslims who do not. While they are perfectly entitled to be as angry as they want, we are under no obligation to take it into account. This has nothing to do with deliberately offending people, but rather providing the highest quality information we can. It doesn't make sense to try and describe someone as well-known as Muhammad without knowing the different ways he was portrayed. All of the images here, at least in my opinion, do a better job of communicating it than mere text would, and is therefore in compliance with policy. If providing high quality information means some people get angry, that's the price we pay; think for a moment about the 6 billion or so people (such as myself) who aren't Muslims for a moment. Why should our understanding of Muhammad suffer because some Muslims happen not to like something? (By the way, I'm not claiming the only people who dare argue against the images of Muhammad are all fanatics of some sort, more that there's more than one Muslim point of view on the matter. Neither of us can speak for the "Muslim point of view" as if it's unified, because it's plainly not.) [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<span style="font-family:MS Mincho; color:black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 05:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Guys, you do realize that this is '''exactly''' the kind of reasoning used in entrenched racism, don't you? I mean, this is like that age-old Deep South [[Jim Crow]] thing where they used to say (pardon me for this offensive example): ''"'N*@@er' is just what we call those people, we don't mean any insult by it, and it's not our concern if a few uppity n*@@ers don't like it."'' You are trying to render your opponents as unworthy of being listened to - you may even truly believe they are unworthy of being listened to - but that is ''your'' problem, not ''theirs.''
::::::::You are playing word games to make your unpleasant actions look socially acceptable. but let's look at the facts:
::::::::* You know that these images offend people (you collectively acknowledge it regularly)
::::::::* You know that a proscription against images like this exists in the Muslim faith (you collectively acknowledge that regularly as well)
::::::::* You know that these images add little to nothing to the article (none of you has been able to point to anything except trivial values for these images)
::::::::Now look at the way you collectively try to twist out of this ungainly state:
::::::::* You attack the people who are offended, suggesting they are ignorant zealots unworthy of consideration
::::::::* You try to minimize this as 'individual preferences' and refuse to acknowledge that this is a well-known principle of the faith
::::::::* You try to shift blame onto the victims (classic passive-voice deflection, e.g. ''"We're not offending then, they are just being offended by what we're doing"'')
::::::::* You use bad policy logic (''"we have to offend them because our policy says we can't not do it"'')
::::::::Add that you consistently ignore counter-arguments and then ''make stuff up'', and your whole argument becomes patently ridiculous. to whit:
::::::::*Blade: as discussed repeatedly these images are not 'high-quality information'. They have little to no informational value, and could easily be removed from the article without harm.
::::::::*Nofo: 'not caring about offense' cuts both ways; if you ''truly'' didn't care about offense you would consider removing the images because they have no particular informational value, but instead you seem to care very much about ''continuing to offend'' people regardless of the benefits (or lack thereof) to the encyclopedia. 'WP doesn't about offense' is not the same as 'WP tells them they can suck it'.
::::::::*Blade: You say that ''"Neither of us can speak for the "Muslim point of view"'', but in fact you are trying to promote a side of the dispute that is a distinct historical minority. Not showing pictures of the prophet unless we have cause is neutral; insisting on pictures even without cause is a distinct action that can only be perceived as biased.
::::::::You talk you me as though you think I don't understand that Wikipedia sometimes has to offend people because the encyclopedia requires it. But ''you'' are the ones who do not seem to understand that last 'requires it' phrase. I '''defy''' you to give an explanation of why these images are required on this page - I do that safely because I'm quite sure you can't. In fact, I expect you to ignore the challenge, because that's what happened the last three or four times I've asked for that explanation. But realize that by avoiding this question you are just putting off the inevitable. Sooner or later you are going to have to face the fact that you are wasting 100s of hours of editor time defending images that piss people off for no good reason. When you finally face that, I hope you will have the good graces to be ashamed. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::"Not showing pictures unless we have a cause" is strictly to pander to muslim senseabilities and ties directly to the think of the children concept. We don't have highly inappropriate pictures here (I don't see any questionable acts, no pictures of "Everyone draw Muhammad day, no bomb turbans) and it's asking for people to set aside that this is a western view encyclopedia. In any western setting it is perfectly reasonable to show pictures of someone when you write a biography about them. Having to have a requirement to show them doesn't even play into the equation. Most editors have weighed in on good reasons why they should be kept, and most if not all have been willing to at least review areas where the pictures might no longer make sense. However to blantently require we need to observe a religious edict held by approximately 85% of a religion is not what I would consider acceptable under NPOV and NOTCENSORED as it is censoring and adopting the POV we shouldn't offend someone on religious grounds. If a santized view is what people want they provide a way to get it, and that should be sufficient. Requiring everyone to do without because someone is offended when they can simple block out the pictures for themselves is not acceptable. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 16:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Also being deliberately offensive is definitely not the aim as if the article and editors were trying to be deliberately offensive I am certain they could get depictions and the rights to use them for some of the highly offensive pictures listed above. