Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 5

message: Don't do this please. You r not alloed to Draw Picture of Muhammad (PBUH) Please Rempve them Adnan (ISB)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.177.146 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not "alloed" to tell us what is allowed and what isn't allowed. Most of the world isn't Muslim, doesn't want to be Muslim, and would fight if Muslims tried to impose it on them. Get over it.Scott Adler (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure we are, wikipedia is not an islamic encyclopedia. We don't follow islamic law. Zazaban (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You dont have to follow islamic Laws to give respect to others' feelings. and to what laws do u really follow ??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Censorship is different than respecting others feelings. Should we delete the article on Masturbation or anal sex because the subject matter is often considered offensive? No. And about the laws; I am an anarchist, so I don't suppose I do follow a set of laws. I don't find them to be useful or justified. Neither is censorship. Zazaban (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: ^^^ This is hilarious. I actually almost because a muslim once, and joined an islamic forum. Not to mention the huge interest I have in religion. I've read the entire history of Muhmmad's life several times for god's sake! I suggest you get yourself more educated on Zazaban, before posting comments. Also, how on earth am I missing the point? Could you be willing to explain that one? Zazaban (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think, you are missing the point Random Anonymous Person, I suggest you get yourself more educated on the website Wikipedia, before posting comments. JuJube (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that.--C.Logan (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of "to conquer" 

message: As an FYI and heads up, an article in today's edition of The New York Times (Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized), talks about this ongoing controversy. I'm sure there are lots more folks who will come take a look at this article now. --Mhking (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, we really don't need more publicity. Zazaban (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a dreadful feeling that this will increase the instances of both the "remove the image" complaints and the (until recently uncommon) comments which intend to insult or criticize Muslims. I'm seeing many comments being turned into political discussions, and I think we need to keep in mind that this page still pertains to article improvement first and foremost. The NYT coverage is somewhat flattering, but it may cause us much more trouble in the long run.--C.Logan (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The NYT article just made the digg front page...   16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: A very succinct way of putting the controversy. Thanks, Elwood! --Mhking (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''The New York Times'' Coverage of Image Controversy

message: Is it necessary? Most of editwars seems to come from new accounts or IPs. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A number are coming from sleeper accounts as well though, hence the full. :) Jmlk17 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, blocking such persistent accounts seems to a better choice because after expiration of this protection, the edit war may resume again. Those accounts have to learn that like it or not, they are a pushing a minority view. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll reduce the protection to semi for a while and see what happens.  If the edit warring over the images resumes, I'll reprotect. Nakon 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep an eye on it as well.  Let's hope it works! Jmlk17 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia... constructively.  This whole removing the established, purposeful, and relevant image thing isn't constructive. Jmlk17 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: <sigh> Since people refuse to talk on this talk page, and continue to remove and revert the images out of the article, it has to be fully protected again. Jmlk17 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: By your logic, since there's quite a number of editors who seem to think the Earth article should be replaced by "Mostly harmless", we should go ahead and let them. JuJube (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, remember that wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, but a ... fact-ocracy. NPOVarchy. Whatever. Those are the principles on which WP was founded on - principles trump concensus.--Wikinterpreter (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I fail to see any "factual" resemblance of the images to Muhammad. Not that he allowed anyone to make drawings of him. In fact the images on this article have no purpose other than upsetting the Muslims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you are upset.  But that alone is no reason to remove the images. Jmlk17 08:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you've read any of the above, it is not that alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.106.104 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The images aren't here to upset Muslims. They are here because of their historical relevance and the related educational value and relevance to the subject which they possess.--C.Logan (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is full protection necessary? 

message: Even though it seems that nobody even bothers to read the FAQ, it could certainly be a bit more solid and developed. We've gotten a few arguments which, while still utterly flawed, are semi-common and deserve a clear response (lest others follow in these same footsteps).
There are, I think, some fundamental misunderstandings between the resident editors and these concerned visitors. Notice, for example, the difficulty found in grasping simple concepts such as "illustrative depiction". Notice one of the poorest and yet most prevalent argument: that the images are "incorrect".
The FAQ touches on these arguments, but it could certainly do much more. Let's not let this plague of topics and repetitive posting go to waste- incorporate some of the discussion into the FAQ. Perhaps it would be best to start with an introduction which explains- generally- the concepts of "depiction", "neutrality", "censorship". After this introduction, a presentation of the common arguments/questions would be appropriate. I hope somebody agrees on this; the FAQ is a nice tool that we can turn to, but it's only moderately effective at this point. Improving it will save everyone quite a bit of time in the future, as all major arguments will already have a clear response.--C.Logan (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Want me to give it a try? Maybe I should try it anyway... Be bold and all. What do you think? -- RaspK FOG (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, by all means.--C.Logan (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ improvement possibility. 

message: Since Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, does that mean if someone proposes an initiative in Florida to ban pictures of muhammed from being shown and it passes then Wikipedia would have to remove thier pictures no matter what the consensus is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.251.11 (talk • contribs) 04:33, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)
: no, the proposition would have to be passed into law, and that would never happen. Zazaban (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not at all how it works.  That would be complete and utter censorship, as well as a free speech issue. Jmlk17 10:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you, JuJube. I was going to say that... haha. нмŵוτнτ 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It would mean we're now living in a police state, and wikipedia would probably already be gone. 132.170.160.115 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It depends on whether the foundation is willing to spend money on a court case they could win with ease - they might, they might not.  We'd have to see. WilyD 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the foundation would even have to do anything.  Civil Rights groups would do the work for it.  Courts would immediately squash the law as unconstitutional, both as a violation of the right to free speech, and on the separation of church and state.  There isn't a politician in the US who would want his name associated with a bill that would be unconstitutional. Resolute 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures, wikipedia servers 

