Talk:Muhammad/Archive 17

message: I think the first mention of his name should be in full? As in "Muhammad ibn Abdullah". 124.82.0.228 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I believe its time to create a subpage of this talk page, where complaints about or any other general comments regarding the display of depictions can be moved, along with a notice on this one similar to that found on Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy to the effect that any such comments placed on this main talk page may be moved or deleted.Proabivouac 01:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reject the suggestion. -- A. L. M. 08:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?Proabivouac 08:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has no comparision with Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy to begin with. I find no good reason to treat a group that you disagree and remove there comments or move to some subpage. -- A. L. M. 08:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not proposing to redirect comments by POV, but by subject, including what comments I have made and any I might make about the same issue. The good reason is to restore the functionality of the talk page. Are you for that or against that?Proabivouac 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot trust you on this issue. I think you are not neutral (just like me) on this issue. So keep the status quo, please. otherwise let someone neutral decide (not you). --- A. L. M. 08:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd go for it.  It seems to work well, and would free up the main talk page for people to focus on ways to improve the current article that aren't related to the image issue.  But, there has to be understanding that being on a subpage doesn't make the comments posted there less-valuable or otherwise "second-class".  We've had a separate talk page for this issue in the past, seems like it would make sense to have one here for the same reasons that they have one at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. --Alecmconroy 12:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally unacceptable to me. BYT 14:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BYT, you write bellow, "whose terminating point is inevitably a decision to spark (intentional, in my view) recrimination and religiously-driven bickering," yet here and ALM you seem to insist that the pointless bickering continue. As ALM may as well have answered this question, I'll ask you: the goal is to restore the functionality of this talk page. Are you for that or against that?Proabivouac 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the proposal. That, or image comments should just be removed as soapboxing or disruptive edits.--SefringleTalk 23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed talk subpage

message: In the section "Muslim veneration of Muhammad" there is a "phuh&hd", dont know what to fix it to, 
"(pbuh)", "(saw)" and "pbuh&hd" for Shias, or even just simply as "p". "
ChristianoGh 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Type error

message: Is this the right article to describe what happens to anyone whom the Muslims think has insulted Muhammad? That is, death threats? If not, where should this information go? TharkunColl 23:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does say, "Conversely, criticism of Muhammad is often equated with blasphemy, which is punishable by death in Pakistan."Proabivouac 23:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a national parliament of a foreign country unanimously voting to sanction a suicide attack against a British subject, merely for exercising his right to freedom of speech. The article needs to say these things. How about a description of the Islamic terror campaign against the West - inspired, of course, by the teachings of Muhammad? TharkunColl 23:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's specific, and reeks of recentism - there may be a place for it under the "Islam" tree, but this isn't it.  WilyD 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose any criticism of Islam or any tenet of Islam could somehow be linked to Muhammad (since he is the de facto founder of Islam), but the Rushdie incident is somewhat out of scope.  Terrorism is general would be more appropriately mentioned on the Islam page (and of course on Islamic Terrorism and an other pages of modern Islamic figures). Talmage 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  This discussion is not relavent. Please send email for such dicussion and not use talk page. --- A. L. M. 09:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sir [[Salman Rushdie]]

message: Every picture on the page is from an Islamic source.  Muhammad has been significant in Western Civilization as well, and I would suggest adding this picture to the sub-section Romantic representations of Muhammad so that there is at least one non-Muslim representation to add a little balance.  The Inferno is mentioned in this sub-section.  Since Westerners have until recently never had a problem depicting Muhammad, I don't see why this should be a problem for anyone.  (For what it's worth, this isn't a reversal of my earlier question regarding the significance of some of the images currently on the page.  I believe this image serves more of a purpose than some of the "Islamic" images depicting him that don't seem to have ever been really mainstream for the culture that produced them.  This on the other hand, was never taboo for Western culture, and was certainly more mainstream given the renowned artist... but I digress.)  