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 16:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I happen to think that showing a group's impressions of Muhammad (the Persians, after all, were a rather important people in history, as are the Europeans) is very germane to the topic at hand (Muhammad). It offends some people, but contains relevant, encyclopedic information (if we were to implement policies that images had to be ''required'' for understanding, as you seem to be angling for, we'd have to remove the pictures of Barack Obama, since his looks don't impart any information on what he's famous for; that would be absurd). Tivanir2 also makes some excellent points above. Is that simple enough? [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<span style="font-family:MS Mincho; color:black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 16:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Ludwigs2: You keep taking this personally, and I am not sure why. You also claim you understand policy, such as [[WP:CENSOR]] (which has been the crux of this argument) but didnt even know that it has a prohibition against using any religious reasons for censorship. When informed of that (even though '''you''' proposed the change to it at VILLAGE PUMP) you indicate that was because it changes so much - but in this respect, that isn't true either - not just was it in CENSOR when you went to Village Pump, but it was also in it a year ago,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=392046369#Wikipedia_is_not_censored] a year and a half ago,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=368221924#Wikipedia_is_not_censored] and via different wording two years ago.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=322964294#Wikipedia_is_not_censored] You were advised multiple times to take your religiously based offense objections to the correct forum as well. I am not sure why you think that the rest of us don't know policy when you didn't even know the contents of [[WP:CENSOR]] (while personally using it well over a dozen times before its contents were pointed out to you). Please don't take it personally when people simply point out things you didn't know about. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't even read past the second "nigger" because that's patently false and asinine. You might as well [[Godwin's Law|compare those who disagree with you to Nazis as well]]. The reasoning behind not caring about offending someone is '''not''' the same as the reasoning behind racism - they're not even related. I also don't care that our article on Homosexuals can offend some Christians, nor do I give a shit if our article on Xenu offends Scientologists or that any X offends Y. '''That's not the same as dehumanizing an entire group of people based on the color of their skin'''. I will not discuss this further and if you continue this line of reasoning I will take it to AN/I for underhanded personal attacks, poisoning the well and general antagonism. [[User:Noformation|<span style="color:black;">N</span><sup style="color:red;">o</sup><span style="color:black;">f</span><span style="color:red;">o</span><span style="color:black;">rmation</span>]] [[User talk:Noformation|<sup style="color:black;">Talk</sup>]] 17:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::@ Tivanir2: I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. You are making the argument that the only choices we have in this situation are to offend muslims or pander to them. Even if that were a remotely credible assertion (it's not, not unless you are beginning from a deeply prejudicial position in which even minimal respect shown to the faith is considered pandering), it's still an open question whether it would be better for the encyclopedia to pander on this trivial issue or to continue offending a major world religion. again, ridiculous.
::::::::::@ Robert:…
::::::::::@ Noformation: So, apparently offensiveness is a valid argument when ''you'' are the one feeling offended. interesting… allow me to force you to live by your own principles by parroting you: your feeling of offense (by your own argument) does not matter on the encyclopedia, period. if you are too offended by my otherwise reasonable argument to read it and respond rationally then your opinion simply doesn't matter, and you should probably go find another page to work on where you will not subject yourself to things that offend you. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::@Blade: I agree with you in principle, but please note that if your primary concern is the historical and artistic significance of the images, then the images should be restricted to a section about their historical and artistic significance (as I suggested above). To put a finer point on that, these images are informative about ''the Persians'' and ''the Persian's particular approach to depicting Muhammad'', but these pictures '''tell us nothing whatsoever about Muhammad himself'''. Scattering the images throughout the article is a gross violation of [[wp:WEIGHT]] because it drastically overplays the importance of the Persian perspective and drastically downplays the prevailing modern perspective of the faith, which is that depictions of the Prophet are proscribed. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 18:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Sigh. Only 2 of the 6 images are Persian. At least 2 others are from a Sunni Turkish milieu. How often do these basic facts have to be repeated, to people apparently incapable of taking anything in? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::∞ evidently. [[User:Noformation|<span style="color:black;">N</span><sup style="color:red;">o</sup><span style="color:black;">f</span><span style="color:red;">o</span><span style="color:black;">rmation</span>]] [[User talk:Noformation|<sup style="color:black;">Talk</sup>]] 23:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::[[Jesus|Applying]] [[Moses|your]] [[Josiah|beliefs]] [[Adam_and_Eve|evenly]] [[John_the_Baptist|and]] [[Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)|uniformly]] without a single issue bias/exception would probably gain your arguments a lot more credibility. Just a thought. You may also wish to read this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=458410969] as I think it applies not just to myself, but to others who's motives you keep calling into question. <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 18:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::No my arguement stems from the fact that none of the pictures are controversial on any other grounds than religious. In any other situation all of these images would be perfectly acceptable AS LONG AS they weren't of muhammad. For people that still find that unreasonable there are self imposed filters they can use to make sure they are not exposed to it. As for trivial issue it definitely cannot be assigned to that category because every group that has something it doesn't like on here will insist it be removed and cite this as a basis. That is not even a far stretch as this would garner media attention and then everyone with an axe to grind would come out of the wood work. Second nothing I have seen shows respect as respect travels both ways, and since my way says seeing images is a ok it gets trampled because someone else says NO! I get offended regularly by things I find on wikipedia but that doesn't lead me to ask for removal because offensive shouldn't be taken into account. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 18:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Robert: can you not, for one single solitary post, avoid attacking me? for someone with as much experience on project as you have, you are '''absolutely clueless'' about [[wp:NPA]]. I'm beginning to get the idea that you are deliberately trolling me just to try to make me angry. is that the truth? Answer carefully, because your ''last 20 posts'' to me have all contained efforts at character assassination, and that that is fairly damning evidence against you.
::::::::::::Tivanir2: you are just compounding the problems of your previous argument. all you've done is cross out one word and generalize the same insupportable dichotomy - ''"...only choices we have in this situation are to offend <s>muslims</s> religions or pander to them..."'' - and that's not an improvement. I still assert that you can only make such an extreme dichotomy from a position of deep prejudice, in which you refuse to allow religions even one iota of respect (for personal reasons of your own, assumedly). that's not acceptable on a collaborative project. This is clearly a trivial issue except to the extent that it's been magnified by absolutist thinking, and you've offered no evidence to the contrary; what happens in the real world is irrelevant to our discussion; whatever you personally find offensive is certainly something you are free to bring up, and if you have the same grounding for offense that the Islamic proscription against depictions of the prophet provides, then I'd even support you. honestly you don't have an argument here. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Actually I have no prejudice towards people, though I hold a very strong opinion on what other people attempt to force me to do. I don't expect anyone to show my own religion (Asatru Shamanism) respect or to not offend it. I have heard from multiple places and sources everything about my religion being either a fake religion or cult simply because it is not mainstream. Instead you are personally attacking me trying to ascribe values that don't exist, which would lead back to your own quote of don't attack editors. I tend to have respect for all religions (I always try to ensure I don't disturb someone during religious observence for example regardless of religion) but I will not ever willingly back down when one group decides it wants to ban something from common grounds especially when that group '''HAS A WAY TO NOT OBSERVE THE OFFENDABLE MATERIAL'''. That being said when is the RfC? I would like to put an end to merry go round with 5 different rehashes of the same think of the children mentality. If there is a reason to actually remove the image (other than a religious edict) then I am all for it and have even identified one though it was previously identified. Otherwise I will simply continue to link [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] for the remainder, since apparently what you wish is WP:NOTCENSORED with the footnote of unless it offends enough people. I also find it hilarious you quote [[WP:NPA]] then proceed to do it against myself not more than 5 lines later. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 19:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::'''Ludwigs2:''' If you truly feel that way, even though I think it unsupportive, go to AN/I or start an RfC/U. I haven't attacked you once. I just want to know why you don't apply your interpretation of policy uniformly and why the policy changes the rest of us think are necessary for your summary removal request for religious based objections/beliefs haven't been taken to the appropriate forum. Claiming it's an attack because you refuse to answer (or use the correct forum to address policy changes, or refuse to apply your policy interpretation uniformly) is ludicrous in light of there not being any attack against you. Numerous times when someone disagrees with you, you claim they are attacking you. As others have also asked, please stop assigning incorrect motives to my actions. <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 19:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::@ Tivanir2:I'm sorry if you took this personally - not my intent. To my way of viewing things one can easily hold a prejudice without being prejudiced. It's usually just a matter of not having thought things through. That's what I feel has happened here: you have gotten yourself into a mental box where you feel you are forced to offend Muslims by showing these images because you think ''not'' showing these images is pandering. What I have been saying all along is that these images are ''not by any stretch of the imagination necessary to the article''; using them or not using them is a choice we get to make, and choosing not to use them is not 'pandering'. I feel you're too wrapped up in the conflict here - you've got your mind set on keeping these images ''solely'' because people oppose them, and not because of any intrinsic value of the images, and that is something that you should reconsider.
::::::::::::::@ No, it's not that big of an issue for me. Mostly I'm pointing it out as a matter of due diligence, so that anyone can see that I ''tried'' to encourage civility on the page. I'm perfectly happy allowing you to lay out example after example of bad faith editing. That is your choice. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 15:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::So in other words you decide to tell me you don't want to offend me retread believing me to be prejudice and decide to try to justify the position? The reason I consider it pandering to them is simply because the individuals in question are able to edit out the images either through software or they can follow the FAQ to disable them. This solves the issue. Instead demanding the images be removed is designed solely to '''placate''' a group of people so it is in a nutshell to censor for the benefit of a group. I am much less wrapped up into the argument than you think since I have already pointed out an image for deletion because it no longer belongs. To try to summarily remove all issues is simple to make a group happy which falls under WP:NOTCENSORED. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 22:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
N<sup>o</sup>formation, wrt "we should not consider offense when determining article content," in a situation where two images are of roughly equal educational merit and relevance, but one is offensive to large numbers of readers and the other is not, should we lean toward including the inoffensive image? --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 13:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:Why is that an either/or question? You have two images, both accepted as having educational merit. Why not include both? [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 14:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::Let's assume we only need one. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 15:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Let's not. This is a talk page for [[Muhammad]], not [[WP:IUP]]. We're dealing with a concrete, clearly-defined situation here, don't sidetrack this into the abstract ''what-if?'' realm. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 15:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::The only way that the community would include include one and not the other would be if they hold the exact same value. Otherwise even if they are slightly different they bring separate value to the table, and I have to agree that both would be included. That is why above I stated we should have the current age images (i.e. muhammad depicted as a flame or veiled or whatnot) as well as the earlier century images which by itself would show people a timeline of slowly transforming the preference to muhammad not being depicted. Right now working on hunting down some images not copy written but there are some slight issues with searching here so I will need to wait until I get home unless someone else can pick them up. Don't get me wrong there are images that should be removed but that is because sections were removed and they no longer make any sense what so ever. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 15:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::'''Anthonyhcole:''' I might almost agree with you if it weren't for various other factors. For instance, a picture of a veiled Muhammad, while educational and historical, does not portray the educational and historical value of a non-veiled image. Thus, there is a difference in what the images provide. "Here's a picture of a car from the 1920's" "Here's a picture of the inside of the engine compartment of that car from the 1920's (showing the engine and other workings)." Both portray the car. Each provide entirely different context. Both provide entirely different educational and historical value. If it was simply "Here's a picture of a car, right side view" or "Here's a picture of the car - another right side view" (or even "left side view" for a car with no notable differences on the "mirror" side) I'd agree. As for the other pictures, it's kinda like "Here's a 1957 Chevy Belair" and "Here's a 1963 Chevy Belair" and "Here's a 2010 Chevy Impala" - so even though they are all "unveiled", and of the same topic (Chevy Impala line (ie: Belair, Biscayne, Impala)), they provide different values that one alone cannot impart. <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 16:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::'''Tivanir2:''' There's an image already uploaded to WP or WM which is referenced in one of the conversations above (yesterday). I was going to write a proposal/RfC-ish thing below, but took the night off last night. I'll get to it in a few hours. <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 16:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Robert, this is untrue. any picture (veiled or unveiled) is only valuable as a historic or artistic element. the unveiled picture does not depict Muhammad any more clearly since '''neither picture is an accurate depiction of Muhammad'''. You continue to push this same point of bad reasoning over and over, but sheer repetition does not make the reasoning any better. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 16:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Irony alert! [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 16:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::What irony? these are established facts: Robert has offered this logic at least a dozen times, I've debunked it at least as many. it's bad reasoning. If you disagree, you're free to tell how it's actually ''good'' reasoning (good luck with that).
::::::::I don't mind if you guys attack my reasoning - that's not a personal attack. I mind when you attack my character. You'll notice that I did not question Robert's character in this post, only the quality of his reasoning, and only because of the exceptional number of times I've had to correct this particular point. If you think this is a personal attack, all you need to do is explain how, and I'll retract it. but I see no reason to retract a critique of poor reasoning. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 17:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::*One correction, to perhaps help you understand the responses. You haven't corrected my reasoning - neither of us stated fact. I stated my opinion. You've stated an opposing '''<u>opinion</u>'''. One numerous of us think has no merit. Nonetheless, this is still a matter of opinions and perceptions. Mine (like my actions on hundreds of pages covering numerous religions, irreligions and sub-topics) carries no bias for or against any religious beliefs (mine or others). I'm not saying yours or anyone else's does - I am saying mine does not. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 17:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::*:Robert: I don't object to your casting my statement as an opinion, but it is an opinion based in a rational assessment of the images. As I have said ''ad nauseum'' the images - at best - show artistic representations of the prophet from various historical periods. They have no ''factual'' value (they are not depictions of the historical Muhammad or his acts), the article currently does not discuss the art history issue in any great detail, so therefore the pictures add little to no educational value to the article. ''Your'' opinion, by contrast, is not based in anything; you simply ''assert'' that the images have value and avoid any detailed discussion of the matter. That is bad reasoning. I'm sorry if you don't recognize it as such, but you are making a positive claim (that the images have value) but you consistently fail to explain or justify that position as anything ''other'' than mere opinion.