message: Please place your requests for Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad in this dedicated page or they may be removed. TharkunColl TharkunColl (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: if this is the page now in use for these particular topics, we may want to change the banner near the top which explains that no changes will be made without discussion on this page.--C.Logan (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  most people are never going to read it - it would actually make more sense for the rest of us to leave this page to the "please remove" crowd and do all of the real work on a sub-page. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, this may be the case if the reaction to the FAQ is any indication.--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this notice to the bottom where I suggest it remains, so that everyone sees it. TharkunColl (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Note to TharkunColl: I'd reverted your removal of the "a new suggestion" topic, because I feel that this is a topic which is mostly productive and should not be included along with the rest of the "request" posts, which are typically by anonymous or new users with little or no knowledge of Wikipedia policy. As far as I can see, this is not a "request" which would justifiably need to be moved to the new page for such posts- doing so would "drown out" the points raised by Aminz, because I can't help but feel that this new page will be one that is afforded little real attention or concern (though one can't be blamed for this attitude considering the route the discussion has taken).--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no "yet" my friend. Jmlk17 11:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have moved your page to Talk:Muhammad/images whic is the original title under which we did image discussions.  I'm sure you realize what you were doing when you called it "censorship requests" but our goal is to make this a manageable issue that does not clog the talk page, not belittle the people making these requests. gren グレン 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice to all those who wish Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad 

message: This talk page is apparently linked in many places on the Internet, due to discussion in many Islamic forums.  As a result, there are many people here of sincere faith but who are not Wikipedians and do not understand our policies and the reasons for them.  Please be nice to these people.  And if you are a person of faith here to argue your case, please do us the courtesy of listening to the reasons for the content policies which are in place.  If everybody treats everybody else with respect, even while disagreeing, we may be able to persuade some of our new friends to stay and help counter systemic bias. And if not, at least we will avert another PR disaster. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reminder 

message: As I've recommended in the Talk: Muhammad/images, take the images dispute to Wikipedia: Arbitration and get a ruling. I'm neither for 'or' against the images being kept. I'm more concerned about this article becoming a 'Holy War' site. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Committee wouldn't accept a content dispute that has no conduct elements for them to decide. They don't make content decisions or set policy, so they couldn't really help here at the moment. Avruchtalk 02:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's keep. It's always been keep, but a large number of people who have never used wikipedia before have swarmed this page because of [www.thepetitionsite.com this] Zazaban (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The best course of action here may be to start an RFC somewhere on the images. Arbitration would be premature before other methods of content dispute resolution are attempted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I doubt that will help. Most of these people have never used wikipedia before and will not know about that. Zazaban (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and there is no policy reason to block an editor for arguing for or against these images in a talk page, especially when everyone has remained civil.  The article is fully protected, and likely will be indefinitely, so there is no edit war to stop either. Resolute 02:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's a real shame too, I can see this being fully protected for more than a month, even a year. Zazaban (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: But there are really no reverters.  For most of the time the petition site has been an issue the page has been protected.  I think we could use to unprotect it and see what happens for a while.  Reverting removal of images every once and a while is not that big of a deal.  Although, it was protected for some other reason if I'm not mistaken. gren グレン 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin tried dropping the protection down to semi yesterday, and that lasted about six hours before it had to be fully protected again due to edit warring over the images. All in all, this article has been protected in some form for two years now. The longest it had gone without any kind of protection was about a month in 2006. Given the current popularity of Wikipedia, I would bet the six hours it lasted yesterday is the high mark... and that was with editing by anons and new users still disabled. Resolute 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I hadn't noticed. It only looked like three vandals in more than that many hours. That's not bad at all... at least, I don't think it's a high enough rate to justify protecting the page. I didn't see any edit warring. It's all vandalism since these are new users violating a general consensus--at least, the consensus not to just arbitrarily remove the images. I am not fully sure why it is protected... gren グレン 04:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anytime the page is unprotected, randoms and sleeper accounts come in and continuously remove the images. Jmlk17 04:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the sleeper accounts are finite and can be easily blocked. How many of them do you think exists? --Be happy!! (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to drop it down to a semi-protection.  One can expect some initial "bounce" of vandalism but I'm just going to block people who start edit warring to remove the pictures without getting consensus.  Filing an ArbCom case is useless, as is an RFC; the only thing I think that will work here is the good 'ole cluestick. --Haemo (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's worth a shot I guess... Jmlk17 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be watching as well.  At least we have plenty of eyes on it. Resolute 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Alright, get ready for the tempest. Zazaban (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is always going to need a level of protection - that's just facing reality - most of the people removing the images are hit and run who don't hang around long enough for policy to be explained to them. The other pragamatic reality is that however much we want to cite policy for keeping those images, this is now as much about Weltanschauung as it is the rules of this place. I don't think the images can be removed without causing a massive schism in the community. sorry that's not very helpful or positive sounding. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: True, but honestly, the images will never be removed.  All we can do is keep with the policy of allowing whomever to edit (semi-protect the article), and keep vigilant.  There are numerous editors who keep an eye on the article, so any vandalism or removal or the images is quickly fixed. Jmlk17 10:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, semi-protection is the best way to go (and full protection when needed). Going the ArbCom route is alot of fuss & probably a waste of time. In agreement, semi-protection/protection is best. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: There is no liberty of expresion in that countries. A simple pic make thousend of people to mobilizate. It could be better to censor wikipedia to all Musulman regions, and then, whait.
:Sorry, any policy we enact will be applied equally to all.  It is possible that there could be some kind of opt-out through a monobook.js but other than that we will not be making a decision to give different people different articles. gren グレン 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship