Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:39, 21 April 2012

Error: The code letter for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Requests for comment/Muhammad images. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Requests for comment/Muhammad images at the Reference desk.

Mediation

Discussion about the wording of this RfC is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images. --Elonka 05:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection

What justifies the semi-protection of this page, Xavexgoem? Wiki-Taka (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, which stated "...potential decisions on the restrictions of these types of images must be decided by individual users and why we have recommended that registration be necessary to affect these images." This is a discussion for vested, identifiable contributors in this project. Anonymous IPs are intentionally excluded, as this is a sensitive subject with a history of off-wiki advocacy. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Background #5

Since I've been asked in a revision comment not to place my comments on the front page, so I place it here. Background #5: "Calligraphic renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common than depictions, and are more widespread geographically, calligraphic renderings are also the only type of representation of Muhammad to appear in mosques, and in editions of the Quran." is wrong, because:

• As User:FormerIP has pointed out at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images#Calligraphy issue (sub-head inserted late), there is no clear evidence that renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common than depictions, and are more widespread geographically.
• Moreover, in the public literature and realm, the written name of every person is trivially more common than their depicition, not only of Muhammad.
• Today, everbody can look at pictures of Muhammad on various internet sites from every point on the earth with internet access.
• is showing a mural painting from the Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque with: "first cousin and son-in-law of the prophet Mohammed; Ali assassinated at Kufah, Iraq; also identified as assassination of Ali in 661 AD; veiled figure is Mohammed or his spirit". So depictions of Muhammd appear in mosques.
• File:Hilye Iran 19th c with image.JPG includes a picture of Muhammad. According to Hilya, "These calligraphic panels were often framed and came to be used as wall decorations in houses, mosques and shrines". So it seems possible that this Hilye has been shown in a mosque.
• editions of the Quran with pictures of Muhammad do exist, e.g. in Spanish editions from 1932 and 1979, see . The 1979 edition is still being offered by second hand sellers,

--Rosenkohl (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rosekohl. You raise some valid points, and your example of Mohammed in a mosque mural is an interesting one.

You're still in the wrong place, though. Comments intended for the RfC should go on this page, either in a relevant section or in a new section at the foot of the page. FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• On these points:
• No statistical evidence certainly, since neither group has ever been counted, but this is accepted by most people, and was agreed to by Prof. Gruber.
• We aren't talking about these.
• Yes
• Such images are vanishingly rare
• Hilye are not figurative
• Those are Western editions, not produced by or for the use of Muslims. There is supposedly a single illustrated Turkish manuscript Quran of c. ?1810 known (seen in the past but now lost sight of) , but like the mosque images, these are the exceptions that prove the rule. 00:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello FormerIP, my intention here was not to comply with the RfC, but to comment on how the RfC is framed for its readers. Currently many editors are rather voting than commenting on the content page. My concern is that their voting, e.g. on the question what kind of file should appear in the infobox, could be misinformed by several statements in the section Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images#Background_on_images_of_Muhammad which turn out to be less tenable.

Johnbod (unsigned), that a rule is proven, not refuted by an exception comes unexpected for me. The background note #5 claims that "calligraphic renderings are also the only type in editions of the Quran", not in those editions by Muslims, or for the use of Muslims only. Also I don't see how the editions are not usefull for Muslim as well as non-Muslim Spanish readers. Perhaps the Hilye taken from an article by Oleg Grabar itself is not figurative, but on the same display above the text there is an image. Any statement about Muhammad made in the the RfC header automatically implies that it holds in particular for Muhammad and not for every other person. Insofar the header should avoid making strawman arguments.

I don't see where Gruber has agreed that renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common than depictions, and are more widespread geographically, and when she has a different user name on Misplaced Pages I don't wish to know it. There have been quoted Annemarie Schimmel, who considers calligraphy as typical expression of "the Islamic spirit", with which she seems to be familiar, Jericho Paul C. Santos who finds Islamic art characterized "by designs of flowers, plant forms and geometric designs", and Malcolm Clark who states that "in calligraphy, elaborate designs are made using Muhammad's name". But neither of these three proves background note #5, afaics.

