Talk:Muhammad/Archive 15

message: Hi, Why I cannot edit the article ? --- SciAndTech 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I cannot edit the article 

message: If the page is at all important to the resolution of this mess, there ought to be a prominent link at start of this page.  If instead people feel that page is embarrassing I can see why there's no link.  
The page Talk:Muhammad/Mediation was started 19:25, 2 November 2006.  I'd say almost four months with no resolution or apparent hope of one is a verdict on that effort.  When does this go before the community as a whole?  I really think the list of options must get put up before a larger, hopefully more dispassionate, audience and just get decided.  Shenme 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add the link to the top of this page. --Sefringle 03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally mediation is geared towards individuals who were involved in a conflict. The way the mediation process works, parties needing mediation must all agree to undergo and abide by it so if a link is provided to the mediation case then it should be clear that it is not particularly meant for additional parties to join.  03:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no obvious link to [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation]] 

message: "User:Alim777," whose only edits to Wikipedia have been to remove depictions of Muhammad (first on Jyllands Posten, now here) and add the title "Prophet" to mentions of his name, has just removed a depiction, immediately after the article was unprotected.Proabivouac 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Report him at WP:AIV as a vandalism-only account. --Hojimachongtalk 19:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't know about this user, but i endorse the removal as per my comments above. ITAQALLAH 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Aminz's idea that during the mediation process it would be fair to have the image be on again off again. There's no denying that the image has been displayed in a locked state for weeks. Since mediation is still continuing and a final decision hasn't been reached would it not be a good faith gesture to leave the image off for some time?  19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't change the fact that the user is probably a sock, and his only edits have been trolling, vandalism, or edit-warring. --Hojimachongtalk 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is nothing about his latest edit, nor his other contributions, which strike me as malicious "vandalism" per se. which is why he has been given a test warning. furthermore, i see no trolling or edit-warring. ITAQALLAH 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Netscott, I don't know. As the German and Spanish Wikipedias have still more depictions, and as the edit-warring has been constant, a good case can be made that the last version was already an incompletely censored version, yet some have proposed "compromises" splitting the remaining difference (e.g. one or two depictions) premised upon the idea that possession is 9/10th of the law. I have little doubt that someone say, "someone removed it during mediation, and the world didn't come to an end/no one seemed to care," pointing to the stability of the page (if it's allowed to be) after this move  as proof that it is the right "compromise." Conversely, the willingness of aniconists to disruptively edit-war has always been their strongest argument.Proabivouac 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Umm, I unblocked him (leaving a message with the blocking admin).  Even malicious vandalism doesn't get you blocked after one warning and he, at least, didn't add "penis" to every page he could see as is ever so popular.  I explained to him the situation about why it's a bad idea to change images so... if he does it again a block may be in order.  But, the first time is a little harsh considering we really don't know if he's privy to these conversations.  I hadn't see this section when I did it, but, if he does something again tell me. gren グレン 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Alim777]]

message: The image should be removed. It does not add to the quality of the page but seems to act as a way for editors to be able to frustrate visiting muslims to wikipedia. It seems to limit the number of actual people able to visit this page in peace. The muslim religion forbids looking at pictures of the prophet but it seems quite ironic that they are present on the page of that religion. I like the idea of a link to see the pictures but the pictures dont seem to make or break the page so removing them wouldnt do any harm. Keeping them is offending for people visiting and may be interpreted as a non muslims only page. If you want to anger people and be disrespectful to people keep this picture. But at least put some sort of warning saying they are there. I personally dont really mind but there are people out there who do. Thank You! (Ssd175 05:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a religious treatise.   Frotz661 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree, images are necessary- it is not as if the image depicts him in an offensive way or anything. Astrotrain 15:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedias are allowed to show good taste.  The mere fact of depicting him is offensive to some people. Why do you say images are "necessary"?  How about putting them  somewhere where they're less likely to be accidentally seen by people for whom absence of the images is necessary? --Coppertwig 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Wikipedia may contain content that is offensive to some readers. --Hojimachongtalk 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "May" -- not "must".  The policy says offensive material is to be left out if it's not informative.  The principle here seems to me to be a balance of good taste and provision of information.  It doesn't say offensive material must be included and must be placed at the top of the page where everybody will see it.  --Coppertwig 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And that is the argument, whether or not it is informative. As a visual thinker, the image adds a great deal to the article for me. I don't speak for all, but for me the image does make the article more informative. Most readers of the article would probably agree with this, if they could get past the "It's offensive to Muslims" argument, which has no place here per Wikipedia is not censored. --Hojimachongtalk 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (section) 