::::::::*:You are stuck in the subjectivity fallacy (Kohlberg stage 3) in which you assert that all opinions are equally subjective and deny all reasoning which might evaluate between them objectively. That is not an acceptable way to write an encyclopedia (it's the kind of 'fringe theorist' logic which asserts that some funky theorem is just as good as anything science has to offer). I respect your opinion, mind you, but you have ''no rational grounds'' for asserting your opinion (that you've offered, anyway) that can match the rational grounds that lie behind my opinion; comparatively speaking, your logic is flawed. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Anthony, you offer no reason why I should be limited to the choice of only one image. The question is invalid. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Tarc's right. My question was too meta for this discussion. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 16:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Resolute: that's a red herring - how many images the article has is a question of balance. We don't overload articles with excess imagery (wikipedia is not a child's picture book). The real question Anthony is asking (allow me to generalize) is this:
:::::*we've decided we're going to have X pictures in the article
:::::*we have available Y images to choose from (where Y is very much greater than X)
:::::*all of the images have equal 'educational' value for the purpose
:::::should we choose the images that offend people or the images that don't? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 16:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::'''Ludwigs2:''' let me answer that last question ("should we... offend...") The answer is [[WP:CENSOR|here]], last few lines. Which brings us back to "Suggestions to change policy should be brought to [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)|the correct venue]]". Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 17:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::'''Ludwigs2:''' You wrote "...how many images the article has is a question of balance..." - in which I fully 110% agree. Hence one of the additions (dunno if I mentioned it here or on another talk page) to my RfC proposal including weighing quantity and representativeness in order to determine whether we thought we needed more images or less images or whether the current amount was suitable. Ironically though, our almost singular point of agreement is entirely contrary and contradictory to suggestions that '''all''' images be removed. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 17:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Point 1: ridiculous abuse of policy. see [[wp:IAR]].
:::::::Point 2: you are avoiding the question. Even if we decide to add more images, there will still be any number of images available with the same educational value that do not offend anyone. So again: why do you want to choose an offensive image over a non-offensive image, if there is no other difference between them? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 18:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::That there is "no difference" is an imaginary construct of your own fevered creation. We have images, we use images. Religious views towards image usage are not applicable to en.wiki. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 18:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::'''Ludwigs2:''' Really, please stop using IAR to push your point of view, disagreed upon by most, that we should weigh religious objections[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=458084165] or single article objections[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=456517266] into determining article content. Again, I repeat "Suggestions to change policy should be brought to [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)|the correct venue]]." Best, <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small><small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></small> 18:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Robert: stop abusing the rules, and I will no longer have to IAR them. fair enough? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 19:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Please don't accuse me of abusing [[WP:CENSOR|the rules]] you want us to apply IAR to. It gets tiring. It's (what I am doing is) actually called "'''applying''' the rules uniformly". <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small><small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></small> 20:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::IAR is not a policy meant to be enforced unilaterally, it still needs consensus and it's usually reserved for uncontentious issues and most people would agree with. You can't just invoke it to push a POV. Our censorship policy is ''clear'' regarding religious considerations, no one is abusing the rules by enforcing them. [[User:Noformation|<span style="color:black;">N</span><sup style="color:red;">o</sup><span style="color:black;">f</span><span style="color:red;">o</span><span style="color:black;">rmation</span>]] [[User talk:Noformation|<sup style="color:black;">Talk</sup>]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Excuse me for being a bit thick on this but [[WP:IAR]] says to remove rules to make it better. How is removing images about the subject in question better? [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 20:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::IAR is precisely the remedy to apply when editors are abusing rules (or if your prefer, applying rules improperly to the detriment of the encyclopedia). You are collectively applying a rule in a such a way that the encyclopedia is offending its readers for no clear reason or meaningful gain; that is detrimental to the encyclopedia, since it makes wikipedia look insensitive and prejudiced and causes endless reams of talk page conflict. And yes, I ''can'' invoke it unilaterally, and will continue to do so until such a time as it is made clear that there is a valid reason for offending readers with these images.
::::::::::::Some editor added a moronic caveat to NOTCENSORED, you guys are jumping on it to push a distinct POV in a tremendously tendentious way - not good. Until I get a chance to fix the damage done to NOTCENSORED I will continue to use IAR in an effort to fix the damage you have collectively done here.