About Schimmel one should know that in 1989 in the preface of a book she defended the death threatening The Satanic Verses controversy#Fatwā by Ayatollah Khomeini. In the same year she said in a public talk that Rushdie should be killed, which she later explained with her habit of uttering death threats even to her best friends, while in fact she even could not kill a spider or a fly. In an 1995 interview she said that a murder threat is always something cruel, but that Rushdie had hurt the feelings of believing Muslims in a very evil manner, and that she saw adult men cry about it. Thus perhaps Schimmel is not the most neutral person to explain what the "Islamic spirit" is, though probably this Islamic spirit should not be relevant for a neutral encyclopaedia anyway, --Rosenkohl (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal that all arguments based solely on WP:NOTCENSORED should be ignored

Can that section please be closed? Editors are starting to "vote" on something that is by all accounts a rather blatant case of bad faith. Barring a case of the obscene or blatant trolling, no one can dictate that an opinion in a Request for Comment be disregarded become someone else thinks it isn't a good one. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would not have called it that... but I do think the issue needs to brought to the forefront... as people do use NOT CENSOR in an effort to CENSOR other positions. NOT CENSOR is not a valid argument to discount the editorial process, which is how it is being used. It should be a discussion on the merits of such !votes, not a proposal to "ignore" all such !votes.---Balloonman 03:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the "NOT CENSORED" !vote is that it doesn't address the valid rationales to do anything, it is merely citing a platatude... it does not represent the fundamental process of a wiki---collaborative process---it says "this is the way it is, and you can't force me to change." Without giving any credence to rationale discussion of the merits or lack of merits for making anychanges. There are valid reasons to use images other than a figurative one, but the NOT CENSOR !vote is a cop out that is intended to squelch any such discussion. What is wrong with discussing the MERITS of using calligraphy in the image box? (NOTE: I am opposed to removing all images from the article because[REDACTED] isn't censored, but I do believe that calligraphy is the better option for the infobox for editorially justifiable reasons. Removing all images from the article would not be justifiable editorially.)---Balloonman 17:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to make arguments and counter arguments for or against NOTCENSORED arguments. Please try respect that and to not let the discussion bleed over to other places. That said, the issue: how should NOTCENSORED be interpreted in the light of this each addressed question is a point that should be address when the RFC is closed. If there is a new RFC created from this one, it should either define how NOTCENSORED should be interpreted, or leave it as a specific question. Belorn (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of comments

A thread of comments has been removed recently from the project page on 17:05, 29 March 2012. If sourced comments can't stay, I will stop to contribute in this Rfc and remove my other comments from the last days on the project page, project page, and on Mediation cabal, --Rosenkohl (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh calm down. I have replied and restored them to the general discussion section where they belong, as "History of images". Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone (not a native speaker of English) removed a section of comments, then they were moved somewhere else, supposedly to some talk page, but the relevant talk page is empty. Not sure why, since they were plainly labeled as comments to the section above (background of images). I would try to reverse the damage, but I can see in the history now there is some further comment on them that would probably be lost if I did, not that anyone who was following the conversation can find it anymore anyhow. Does anyone know how to repair this? Neotarf (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

They are at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images#History_of_images, and should stay there. The RFC was set up with several sections for comment, but not on the preamble, which this user added himself. General discussion is the place. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The announcement page Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/intros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) clearly says: This is not intended to be edited by participants in the RfC. Is that "native English" enough for you? --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 07:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not add to the discussion and it is rude. On a separate note, how do I participate in the RFC? Has it been closed? I didnt see any edit links. Thanks. Thepoodlechef (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the talk page. Click on the "Project page" tab at the top. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What was this was all about? It seems Rosenkohl added his comment to 'Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/intros' instead of to 'Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Muhammad images'. I sympathise. Misplaced Pages structure is complex and it's easy to go astray. Wait until you try to make sense of the Misplaced Pages pages on abortion - Google lists about 65,700. Apuldram (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There was an entire thread of comments about "background on images of Muhammad" under the section for it, where users could see and refer to what was already written about it, but in a new section where it could not be mistaken for anything but user comment on that section. Then user Dmitry deleted the whole thread without placing any notices anywhere, for instance on user talk pages or on the RfC talk page. Judging by Dmitry's later response, the removal of comments was intentional and not inadvertent. The deleted comment thread was then restored and moved somewhere, and eventually a link was supplied to the new location (away from their original context) in "general comments", under a section about "undue weight", whatever that is, and some more under "Types of representation". The "Requests for comment/Muhammad images" section is not really appropriate for these comments since that area is divided into sections for a series of specific questions relative to the article.