At any rate, I think this image would add balance to the host of images, since it is a Western depiction. Talmage 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not informative, and does not in any way at all help the reader understand anything about Muhammad's life. I believe the main reason behind every picture in the article was: "to inform the reader". Also, the picture is not encyclopedic. Unflavoured 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am going to have to disagree with virtually everything you have said.  First, how does it not inform?  It illustrates Western attitudes towards Muhammad during the period and culture addressed by the subtopic.  Second, how is it not encyclopedic?  This isn't a South Park drawing, it's an illustration by William Blake of Dante's masterpiece work.  I don't see why only Islamic art should be included.  This would add balance and is relevant to the subsection.  Talmage 04:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to ask yourself whether the article is about Muhammad the actual person, or Muhammad as he was portrayed in renaissance europe. The picture belongs in the Depictions of Muhammad page, not here. The picture itself is POV, or maybe VPOV. We are not going to put anything that is not NPOV in an article, are we ?! Unflavoured 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a correct application of NPOV - Renaissance Europe is an extremly well known if historical position.  Given Muhammad's importance to renaissance Europe (which is immense) their input is probably appropriate for a section on the perception of Muhammad throughout history.   I really don't understand why so many people fail to recognise that Muhammad is immensely important outside of Islam. WilyD 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the argument for including or not including images was: There are images on every other historical figure's page. Blake's work is not used in God or Jesus or Moses or Adam or Eve. Why should Muhammad's page be singled out for the inclusion of Blake's POV ?! If it is not applied elsewhere, and is inconsistent with other pages, and is not encyclopedic, then it should not be added. Unflavoured 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually lukewarm on Blake's portrayal myself - it's not a terrible choice, given it's historical prominance.  There was previously (as I've mentioned) a nice image of the carving of Muhammad in the American Supreme Court building that was very appropriate, I believe.  Actual image choices are an editing decision, not an overarching policy issue, really.  I've advocated that we should be trying to sample all major representations - including Caligraphy, veiled and unveiled reps - as for the specific image: I agree strongly with the point that a Western portrayal is important - much the way both Indian and Oriental Gautama_Buddha's need to be there.  Blake specifically?  We could probably do better. WilyD 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not dead set on including Blake's image, but I think some Western image needs to be provided.  This image, however, is less graphic than the perhaps more famous Gustave Doré illustration, not to mention more colorful.  All classical pictures from the West that I have seen do depict Muhammad in a negative light.  Unquestionably Muhammad is more important to the Islamic world, which is why the majority of the pictures chosen were created by Muslims.  However, he has been important to Western cultures as well, believed in the Crusades to be a false god, and in Dante's time as a false prophet.  These are legitimate historical beliefs to document.  Once again, it's not our place to judge whether they are right or wrong, only to document that they exist, which is what the picture and section does.  William Blake is a very famous artist, but if you think there are better pictures to display on this section, I'm not opposed.  In the mean time, I think this picture fits well on the page. Talmage 04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure whether this is the best image or not, but an image from the American Supreme Court Fresco existed for quite sometime until the licensing went into doubt.  I would agree that the article in general, and the images especially, overemphasise Muhammad's role as a prophet, and underemphasise his role as a political leader.  A non-Islamic image is called for - I don't know if this is the one. WilyD 13:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if you read your talk page, but please sign your posts like this: ~~~~ This will help other people from confusing your posts from being part of other posts, and also it will keep people from believing other unsigned comments might actually be from you. Talmage 17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No do not add that image. It is very offensive. Delete a image already there and replace it with a decent non-Muslim image. --- A. L. M. 08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The picture conveys a great deal of information because it illustrates Muhammad's fate in hell - to be split open - according to Dante in the Inferno. This was a very influential work in European history. TharkunColl 11:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to Add Image 

message: Please do not add any images without discussing it first and getting a consensus Unflavoured 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus is about removing, adding, or moving images because of religious objections or to prove a point.  That's not the case here.  Nobody is attempting to prove a point.  Blake's illustration is from an important passage from Dante's Divine Comedy which itself is a very important work of Western literature and theological thought.  It is that passage that is being referenced in this article: Western thoughts on Muhammad.  Frotz 04:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please revert till consensus is reached. I do not want to be in violation of 3rr. Read above for whether the image is notable/encyclopedic. Thank you Unflavoured 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we have a poll to see where people stand?  From what I've seen, it seems most people prefer to keep the picture for now. Talmage 04:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But be reasonable, you cheesed off all those interested in removing the images, so that there were none added for sometime, and the current set of contributors are all pro-images. How would a poll help ?! If you wanna make a poll, would you notify all past editors !? Note: The paragraph below is incomprehensible. Rephrase !? Unflavoured 04:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, wasn't the reason many Muslims object to images of Muhammad being shown is that they do not want him worshiped as a false god?  Certainly that's not the case here, since the picture is by a non-Muslim and expressing a non-Muslim POV? As for your earlier POV statement, it's proper to document the POV of others in the article (when such POV is relevant to the article itself) or through illustration, and this doesn't necessarily indicate POV of the editors or the article itself. Talmage 04:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rephrased by request: Okay.  Why do many Muslims object to pictures of Muhammad?  I thought it was because they did not want him to be worshiped or idolized.  This picture was not created by a Muslim.  It does not represent an Islamic point of view.  There is no risk anyone would idolize this picture.  About point of view.  It is okay to document a point a view if it is relevant to the article.  This does not mean the point of view documented is that of the editor or encyclopedia.  For example, stating Muslims venerate Muhammad documents the point of view of Muslims.  However that is relevant to this article.  That also doesn't mean the person who writes that Muslims venerate Muhammad actually venerates Muhammad.  Therefore it does not violate point of view policies.  The Blake picture expresses a commonly held Western point of view for the era in which The Divine Comedy was written.  The Divine Comedy is part of the discussion in that section.  Therefore the picture is relevant and only expresses the point of view of Dante, and perhaps Blake, not of Wikipedia or individual editors.  I hope I made it comprehensible enough for you.  Talmage 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The image is not suitable for the article and has no place there. --- A. L. M. 08:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it offend you? Arrow740 08:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is so obvious and needs no explaination. --- A. L. M. 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user above mentioned that there is no risk of you being tempted into worshiping it, and that's the usual Islamic objection. So I was hoping you could explain what other objection you have so we could see how we should react to it in terms of WP guidelines. Arrow740 08:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely no consensus whatsoever for this. I'm surprised at this, not usually the way you work here. BYT 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blake and Dante's Inferno are both famous and historical.  One cannot censor Wiki or history in general due to the fact that certain individuals might disagree with it based on their own POV.  The image is not displayed with the intention to offend, rather with the intention of being encyclopedic. --Strothra 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus does in fact exist that the inclusion of images in this article falls within WP policies. The people opposed to the Blake image are, by and large, the same folks who opposed the inclusion of ANY image of Muhammad, and that view has been rejected by consensus. Since consensus favors the inclusion of images, the burden is on those opposing these particular images to demonstrate (within Wikipedia policies and not their own personal or theological preferences) why they should not be included. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll jump in and say this image is unnecessarily inflamatory. I'm certainly not opposed to including images for educational purposes, but I don't see how this adds to the images already included.  Depictions of Muhammad, fine. But this doesn't add anything to this article, and has the side effect of hacking people off even more than they already are.  Dchall1 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth is the Blake image doing under a heading "Romantic representations"? It shows a complete lack of respect for either Blake or Islam (or Dante for that matter). It is purely original research. The section is not laid out according to the MoS and the English is dreadful too. A lot seems to be sourced to the Encyclopedia of Islam, a reliable source, but I would like someone to check that the text actually follows what the EoI says. And I would like someone who wants the Blake image in to justify the relevance of its inclusion on encyclopedic grounds. It is not sufficient to say that "there is a consensus for images" - a) I for one do not accept that there is any such consensus and b) that does nothing to justify the inclusion of this particular image at this particular point in the article. Itsmejudith 21:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The creator of that section is extremely protective of it; past improvements have been met with edit-warring and talk page filibusters.Proabivouac 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For crying out loud, why does everyone bring up Jesus?  