message: Why cannot we keep all discussion in one place. Is that possible that someone move it all on mediation page and enforce to keep it there? Doing so will make it easy to follow. --- ALM 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this mess 

message: Now that that images are transcluded, the reference shortcut buttons in the captions don't work. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there is a bug in the MediaWiki system. I have copy-edited and changed the ref. in response.  16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion of images screws up references 

message: Please sign your name below my comment IF you think wikipedia is NOT censored. Its a serious call, and I will right here debunk this absured claim forever. Guaranteed.
If you win (i.e. censorship is not applied in wikipedia) then I will support the inclusion of pictures in this article. If I successfully prove that censorship is indeed applied then you must abstain from mentioning this absured claim of 'no censorship' and will have to apply the same censorship which I will prove the existence of.
VirtualEye 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This voting is already done Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Another_vote_.28yawn.29:_Let.27s_keep_it_simple. --- ALM 10:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No need to have a vote on something already settled, Wikipedia is NOT censored, not discussion here is going to change that. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Wikipedia is not Censored? Oh Really?'''

message: We obviously need an image of the Shahada; however the flag of Saudi Arabia is, for a number of reasons, not the best choice. ALM has found many images of Islamic calligraphy recently, some of which are historically significant. Perhaps a better example may be found among these?Proabivouac 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shahada image

message: Half of the section on "Miracles in the Muslim biographies" makes absolutely no mention of miracles.  Instead, it details Carl Ernst's views on how Muslim authors viewed Muhammad's social and political contributions.  Historical views of Muhammad's social and political contributions should be covered in the article, but not in a section on "Miracles in the Muslim biographies". Patiwat 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Patiwat, if you read the previous paragraph, it says: "The pre-modern Muslim biographies of Muhammad .... Modern Muslim biographies of Muhammad however...", so there is a change. The next paragraph makes it clear why this change happened. --Aminz 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll agree that it is relevant because it's explaining why miraculous explanations of Muhammad have become less important.  So, in the sense that it's talking about a negation of the use of miracles in biographies it is about miracles.  I think you can surely improve how it's written, but I wouldn't remove it. gren グレン 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "Miracles in the Muslim biographies" hardly mentions anything about miracles 

message: Karl, I don't think that is disputed. --Aminz 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad's attitude 

message: This talk page is an ongoing disgrace and a total waste of time.Proabivouac 09:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This talk page is an ongoing disgrace

message: the picture that were used on this respective article are in fact fictional, whereas Muhammad s.a.w. is a real human. if its okayto put the fictional picture on an articles, its doesnt suit the articles.--Towaru 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depictions or fiction, same thing in this context. Both don't have truth in them. 216.99.58.6 00:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth - roughly speaking, this is because none of us have the slightest clue what the truth is - about anything... WilyD 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction vs fact 

message: Since archives 14 and 15 are both really short, if nobody objects, I am going to combine them.--Sefringle 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, check the "What links here" page for 15 and fix any links. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Sefringle 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combining archives

message: * I am a muslim and pictures of the last prophet Mohammad shouldn't be displayed since they are considered insults to our religion I hope people who can edit Mohammad's page to Remove all picture that displayes him. Thanks for taking your time to read this and hopefully do something about it. Insert non-formatted text here. Edited by Simsimtigger
                                                          
How about including the paintings that show Muhammad vieled only? I don't see the need to have so many paintings of him, as part of his teaching was not to have any, and that very few existed, and are based on guesswork. The absence of paintings of him is a reflection of the history of the individual, and his impact, so absence itself illustrates the character of Muhammad & his legacy. Paintings of him don't add any value to the article either, it's not an issue of censorship, would you include photographs of gutted bodies after an explosion, in an article about a bombing incident e.g. in Northern Ireland? Aaliyah Stevens 13:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page's lead image is a stack of corpses, for instance - not censored really means that. WilyD 15:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise on Pictures