The discussion has fallen apart, partly because of the uncivil comments, partly because it has been fragmented into different locations, and partly because the whole thing has been turned into a meta-discussion of what is supposed to be located where. I am disinclined to continue with it, to say the least. Neotarf (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The comments belong into the introduction, since the so called "background" notes are factual wrong, misleading, preoccupied and biased.

Many readers will read section "Background on images of Muhammad" and take them as factually true and then vote in the RFC section. Many users have voted refering to the backgound notes like "No images of Muhammad are known to exist from his lifetime (570–632) or for centuries after it", "Calligraphic renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common than depictions" or "calligraphic renderings are also the only type of representation of Muhammad to appear in mosques, and in editions of the Quran". Other participants put there vote only under the condition that these claims are correct. Almost no participant of the RfC will be able to read the whole project page from top to bottom before commenting and voting.

What Actually is necessary is to change the background notes to a neutral and factual correct version. Even to delete the background notes would be better than the current version, --Rosenkohl (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice the sarcastic guy who removed the comments didn't stick around for any discussion of the topic. I didn't catch what was the objection to comments, either. Neotarf (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Table of contents

Is there a reason the TOC is currently limited to 2nd-level headings? This page is an extremely difficult-to-parse wall of text, and it would be helpful to be able to directly jump to the subsections that editors have created to navigate the page. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The page has got too long for the heading limit. I've gone ahead and been bold. FormerIP (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove 'Sense of consensus' section

Although I'm sure that the editor who started 'Sense of consensus' has al the best intentions - to have an overview of the debate - I don't think that a non-closer review of the consensus at this stage will be beneficial in this specific RfC. It will most likely lead to a reiteration of arguments and possibly unduely influence the closers. There is enough debate and !voting left. Therefore, would it be a good idea to remove the section? JHS_nl (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It would still be in the history. I'd suggest hatting it, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry - few new readers will get that far down surely. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sequence of options

The structuring of this RfC seems to be overwhelmingly loaded towards the presumption that there will be images of Muhammad in the article, and the key issues are where they should appear and whether people should be able to opt out of them.

That seems to me to unacceptably beg the most fundamental question that the RfC is supposed to be considering, which is whether there should be images of Muhammad at all.

As the most fundamental question to be considered, this is the issue that should be first in each section, rather than buried down at the end as if some bonkers fringe option.

In its current shape, the RfC appears to have hopelessly and unacceptably pre-judged the most important issue. Jheald (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is the status quo, and the normal situation for any article. It also reflects the previous lengthy discussions on the special images talk page and in the arbcom case, where those arguing for no images were considerably outnumbered by those arguing for fewer images, or ones differently placed. Also the pretty clear majority of views expressed here. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"No images at all" was never a viable option on the table; IMO it was included just for the sake of covering all the bases. The heart of the matter has always been whether the number and/or placement should be tempered by religious offense. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If your attitude is that the question has already been decided, then this whole RfC is a worthless charade.

Showing how Muhammad has been pictured is entirely marginal to the meat and bones substance of this article -- especially when we have an article separately on that very subject. The images are here either to be solely decorative (in which case why not use other decorative images of a more culturally sensitive nature) or to be intentionally offensive. The latter should be repugnant.

The failure to present "no images at all" as a viable option -- when that is the heart of the issue here -- means in effect you don't consider objections to these images as something to be seriously considered. Which makes this entire discussion basically pointless. As well as being an attitude to the sensitivities of the very people who do have heartfelt objections to these images as being irrelevant, that I hope you will reflect on, and then hang your head in shame at.