::::::::::::Your best bet in this situation is to stop pushing the NOTCENSORED button (which I will continue to IAR until the situation changes, so that will get none of us anywhere), and start doing your homework. Make a convincing argument that the images have a specific value so that NOTCENSORED is unambiguously applicable. If your argument is good the images will stay; if your arguments are bad the images will be removed. Cut the bureaucratic codswallop and justify the use of the images, or give it up. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 21:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Honestly, at this point you should either put up or shut up, if you think editors are abusing policy then file the appropriate complaint so it can be decided on once and for all. Your presence in this discussion is verging on becoming a net negative, if it isn't there already; you can't just scream "FOUL! FOUL! FOUL!" all day. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::But the fact of the matter is they aren't applying rules improperly WP:NOTCENSORED goes over the fact there is things on this website that most likely will cause offense and if that is a problem the individual needs to find ways of dealing with it. As for the value of the images they are similar to the value you see in any other historical biography that exists on this encyclopedia. Assuming we are causing damage for no reason at all is dealing in bad faith. As a western centric encyclopedia, when reading a biography, the reader should be expecting to see images in the article as every article that is similar and has any images (accurate or not) includes them to help the reader visually. As stated before these works aren't here to simply offend people (if that were the case you would see images, again, like the bomb hat image from the danish cartoonist) and there are work arounds to ensure anyone that would be offended can make sure they cannot see the images and therefore avoid offense. WP:NOTCENSORED reads correctly because the entire section states we don't censor for any group or anything and the least astonishment rule really doesn't apply since, as stated above, the viewer looking at a biography should expect to see pictures. Applying rules is not abusing rules, that is the reason they exist otherwise there would be anarchy which wikipedia is dead set against. Besides reading IAR it shows that the rules should be ignored when people generally agree they are getting in the way of constructive and useful editing. As for specific value why would I need to present this? What specific value do pictures of Jesus have? Moses? Any other historical personality? As for pushing a POV I was not aware it is considered pushing a POV to follow the rules, as that is what I and most of the editors are attempting to do. As for making an arguement to keep them how about making a counter arguement to remove them not already covered under NOTCENSORED? [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Tivanir2: The fact of the matter is you ''are'' applying the rules to the detriment of the encyclopedia. that is grounds for IAR.
::::::::::::::I have to say, based on your post above, you really do not understand what wikipedia is for. The one, unbreakable principle of Wikipedia is that we are supposed to be writing a ''reputable encyclopedia''; anything which gets in the way of that is dispensable. to whit:
::::::::::::::* Notcensored is not (as you suggest) intended to tell people to 'deal with it'; notcensored is to allow is to include material that is necessary but controversial. Wikipedia is not some bully-project that says "I'm going to say whatever I feel like, and you can sod off if you don't like it."
::::::::::::::* Wikipedia is not intended to be a 'western-centric' encyclopedia, and that ''certainly'' does not mean that we are allowed to offend ''eastern'' topics with impunity.
::::::::::::::* The fact that the images are not ''intended'' to offend people has no bearing on the fact that they ''do'' offend people; actions count, intentions are only good for excuses.
::::::::::::::The rest of your arguments are entirely specious. it's not the value of the image in isolation, but the value of the image with respect to the offense it causes. No one is offended by the Jesus and Moses images, so the balance is well in favor of including the images; millions of people are offended by the Muhammad images, so some strong rationale for keeping them is required, otherwise the balance goes to removing them. You have no strong rationale - 'visual aids' is not a strong rationale; art historical importance is not a strong rationaler (on this article, anyway). if there are many similar images that we can use which do not cause offense, why are we using the ones which ''do'' cause offense? you have no rationale for that.
::::::::::::::Inclusion of these images, whether intentionally or not, damages the reputation of the encyclopedia. The burden of proof is on you (as their defender) to show that they are ''valuable'' enough to the article justify the problems that we all know they create. It's clear to me that you cannot demonstrate any real value - if you could, you'd have done so long ago and I would have given in - so why don't you just admit you can't provide any and get past it.
::::::::::::::@Tarc: I don't see a need to file administrative action at this point; I still feel we can work this out through discussion. if you have a need to go administrative, please feel free. As I have said previously, I am open to [[wp:MedCab]] if you think it will help us get past this sticking point. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 23:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}Ludwigs, this is the core of your flawed standpoint; there is nothing to work out, there is only a negligible sticking point in that you do not accept the status quo. You cannot and will not negotiate your way into removing images from this article. I cannot emphasize enough how this simply Will. Not. Happen. Your only recourse ''is'' to go elsewhere, where I am quite confident that the case will only come down resoundingly against you, as swit as the ArbCom denial was. We do not censor images for the sake of fundamentalist appeasement. There cannot be a more iron-clad statement than that. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 23:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:Again, policy is clear here and you can invoke IAR all you want but without a consensus for your position, these images will not be removed. You keep going on about offending people but what you don't get it that is doesn't matter, policy on religious considerations is unambiguous and [[WP:SNOW|these images will not likely be removed now or ever]]. You have passed [[WP:TE]] at this point, either drop it or let's take it to AN/I, because it's clear that you will not let up on this point. [[User:Noformation|<span style="color:black;">N</span><sup style="color:red;">o</sup><span style="color:black;">f</span><span style="color:red;">o</span><span style="color:black;">rmation</span>]] [[User talk:Noformation|<sup style="color:black;">Talk</sup>]] 00:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::Again (and again), You can be as adamant and uncollaborative as you like, and all that does is affirm (and reaffirm) that there are drastic [[wp:page ownership]] issues here. I've been very clear about my position, about the problem that I see on this page, and even about ''what you can do to relieve my concerns or resolve the problem''. you choose to ignore those overtures and make rigid, hostile declamations to the effect that ''"these images will not now or ever be removed"'', violating a half dozen policies every time you do it. If this is going to boil down to a to sheer, blind stubbornness on your part then we will end up in arbitration. That's fine with me. would you like to open the case now, or shall we continue on a more collaborative tone? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Ok, just for clarity sake. Almost everyone disagreeing with you and you insisting you are correct and that you will continue until you get your way is an example of ''all of us'' violating WP:OWN? Please tell me that isn't what you just said. And if you think that the stubbornness from so many of us is grounds for opening a case, then by all means! Go right ahead. Otherwise, go change policy (or attempt to). Just as a side note, I've got days of diffs to go through (from the last year, plus 67 more offline in a text file) before I'd be anywhere near filing anything... maybe you'll beat me to it? I haven't bothered really, because sanctions should be preventative... but you're back to baseless accusations and allegations - as well as walls of text repeating you'll continue instead of using the correct venue. So, please, go file some action, whether against us, or to get WP:CENSOR changed, or to get a special exclusion for this article or whatever. Or heck, keep going on your repeatrants here - but stop accusing '''us''' of nonsense. From now on, I'm just citing policy back at you. No other effort seems worth it (except the filing I'm preparing and trying my damnedest not to file). <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small><small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></small> 00:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I have the AN/I report written and waiting to go, but collaboration is obviously what I'm sure we all prefer. However, we cannot collaborate if you keep pushing the point that images should be removed on the grounds that it offends a religious belief. Furthermore, it is not page ownership to assert that we will not IAR at your behest and ignore [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. So long as that policy is written as is, this page will have depictions of Muhammad, that's not me owning the page, that's pointing out the most likely scenario. So what is it, will you drop the religious offense argument and collaborate otherwise or not? [[User:Noformation|<span style="color:black;">N</span><sup style="color:red;">o</sup><span style="color:black;">f</span><span style="color:red;">o</span><span style="color:black;">rmation</span>]] [[User talk:Noformation|<sup style="color:black;">Talk</sup>]] 00:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Nice third personal attack in two days. The simple fact we are left to contend with is that a religious groups wants is no reason to change anything in this wikipedia. We don't do it for the mormons, catholics, scientologists or any other group and most likely we won't do it here. I am all for adding additional pictures but to try to wipe the slate of all pictures is pushing the POV that religious rights trump editing of an article. NOTCENSORED's intention isn't to say "sod off" it is a way of saying this might offend you and we apologize but being offended isn't a rationale for editing something. Once again we arrive back at think of the children argument. The community has provided tools to avoid this (FAQ) or help (add-ons) if people really find it that troublesome. This is sufficient as someones offense doesn't trump my right to learn about how muhammad is perceived in the Islamic community. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 00:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind we've had hundreds (if not more) requests to remove these images on religious grounds. If we're counting numbers, it's not us against "him" it's us against very large number of people. Just sayin'. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 00:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:It is a very large number of people against another very large number of people. Fortunately for Wikipedia (and freedom of information), policy does not support removing material on these grounds. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::Oddly enough, the Koran doesn't support removing it either, though Islamic courts have ruled against creating/displaying such images anyway. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 00:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Indeed. Fortunately, we are able to educate our reader, and share with them the fact that not only has such imagery not been forbidden, but that followers if Islam themselves have created images, both fully rendered and with Muhammad's face obscured. Free learning for everyone! [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 00:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:{{ec}}Just a few points ;-)
:*Numbers don't matter - and we know that - but even if they did...
:*We are discussing policy, which is against removing content (including images) due to religious beliefs - he is the vast minority in insisting we should violate policy on just one specific article (even though a bunch more that fit such criteria have been pointed out).
:*Do you really count '''single purpose, single edit''' (only to complain) editors who ask us to violate policy, especially (1) in light of the fact that in reality there is no religious prohibition to our actions, (2) they came here because of a news item and chose to violate their own faith, (3) this page is ''already'' a special case exception that has instructions on how not to view the images
:*How much weight to we give single purpose single edit accounts mandating we follow religious dictates they aren't even applying properly? Just curious. Do we count them?
:*And finally, the important one, as you know... the validity of arguments (since we '''<u>!</u>'''vote on things here) can be used to weigh whether they are considered - and currently, due to policy, "'''my''' religion forbids '''you''' (no it doesnt) from showing images of Muhammad" is not rationale that gets considered under policy - which brings us back to the numerous suggestions that Ludwigs2 use the ''correct'' venue.