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}} 

message: I see that Netscott has recently auto-hidden the table of contents on this article and the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.  What do people think?  Is it an improvement over the versions with the standard layout: ? 
My initial reaction is to be a little hesistant--  it seems like the standard layout works well.  There's something to be said for inter-article layout consistency.  And in general, I usually don't want to have to click on something in order to see valuable parts of the article.  But that's just my initial impression.  Have we hidden TOCS elsewhere?  What do other eyes think.  --Alecmconroy 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Plus I don't see any alternative that could look any better. - Merzbow 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to hesitate about removing it if you feel it's a distraction User:Alecmconroy... I'm just BOLDly putting Template:TOChidden out there gradually and seeing how folks are responding to it. So far it's only been removed from one article that I have placed it on (that I have noticed) but concurrently placed on another (and some user's are putting it on their talk pages).  07:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden table of contents

message: I've read a lot of material, but I've never seen the claim before that someone claimed that he actually died in 666.  I'm suspicious of this claim, I'd like to see it quoted and cited. Thanks. Wjhonson 06:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should point out that the reason I'm suspicious is the use of "666" as a year. I'm not sure that someone living in 666 would actually understand that they were, and that typically *years* were expressed more in the form of "in the 8th year of the reign of King Gundapharas" and so on. Wjhonson 07:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a fable. He didn't die in 666. --Aminz 08:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that.  I'm asking for what the citation is for the *claim* that he did, as was posted to the article.  That claim has no citation and it's suspicious. Wjhonson 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And, as I stated above, the "fable", even if actually really brough up (for which we lack the reference), is in no way representative for how M was viewed in the Middle Ages. Str1977 (smile back) 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muhammad died in 666

message: That section is badly written and takes Muhammad's side. Arrow740 03:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. Should I tag it with  or ?--Sefringle 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  inserted. BTW, I don't feel the section is really necessary, as it is a detour from the chronological layout of the article. Beit Or 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree; although some of the material is fine, it should be presented chronologically along with the rest of the biography.Proabivouac 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember you welcomed having this section? --Aminz 21:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is fine. I am only saying that the biography portion should proceed chronologically rather than thematically. As it's from the same general period, all the material will wind up nearby the rest anyhow. Generally, the article should be structured as follows: I. lead, II. sources, III. biography, IV. legacy (including "views").Proabivouac 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Do you have any sources that disagree with what is written here? --Aminz 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Jews

message: Why is it locked/protected from editing? And if yes, where is the tag?
206.126.81.88 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing of this article is restricted to established editors in order to protect it from vandalism.Galanskov 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the small padlock in the corner ( instead of ). --cesarb 00:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article locked 

message: These images are Not part of islam but actually they are part of middle eastern and persian art traditions. These images cannot be linked with islam. There are many saints of islam who came after Muhammad to preach islam , these images could represent them but not Muhammad. There is simply no evidence in that case. If you have evidence you can show it up here Funnypop12 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this is not an article on Islam. Secondly, there are reliable source that we attribute the claim that these are images of Muhammad, see the citations. Details are at Muhammad/images#References. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So called "Images of Prophet" are NOT part of islam 