This is not an article about Jesus and it is a mistake to assume everyone supporting inclusion of the Blake image is even Christian!  Furthermore if the image you mention was relevant to a passage being addressed in the Jesus article and if it met notability requirements, I'm sure you wouldn't find the objections you are finding here!  It is not typically the Western way to censor anything we disagree with.  It's not a reflection upon me, and if it's relevant to a topic, it should be included.  If it's not relevant it shouldn't.  That's a general principle throughout Wikipedia and has nothing to do with Jesus.  So please stop bring up red herrings. Talmage 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Red herring, shmed herring. The articles are manifestly analagous to each other. If you wouldn't expect to get a billion Christians to buy a (well-worn) "censorship is evil" riff in support of that offensive image in an article about that religion's central figure, you shouldn't expect to get a billion Muslims to buy the same riff in an article about this religion's central figure. But why don't you try there first and see what happens. BYT 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's apparent you didn't really read what I wrote.  I'll repeat one more time:  Furthermore if the image you mention was relevant to a passage being addressed in the Jesus article and if it met notability requirements, I'm sure you wouldn't find the objections you are finding here! Once again, stop assuming facts not in evidence. Talmage 06:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's apparent you didn't really read what I wrote. Go write a borderline-bogus (or perhaps defiantly bogus) paragraph on, say, Contemporary Artistic Interpretations of Jesus. stick it into Jesus as a section unto itself, use Piss Christ as the driving image there, gauge the reaction, and then come back here and talk about this proposed edit of yours, so we can see what kind of response arises in an analagous article. BYT 17:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverting blake 

message: Don't do it.  Talk to each other, find a consensus.  Cheers, WilyD 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key point is that the illustration is appropriately placed.  I would object to this being at the top of the page, or in most other sections, however non-Islamic and specifically Western attitudes towards Muhammad should be and are included in the article.  As such the picture is appropriate within the confines of the section.  As to the earlier statement that the picture is an insult to Dante, Blake, and is not romantic, I completely disagree.  Surely the editor realizes the romantic period is a specific era in Western civilization, much like the Dark Ages, Renaissance, etc.  This is a notable, historic portrayal of Muhammad, and I see no reason why only Islamic images should be included.  Furthermore, this is not an article about Jesus, nor any other figure except Muhammad.  Various perceptions of Muhammad are completely appropriate for this article.  I included the picture, and it seems the majority of the people opposed to including it are the same people opposed to including any image of Muhammad.  Since that issue has been dealt with already and isn't within the scope of this discussion, I believe it is up to them to prove this image is inappropriate for the section in which it is placed.  Statements such as "it is obviously offensive and needs no elaboration" are unacceptable since there are quite a few people who have previously expressed an intent to include this picture.  Furthermore, I believe the burden of proof should always be upon those seeking to censor material.  Unless they are able to establish a consensus that the picture addressing the specific section in consideration is inappropriate and deserving of censor, the picture should remain.   Repeat, the burden of proof should be on those wishing to censor material. Talmage 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you think of adding porn pictures in wikipedia? I remember a user was blocked for simply requesting a child porn to be added to an article. But I would like to hear your argument. --Aminz 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Established Wikipedia policy specifically deals with pornography.  Particularly child porn is illegal in the jurisdictions in which Wikipedia is hosted.  This image is not pornography, anymore than the Statue of David.  In certain circumstances such as pornography designed to sexually arouse the reader, consensus has been reached.  The image clearly is not sexual in the least.  In general, as I stated earlier, the burden of proof should be upon those wishing to censor.  I don't think anyone here has met that burden of proof and we see the same "I'm offended by pictures of Muhammad (pbuh)" arguments rehashed. Talmage 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why Wikipedia doesn't allow porn pictures? What is the reason behind it? --Aminz 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll humor you, though its not relevant to this discussion.  In large part, pornography is banned due to legal reasons.  Additionally, in most circumstances it is felt that material designed with the primary purpose of sexually arousal is not informative enough to merit inclusion.  This situation is completely different.  It's not pornography, and its censorship would only be on the grounds that it is offensive because it expresses an historical characterization of Muhammad that isn't in accords with Islamic belief.  