:All told, that still leaves him in the minority. ;-) <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small><small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></small> 00:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:Regarding, ''"If this is going to boil down to a to sheer, blind stubbornness on your part then we will end up in arbitration"'', didn't you already stumble at that dance, Ludwigs? As I said, I have no call to start a case, since the status quo is fine, and cannot change as a result of your numerous discussion. I repeat; CAN NOT, as content removal based on outside religious pressure would itself be a policy violation. You feel it breaks policy to KEEP the images here, but that view has gathered precious little support around here. So what we have is a disagreement over application of policy. Since your POV is in the minority, it is a literal impossibility for you to achieve what you want via article talk page discussion. Why is that so hard to understand and accept? All that dragging this on and on, in new sup-topic after new sub-topic, accomplishes is create more heat and more rancor.
:So once again, you are cordially invited to ''stop''. There is nothing to be gained by dragging this out in this page. I cannot be any clearer than this. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 01:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::(e/c)Rklawton: as I count it there are currently roughly equal numbers of editors on each side of this dispute (Me, Anthony, hans, and a couple of less vocal editors arguing against the images; Resolute, Robert, Tarc, and Kww, Nof, and Tav arguing for them). there is a strong tendency on the other side to personalize the issue, which is why they always talk as though I were in this alone. The hundreds of others are a definite plus, but this dispute is more balanced than they care to admit.
::Robert: the violation of [[wp:OWN]] comes from the statements by Tarc, Nofo and others that the pictures will never be removed. There is no room for reason or discussion, no possibility in their minds that that anything other than the current version will exist: They effectively reject [[wp:consensus]] discussion as being against policy. Frankly, I have not seen such a clear and determined example of page ownership on any article I've ever worked (except, perhaps, [[cold fusion]]). Ownership is not stubbornness (which all of us have in spades); ownership trying to control a page to dictate its content, which I can't possibly be guilty of since (a) this issue is nowhere near my preferred resolution, and (b) I have offered several compromise positions which have been roundly rejected. I'm afraid [[wp:OWN]] is something that you guys are just going to have to… well… own.
::Nofo: If you feel an ANI report is required, please don't let me stop you. I'll be curious to see what you write. On the other hand, if you actually do prefer collaboration, then you are going to have to ditch that ''"the images will never change"'' mindset - collaboration is impossible when one side refuses to budge even an inch. Also, you've misunderstood IAR; it is precisely your misuse of NOTCENSORED that is being IARed because it is damaging to the reputation of the encyclopedia, and that is not going to change just because you don't like it. So long as you continue to misuse NOTCENSORED I will continue to IAR it. Your best bet (as I keep saying) is to make a convincing argument that you are ''not'' misusing NOTCENSORED.
:::To be clear, I meant that this article will not be free of depictions, not that things can never change. Images can change, the amount can change, but there will likely always be images here and there will definitely not be change based on religious considerations - here or anywhere else on WP. [[User:Noformation|<span style="color:black;">N</span><sup style="color:red;">o</sup><span style="color:black;">f</span><span style="color:red;">o</span><span style="color:black;">rmation</span>]] [[User talk:Noformation|<sup style="color:black;">Talk</sup>]] 01:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::But again, you just can't make a convincing argument that you're using NOTCENSORED correctly, because you're clearly not. All you have is a [[wp:BURO|'the rules must be followed']] approach that doesn't sit well with the project's principles.
::Robert: that is most decidedly not what NOTCENSORED says, nor what it was ever meant to say. You see now why I need to invoke IAR. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 01:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Ludwigs2:''' I am not sure how you've forgotten this already, but that is '''exactly''' what WP:CENSOR says. And I quote: ''"Wikipedia '''will not remove content''' because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. '''Any rules''' that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, '''or religion to show a''' name or '''image''' '''*do not apply to Wikipedia*''' because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."'' - so, again, please use the [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)|correct venue]]. <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small><small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></small> 06:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Robert: since we're whispeing… Notcensored was intended to protect ''necessary'' information, not controversial trivia. you're misuse of it ''here'' requires IAR ''here''. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 06:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Ludwigs: Depictions of the subject of the article have never been considered trivia anywhere on Wikipedia, and you have made your true motivations clear (not offending/violating religious beliefs).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=458084165][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=456688519][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=456681179] That requires taking it up at the [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)|correct venue]]. Maybe this time you wont have the overwhelming rejection of your argument that you had last time.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_85#time_to_fix_wp:NOTCENSORED]<small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small><small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></small> 07:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Robert - save it for ANI. we've hashed this silliness out enough here for the time being. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 12:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I decided to file the AN/I without waiting because after going over the whole page again I'm sorry to say that I don't think this can be resolved without intervention. You can find the report [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Ludwigs2_on_Talk:Muhammad.2Fimages here] [[User:Noformation|<span style="color:black;">N</span><sup style="color:red;">o</sup><span style="color:black;">f</span><span style="color:red;">o</span><span style="color:black;">rmation</span>]] [[User talk:Noformation|<sup style="color:black;">Talk</sup>]] 01:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||