message: The numbers don't quite add up in the article. Apparently he was born circa 570 AD, died in June 632 and was aged 63 at his death. Which is the dodgy number? --Spondoolicks 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that circa 570 AD could mean he was born about 570. So if he were born in 568 or 569 you could still say he was born circa 570. On the other hand, it does seem a bit strange one would know the age and year of death so accurately but not the year of birth (although then again he could have either been born in 568 or 569 from the details we know. One more thing, if the age were given from Islamic sources it could be based on the Islamic calendar. Of course, if this is the case we should make this clear Nil Einne 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Islamic calendar was not in use prior to 622, even in a proleptic sense, so it should make no difference. Perhaps the confusion as to his year of birth has been caused by people not realising this. Over sixty years, the difference between a lunar and a lunisolar calendar adds up to two whole years. TharkunColl 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that he was 63 years old, but those 63 years may have been measured in an old style which could correspond to about 61 of our years? Where are we getting this figure of 63 anyway? Is it from a contemporary source, an islamic tradition or just a wikipedia editor getting their sums wrong? --Spondoolicks 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what the source for his age is, but if it is contemporary, it would be measured almost entirely in lunisolar years. The intercalary month was not suppressed until Muhammad's final decade, which only makes a difference of three months at most. Measuring 63 from AD 632 takes us to AD 569. The same period measured on a purely lunar calendar (as the Muslims now use) would be 65 years. What I'm suggesting is that some people counted backwards incorrectly using lunar years, as if the Islamic calendar was already in force. This would take us to AD 571, hence the confusion. TharkunColl 19:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: All of these sources confidently assert that he was 63:   . While these make a similar statement that he was 62:   . There seem to be fewer sources saying 61 or 64, at least in the first couple of pages of a Google search. I've found one for 61  and one for 64 . There seems to be some uncertainty here and quite what all these supposedly reliable sources are doing giving a definite figure when it is far from definite I'm not sure. Anyway I've taken it out of the article. --Spondoolicks 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Muhammad at his death 

message: I have presented the details instead of arguing whether it was a vilification or a criticism. --Aminz 08:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vilify 

message: There has been remarkably low edit summary usage for long-time editors.  Aminz, Arrow740, TharkunColl, others have done it in the last 50 edits.  It really helps to make clear what your edits are doing for the article. gren グレン 08:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay :) --Aminz 10:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright. Arrow740 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries 

message: I was wondering in what sense it is unbalanced. --Aminz 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad the reformer 

message: Since the discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images is over, can we move it to an archive? Can we somehow do the same with Talk:Muhammad/Mediation?--Sefringle 23:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say just archive them both in place.  02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: they are now archived--Sefringle 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the dispute/discussion over the images in this article resolved?  I'm new at this and I'm trying to figure out how that long discussion ended (if it did).  On those two pages and this one, I don't see a clear consensus or agreed compromise regarding the images - was one reached?  If so, where and how?  Thanks 128.62.95.123 04:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there was a clear consensus to have the images as they are now.--Sefringle 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, apart from the new/anon Muslims who come and complain every once and awhile there is a consensus. Zazaban 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A consensus that took a lot of talk, one that is based on policy. I am very glad that we got this figured out(for now). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive for [[Talk:Muhammad/images]]

message: Check this out and may be this page can be tagged so that Wikipedians on this project can look into it. It can be tagged so by using   tag. Vjdchauhan 18:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Check [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]

message: I think this article contains a lot of bias points :
* firstly it describes Muhammad as historical founder of Islam ... That is clearly a non-islamic viewpoint ... look to the introduction of Jesus and Moses :
Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity
Moses (Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה Moshe Standard Mošé Tiberian Mōšeh; Arabic: موسى, Mūsā; Ge'ez: ሙሴ Musse) was an early Biblical Hebrew religious leader, lawgiver, prophet, military leader and historian
we havn't descriped jesus and moses as founders of their religions .. could somebody tell me why muhammad is then founder of islam .
Second point : the Pictures which are claimed as depiction of muhammad .. it is known as it is fictional art began in persia in arounf 15th century ... so why we have to insert them here in spite that majority of islam refuses them and refuses the depiction as whole . furthermore you put a clear anti-islamic picture which is depiction in the supreme court of USA .. I think this picture is so important and it worthes a separate article about it as it represents the western viewpoint about Muhammad ... but surely it doesn't belong to the official page of Muhammad ...
Have we put an Anti-christ pictures in Jesus article .
I don't support censorship but such images here in this article will give totally wrong idea about the nature of article wich should be factual refrenced article about muhammad ... those images belong to article could be named Histroy of depiction of Muhammad for Example 
--Chaos 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, he's (Paul) in the 'founders of religion' category but is not called a founder of Christianity in the article, only an early Christian missionary Nil Einne 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and bias