That's pure censorship on the grounds of religion. Talmage 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is banned for legal reasons because of other reasons. I can think of a certain group of people who may accept it. These issues are not so much up to precise mathematical reasoning nor they are supposed to be. Even the Statue of David, I am sure, would be unacceptable in many countries including Muslim countries because of its nudeness. How are these boundries set? The culture defines what is normal and what is abnormal. Something might be acceptable in one culture but not in another. Every society has to set-up such rules for reasons socielogist study. Now, not only you would like to add not only a nude picture but also a nude picture of Muhammad. That's far beyond the boundaries. I promise you that I'll remove the picture whenever I check in wikipedia. --Aminz 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every culture has its own standards of decency.  I am well aware that displaying this picture would probably be cause for death in Saudi Arabia, however the English version Wikipedia is largely governed according to acceptable standards of behavior in the English-speaking world.  The Arabic Wikipedia has no picture of Muhammad in the article, because they have chosen to adhere to different cultural standards than we have (collectively).  Unfortunately for those trying to censor historical perspectives, the West typically frowns upon censorship much more so than in the Middle East.  It naturally makes sense that the consensuses established throughout English Wikipedia are formed in general from standards largely accepted in most of the English-speaking world, not the Standards based upon Islamic belief.  But once again, we are leaving the scope of this discussion.  It is ludicrous to equate the photo with pornography.  Just as you say above, the Statue of David would be illegal in certain places.  Does that mean its article should be censored as well?  Furthermore your promise to remove the picture, despite any consensus that may be established, represents an absolute lack of good faith and willingness to abide by the process of consensus that has for so long governed Wikipedia. Talmage 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll come out of the closet as being ambivalent about the Blake image.  It's not a horrible image, but I worry it's sorta giving undue weight the christian view of Muhammad.  Another strike against it is that the image doesn't claim to depict an actual scene of Muhammad's, but instead is an illustration for a work of fiction.  All our articles on historical figures have images of that figure-- but very few have images of those figures in Hell.   On the other hand, Muhammad was a religious leader, Christianity is the most populous world religion, and so it's not totally insane to have such an image.  --Alecmconroy 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I share your ambivalence. It's not unjustifiable, but it is unusual.Proabivouac 00:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would encourage you to look at the version of the page in which the Blake image is there.  Does it really stand out that much?  I think it goes well with the section, and probably wouldn't have been noticed for quite some time had I not started a discussion on the image before deciding to include it.  I do think it's important to have a non-Islamic image on the page.  I see where you are coming from, to a point, in that the image is not of Muhammad specifically, but rather an illustration of the Inferno, however every image of Muhammad (and of many other religious figures for that matter) are illustrations of stories, not drawn from a first-hand encounter the artist had with the subject.  The Islamic images of Muhammad, for example, are based on the Koran, a book, or from various hadiths, etc.  The bottom line is that these are all illustrations of famous stories.  One might try to argue that the Divine Comedy is a work of fiction and that the Koran is not, but I would argue that in taking such a position we have then endorsed Islam, which would be a sharp departure from the mission of Wikipedia to be a "free encyclopedia". Talmage 00:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there difference there is that everyone agrees the Divine Comedy is fiction, even Christians (as far as I know, anyway).  The Qur'an, on the other hand, is not universally agreed to be fictional.   So, I guess the real difference isn't actualy what is and what is not fiction--  it's what is and is not universally agreed to be fiction. :)  --Alecmconroy 00:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, although I disagree somewhat.  I think some works of fiction are so influential to certain cultures and eras that they merit inclusion.  What I am trying to remind everyone is that this is not an image I chose to head the article.  It is a small image chosen for a very specific section.  Given that the section is entitled Christian and Western views of Muhammad: Romantic representations of Muhammad I believe the image is appropriate since The Divine Comedy is one of the most famous pieces written in history and had a profound influence on Western attitudes towards Muhammad. Talmage 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Divine Comedy is Romantic in precisely what way? And shouldn't we mention the belief of some scholars that it was drawn from an Islamic original? And do you have a source to hand on the Divine Comedy's influence on Western attitudes towards Muhammad? Itsmejudith 12:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring is bad

message: 1. Is the image on topic and appropriately placed within the sub-section entitled "Christian and Western views of Muhammad: Romantic representations of Muhammad"?
:* Yes.
2. Is the image designed to sexually arouse in any way?
:* Absolutely not.