message: The blurb at the top... is that vandalism? I was thinking of deleting it but I'm not sure. Maybe it belongs there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.204.167 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. Someone else got it, I guess it was. 74.100.204.167 23:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed what I wrote b/c the tag was still working. Dumb me. Oh well. Yeah, so here's what's shown if { {Muhammad} } is put is an article (w/o the spaces between the brackets) --Treeears 00:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sweet! As you can see, there's nothing there. Thanks to whoever fixed it. Could you provide an explanation?--Treeears 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The vandalism was at :Template:Muhammad, as can be seen here.  If you see something like that, there is often a some links in the box that say This box: view • talk • edit or something cryptic like that.  Those are links to the template, where you can fix vandalism, or make other changes, as you would any other WP page.  Anyway, thanks a lot for catching that. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When  is used, it is calling for a template to be included in the article right there, which works a lot like an Image:*** tag.  For more, see Wikipedia:Template namespace.  Wikipedia:Transclusion will tell you more about it, including how to transclude an article (not a template) into another article (I shudder to think if recursive transclusion is possible).  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 00:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: In this article most of references are taken from non moslem sources which were always biased regarding the prophet. Article lacks moslem sources, yes wikipedia is not islamic wikipedia but its not anti-islamic wikipedia either. Images of prophet in this article which apparently have no evidence that they are valid or not are also disputed. So images of prophet should be considered for removal.Albertbrown80 23:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of those images are from Islamic sources. TharkunColl 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, just click on the note in the picture. All the references are already there. TharkunColl 08:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and Images 

message: The new introduction reads, "Muhammad is regarded by Muslims as the last messenger and prophet of God and considered to be the historical founder of the religion of Islam." The use of passive predicates such as "is regarded by...and considered to be" is hardly ever the right choice, and I am puzzled as to why so many editors seem to prefer it. I intend to restore the previous introductory paragraph.Proabivouac 23:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The etymology of the name of "Muhammad" is wrong. In Arabic the short vowels are not shown in the standard writing so there are verbs written exactly the same but with (slightly) different meanings. That is the case with  [ḥamida] and [ḥammada]. The former means "to praise", "to thank" and the latter means "to extol","to pronounce words". It is obvious that "Mu-hammad" comes from the latter verb. In Arabic the prefix [mu] means "the one who performs the action" e.g. [darras-a] "to teach" and [mu-darris] "teacher". That is why "Muhammad" should mean " the one who praises" (Allah) or "the one who pronounces the words" (of Allah). In other words "Muhammad" is the doer of praise (or the pronouncer of the words) not the one who receives it.degoor 09:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Does anyone know how muhammad got to being listed as a gnostic saint?
Its in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gnostic_saints#_note-1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.48.74.68 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnostic saint? 

message: Please add comments to discussion at Talk:Simple_living#mohammad_practiced_simple_living? nirvana2013 10:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Muhummad practise [[simple living]]? 

message: After spending considerable time looking through the mediation page and the proposed solution that followed it, I'm disappointed to find no evidence that consensus was ever reached.  Instead, as is typical on contentious issues like this, it looks like a few persistent voices managed to wear down any opposition to their side of the debate.  The tactic used, which is familiar from similar debates on other articles, was to insist on misapplication and misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy, particularly its policy on censorship, which remains largely undefined.
A critical part of the idea of consensus is that all parties, or at least a vast majority, agree on something.  That never happened here.  In fact, of all the editors who came to the debate opposed to including images of Muhammad, I saw zero who later agreed to how the current article looks.  That's simply not consensus, and defending the current state as consensus is dishonest.  I could comment further on the tactics of those who won this argument of attrition, but the problem is widespread in Wikipedia, and I know from experience that I'd be unlikely to get anywhere.  This article and its talk page give a perfect illustration of what Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is trying to counteract.  I'm sorry to report that, so far, it's making little progress.  Gnixon 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus doesn't require that.  It requires that all sides agree to live with something, if you'll read it.  Furthermore, in practice consensus only "counts" editors who are acting in good faith and arguing based on policies, guidelines and precedent, as well as common sense.  The consensus is actually pretty clear, though there is a lot of crap to wade through. WilyD 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All sides did not agree.  There were lots of editors who came in good faith but eventually gave up and left.  I saw none on the no-images side who agreed to the final "compromise."  Gnixon 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Came in good faith yes.  Has any points based on policy, guideline, precedent or common sense no.  They gave up the arguments because they didn't have an argument, only a position.  WilyD 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, but what matters is that nobody joined any "consensus".  Those on one half of the debate were just chased away.  Gnixon 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't how consensus works.  Nobody has to join, nor do you even necessarily need a majority of editors - what matters is the strengths of the arguments, and that (in practice) everyone agree to abide by the outcome.  Both of those favour a consensus existing here. WilyD 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See www.m-w.com.  What happened here was more power politics than consensus decision-making.  I've said my peace.  Good luck.  Gnixon 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What you need to understand is people who hold viewpoints contrary to our policy are not counted in consensus. That being taken into account there is a very clear consensus. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's simply a transparent excuse to dismiss the positions of other editors.  You've said nothing more than that you disagree with their interpretation of policy.  Gnixon 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's transparently false.  No policy based arguments exist for removal of all images.  It's straightforward. WilyD 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No consensus

message: :I don't know where you're looking Gnixon, but consensus WAS achieved, and most of those on the no or few images side DID agree to accept the current state of the article. See: Talk:Muhammad/images#New_Version- Merzbow 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?!?  Which, specifically, of the 16 editors who lasted long enough to vote there had changed their minds from no images?  Also, where were the "votes" of Durova, Itaqallah, blessins and others who contributed thoughtfully to the discussions?  As best I can tell after a long time reading, the 40-50 editors participating in this poll simply fell off due to exhaustion until only those on one side of the debate were left to declare consensus.  Since then, the same editors have brushed off frequent objections by referring to that false consensus.  Gnixon 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact is that we are going to include as much relevant information in the article as we can, including depictions. You are just going to have to deal with that. It is a common practice to depict the subject of a biography, and there has yet to be a policy based consensus not to. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the conclusion that disgusts me, but the process.  Not to mention the attitude of editors who think it's reasonable to say, "We're going to do what we want.  Just deal with it."  Gnixon 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we certainly did not ignore anyone, we let them have their say. But the fact is we run things a certain way here, and giving one religion such special treatment would violation our goal of neutrality. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The certain way that a handful of editors has controlled this page is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to run.  Gnixon 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Gnixon, If you examine this poll closely, you will find that the combined total of unique editors who supported any of the other options is slightly smaller than the number which supported the least censored option on offer, an un-"veiled" depiction in the lead. We now have a "veiled" depiction beneath a calligraphic image. Another showed nearly-unanimous support for treating Muhammad no differently than we would any other historical figure. Besides these facts, the lack of a basis in policy for censorship became quite apparent. All this has been discussed ad nauseum.Proabivouac 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously a slight majority doesn't constitute consensus.  If images remain because the issue is unsettled (which it is), then fine, but editors here should stop dismissing objections and proposals by referring to a false consensus.  Gnixon 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus claimed