3. Does the William Blake image meet notability requirements?
:* Absolutely.
4. In the event of no clear consensus, should the burden of proof be upon those seeking to include or censor information?
:* Censor.
5. Should only Islamic images be included in the article?
:* Of course not.
6. Should prominent and historical Western views that characterize Muhammad in a negative context be censored from the article?
:* No.
--Talmage 22:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Questions Regarding the Blake Image 

message: Salvador Dali is equally well known and respected. These are the deatails from the image page:
In the mid 1950s, the Italian Minister of Culture commissioned Salvador Dalí to illustrate Dante’s Divine Comedy, to be published in 1965 in honor of the 700th anniversary of Dante’s birth in Florence in 1265.
This image illustrates the 28th Canto of the Divine Comedy in which the Islamic Prophet Muhammad is consigned to the ninth ditch of the eighth circle of hell for being a "sower of discord". Muhammad’s punishment is to have his abdomen split open. Upon seeing Dante and Virgil together, Muhammad cries out “See how I split open the crack in myself! See how twisted and broken Mohammed is!”
TharkunColl 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TharkunColl, I am as pro-inclusion as anyone else on this page, but posting this image to the talk page and edit-warring to keep it here can only be interpreted as intentionally provocative.Proabivouac 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. It would be perfectly possible to interpret my actions as leading from a desire to have many different views of Muhammad, and not just Muslim ones. TharkunColl 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible, but not plausible.Proabivouac 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe it's just that I value freedom of speech so much that I'll fight censorship wherever I see it?  TharkunColl 22:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I did see this image, but decided the Blake image was more aesthetically fitting.  But that was just a judgment call on my part and which Inferno picture to use could be legitimate subject of dispute.  The main point I don't see anyone trying to address is this:  Why should we have to justify the inclusion of an image such as Blake's when it obviously fits with the context of the section in which it appears?  Shouldn't those trying to censor the picture have to justify a good reason to impede the flow of information? Talmage 23:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do not show that image again. There are pictures of western views of Muhammad that are not so disturbing. Ezag 00:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please refrain for censoring legitimate discussion in a talk page.  I personally am not crazy about the Dali image, but I do think it is a legitimate matter of discussion.  If you are offended by images not in strict accordance with Islam, I suggest you disable images in your browser, or only visit Islamic sites. Talmage 00:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean that we should be pressing those buttons in order to make a WP:POINT.Proabivouac 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Granted, but as long as the discussion is still somewhat focussed on the issue at hand, discussion (or in this case the image) shouldn't be removed.  I believe only blatant personal attacks or completely irrelevant discussion should be removed. Talmage 01:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I did was link the image instead of display it.Proabivouac 02:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I misunderstood.  I had thought Ezag had removed the picture altogether.  Sorry. Talmage 03:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. I didn't catch that.Proabivouac 04:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's a big no on the Dali image.  --Alecmconroy 00:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's relative.  I'm personally a fan of Salvador Dalí, but I'd agree his surrealism doesn't fit well with the rest of the page.  This opinion is on aesthetic grounds, not because of subject matter. Talmage 03:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How about this one then?

message: Obviously this question is pertinent to our current issue, but the scope of what I am asking goes beyond the Muhammad page.  I am trying to generalize a little.  Assuming no clear consensus exists on the inclusion of a topic, section, image, etc. within an article, is the default to include the information or to censor it?  Of course I am referring to a situation where a number of people support inclusion and a number of people support censorship, with no clear consensus.  Do we then censor or include? Talmage 05:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, if material has been reverted, the burden is on the contributor to gain consensus. However, arguments which violate policy should be ignored, and wikilawyering designed to achieve the same result can be discounted appropriately.Proabivouac 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to challenge your assertion, but could you point me to a relevant policy page so I can read more?  Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "wikilawyering designed to achieve the same result".  That seems very relative and I think if someone makes a persuasive case using logical reasoning and supported evidence, it is condescending to refer to it as "wikilawyering" unless of course I'm misunderstanding the exact meaning of the term. Thanks. Talmage 06:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Talmage, I agree with all of your points. If the image is "offensive" to some users, that is no reason to keep the image out. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Consensus