message: While there is no strict policy regarding not showing images of Muhammed, common sense will tell you that as no actual images exist and since it is common knowledge that such image are extremely offensive to a large number of people, it is better to not include them. Fred Bauder 01:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment was solicited from a member of ArbCom.  Thanks, Fred.  Gnixon 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fairly sure if we deleted everything in the encyclopaedia that a significant number of people found upsetting or offensive, there wouldn't be a single article left.  I've certainly never edited an article with more than 3 or 4 other editors that someone wasn't offended by.   WilyD 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The energy which surrounds the question of images of Muhammad are at a whole different level. Just not a good idea. Fred Bauder 01:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should that energy result in this article getting treated differently than other biographies? --Iafrate 19:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a simple matter to purge all biographies of images that offend a large population, thereby treating them equally.  It probably wouldn't require any changes except here.  Gnixon 20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would pictures in biographies get special treatment?  Why not just purge the encyclopaedia of everything that offends a large number of people, and be left with no articles at all? WilyD 20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it takes too much away from the encyclopedia to avoid showing images of child pornography, does it?  Gnixon 20:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sympathetic to elements of yours and Fred's arguments, and wish you had shown up earlier, but the fact is it will take a lot more than two new voices to re-open this debate now, which consumed a huge amount of time and effort on the part of dozens of editors. Nobody here wants to go through that again without very good reason. - Merzbow 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the kind words.  The fact is that this debate was flawed by misunderstandings of policy (which I think Fred has cleared up for us), and it failed to reach a consensus on what to do about these images.  Since then, editors on this page have cited a nonexistent consensus to quell any dispute over using the images.  We don't have to discuss the issue now, and I frankly don't know where I stand on it, but the next time someone comes to this page objecting to the use of images or proposing a solution, they need to be welcomed and their opinions need to be considered without prejudice.  In fact, it would be a good idea to file an RfC to seek out the input of editors who haven't been exhausted by the previous, flawed debate.  This page has yet to figure out what to do about displaying images of Muhammad in the article, but I hope something can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction.  Best wishes, Gnixon 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any qualms about participating in the debate again, but not for a while. Perhaps we can invoke the Brian Peppers precedent and agree to delay any major attempt to revisit the issue for 6 months or a year. Any earlier and I think voices would get lost from those editors who are currently exhausted over the whole issue. - Merzbow 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not entirely unreasonable, but remember there are lots of editors on this site.  Presumably any random sampling of them has about the same mix of opinions.  Gnixon 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: When somebody comes up with a new policy based argument that has not been discussed to exhaustion then we can have a discussion. Otherwise we are just going in circles. Nothing that has been brought up here has not already been dealt with. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OWN may be pretty relevant here.  I think I've made it clear that the issues were not properly "dealt with."  Having a discussion in terms of the actual, presently existing policy would be a "new" thing on this page.  Gnixon 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask if you've carefully read through the entire four-month mediation, as well as the subsequent discussion on the images subpage?Proabivouac 07:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, quite carefully.  It was a pretty arduous task, as I'm sure you can imagine!  Gnixon 16:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This issue is more dealt with than any issue I can think of. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Input from ArbCom member

message: See here. It seems Matt57's new image is a better quality image of the same picture. I think we should make the change. Any comments?--Sefringle 04:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see the original source of this image. Only one of the two can be authentic. --Aminz 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, Matt57's edited version of the commons image is washed out and does not look 'better' but actually worse.  05:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The brightened one has washed out detail on the wall. It looks like it is adjusted for a dim monitor. The darker one seems better, providing much more clarity without blown highlights. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the image I made is better in certain areas, like the carpet and whereever its dark. But then I didnt know how to prevent the burn effect in the white areas like the turbans. So I'll leave it like this for now but definitely this image can be defined more and made to look less washed up. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt57's image change

message: Do we really want to show this cartoon portrayal from South Park of Muhammad holding molotov cocktails?  No mention of the show or allusion to controversy is made in that section of the article.  Gnixon 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not belong here, it is not a historical depiction, and it is already shown at Depictions of Muhammad. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say, yes. Sad but true fact: it typifies the usual Western view of the great Prophet. Itsmejudith 21:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see Molotov cocktails. Arrow740 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: He is not holding molotov cocktails, he is summoning fire from his hand to help cure the giant stone John Wilkes Booth to save the city from an evil giant stone Abraham Lincoln. Muhammad is shown in nothing but a favorable heroic light in that episode. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, bad assumption and poor memory by me.  Gnixon 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park 

message: Why the fact that Aisha was only 9 years old when Muhammad had sexual relation with her not mention.
After all whether it is true that Muhammad was paedophile or not don't matter what matter is the fact that he had the relation with her and everybody can decide by himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 
::Desiring to have sex with a child makes you a pedophile. The question is whether or not pedophilia is wrong. Arrow740 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Muhammad#Family life. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The age of Aisha is disputed though, some say she was 16 or 15216.99.59.249 02:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentioning Aisha

message: I have read the wiki page, however, there is a lot of false information, when will there be a _fair_ page, that contains more truth then falsehood?  -- joefso
:if there is inaccurate material you find needs correction, please feel free to make the necessary changes while sourcing it accordingly. ITAQALLAH 13:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up false accusations 

message: What does "peoms" mean in the sidebar?  I wanted to change it to "poets", but I wasn't sure...  Corvus cornix 23:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet you're right, since it mentions "and writers." But ask User:Aminz about his change?  He likely know for sure. Shenme 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "peoms"?

message: The meaning of the name Muhammad is "the praiseworthy" or (literally) "one who is praised." The article has it wrong, saying that it means "the one who praises" or "the one who pronounces words". However, the cited reference has it right: see current article reference #15. Mosura 15:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I had missed it. Cheers, --Aminz 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Etymology'''

message: " ... In his youth, he was called by the nickname "Al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين ), a common Arab name meaning "faithful, trustworthy" and was sought out as an impartial arbitrator.[10][6]". Today, of course, "Al-Amin" as a name has been popularized because of Muhammad. However, there is no evidence that the nickname "Al-Amin" was contemporaneously a "common" Arab name and the article does not cite its source for what appears from a google search to be a solitary claim limited to this article. Either a proper cite should be given or the word "common" should be deleted. Mosura 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be brave! You have posted it on the talk page and if no one object then simply remove wrong information. ---- ALM 15:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to do so, but there is no edit for me to click, probably because I'm a new editor. The article is classified as Semi-protected. "Semi-protection prevents a page from being edited by anonymous and newly registered users." Mosura 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It must be because you're newly-registered. I don't know the criteria, but you may have to wait a certain number of days and/or make a certain number of edits elsewhere first. - Merzbow 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mosura, a historian(welch) thinks that the name Al-Amin was common back then like the name of Muhammad's mother "Aminah". But I understand that this is Welch's POV. Since to best of my knowledge  Watt or any other scholar have not made that claim, I suggest we add it as a footnote. I'll correct this in a bit. --Aminz 19:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's 4 days for sure, and I think there is a 100-edit threshold. --Hojimachongtalk 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Overview'''

message: Why is that heated discussion about that article? First, depicting Muhammad's pictures is not necessary, even though I think they add a lot to the article, but if they are causing such a debate from obsessed people about a photo, then remove it, why bother? In addition, you could simply make a link to commons that has all Muhammad's photos and pictures for whoever wants to find them. Moreover, for people who apparently cannot stand the existence of a drawing of a person, please remember that Wikipedia is NOT a religious entity or a place to display your point of view. If the photos bother you so much, find photos that would replace the existing ones with photos without Muhammad’s face and could deliver the same message. And about the Jyllands Posten cartoons, they should be mentioned, and a photo should be put, what is the problem? This specific event is particularly noticeable. It is a fact; the article is not about a prophet of God, or the Prophet of Islam. The article is a biographical article; it should talk about Muhammad as a person who was a leading figure for people, like Gandhi, Buddha, or Confucius. It is no big deal. However, I see that there are people who do hate Muhammad and try to add stuff that are irrelevant. Muhammad and the Jews should have already had an entry in the anti-Semitism series of articles. And that photo of the rat, is really unnecessary, it is like visualizing leading the readers mind to look at the rat without giving him the time to think, and if that is the case, then shouldn't every item in the article comes attached with a photo? If I am someone who is coming here to read about Muhammad for the first time in my life, I am looking to find a neutral and unbiased article that is to the point of a biographical scale, if I want to look for Islam, there is an encyclopedic entry about it in Wikipedia. Why bother?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Abdel Mageed (talk • contribs) 
:See Wikipedia:Censorship.  Your answer is there.  Frotz 07:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also read: User:Matt57/Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies - this gives a short overview of how Wikipedia policies do not support the censorship of these images at all for any reasons. I agree we should also put a picture of the Cartoons controversy in this article. I have  no doubt that this will happen. Like you said, this is a bio article like Gnadhi or anyone. I agree on some of your points you raised with the rat photo. It was a response to people putting a picture of the moon and saying it was Muhammad's miracle to split the moon. Why not the rat then too? The point to note is that, if this wasnt controversial and so many people didnt resist it, I would have no problem in doing such a thing because it is informational afterall. I might pursue this some other time because pictures are good. I believe that we should be balanced. If we add a picture of Muhammad's miracle, we should also put a picture of the rat.  --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not add the rat, but make sure that this absurd split-moon image does not appear on Wikipedia.Proabivouac 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the heated discussion?