It cannot be right to have an RfC that institutionally marginalises those objections, when those objections are the very reason for having any discussion on this matter at all. Jheald (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Do not do this again, please. The RfC itself was mandated by ArbCom and hashed out by many editors over many weeks. You have no right and no standing at all to rearrange it based on your personal preferences this late in the game. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think most people understand that Misplaced Pages abhors a vacuum, even if only subconsciously. It's simply realistic to discuss ways that could work. I admit I haven't been able to face reading it all, but it does look badly set out. This is Misplaced Pages and an Islamic topic - surely people could foresee a long page full of repetitious bias and cant, minus the amount of sane involvement you need for these things to be productive. It's always more sensible to pose a solution (or two) after plain debate, and then vote on something realistic and viable. Polling this broadly and this much usually leads nowhere in my experience. IMO almost nobody would find all of the wildly varied images on Misplaced Pages inoffensive, as it's loaded with crazy and difficult stuff, even aside from the truly moronic NOTCENSORED. We have to admit that Misplaced Pages is hopelessly and inherently inclusive, so all the classic 'taboo' areas (religion, sexuality, even health) should have over-image toggling guidelines in their respective Manual of Styles. Just an optional but well-written paragraph in the right place - it's all it needs. Natural 'consensus' (or better still - human intelligence) should do the rest where it matters - ie where there's a fighting chance that people with genuine understanding are present. The key after debate like this is to realise what is needed, rather than make heavy conclusions over silly polls. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Question for Jheald

While Tarc and I often end up on different sides of the discourse, in this regard I hafta agree with Tarc. An article without images was extremely unlikely to pass. Jheald, you may feel that it is insensitive, and perhaps you are right, but the reality is that Western civilization prizes freedom of speach/expression---so just as you may feel it is intollerant, the majority of Western world finds blantant censorship to be intollerant. Now, that being said, I am of the opinion that people who simply cite "NOT CENSORED" are missing the bigger picture---we have to be conscious of our readership and make appropriate editorial decisions---I do think we should be cognizant of the views of people such as yourself who might be offended. This is why I think we need the option to block potentially offensive images from Misplaced Pages---it would not be Misplaced Pages censoring the article, but Misplaced Pages attempting to reach a compromise with a constentuant group of our readers. Which leads me to a sincere question. In the West, and Misplaced Pages is Western encyclopedia, it would be abhorrent to our morales to censor an article based upon the readership the Muslim community. At the same time, many in the Muslim community find our failure to censor the images out of the article on Mohamed to be abhorrent. This creates a troublesome diachotomy as we cannot appease both parties. Which leads me to my question, if we had the technology/capabilities to allow Muslim readers to voluntarily opt out of images of the prophet, would that be a working compromise in your opinion? Would you (and others who share your view) be ok with reading an article which contains pictures of Mohammed if you had the ability to block the images? Or would such an effort be a waste of effort on our part? What do you think the Muslim reaction would be to this type of compromise?---Balloonman 14:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. This has been going on since about October, and the Rfc was from memory well over a month in the drafting. This is just too late. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what is too late? Does something specific happen if debate goes beyond a set time? Matt Lewis (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Too late is when the Rfc has been open for 3 weeks & the great majority of comments have been made. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What's too late John? Asking a question? Getting more insight into the community in question? How could it EVER be too late? Even if the RfC were over, how could it ever be too late to learn? It is only too late, if you refuse to grow/learn. It's only too late, if you have no room for tolerance of others. It's only too late, if you simply do not care. Sorry, it is never too late to ask honest questions. Now, will the answer affect the outcome? Does it matter? SMH---Balloonman 16:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's too late to re-arrange the rfc, which was the question asked (by him not you). Of course rambling reflection on points that have been covered multiple times in the debates so far can go on forever. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I explicitly broke this into a separate section. The above section deals with rearranging the format, and yes it is too late. But this is a question for Jheald (or others who share his views.) The question boils down to, would it matter to the Muslim community if they had an option to block out images on the article? Is the hatnote suggestion a viable compromise? The question has NOTHING to do with the formatting of the RfC. Thus, your comment is grossly out of place.---Balloonman 17:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it has to be said that the UK doesn't have a "Western" identity in quite the same way as the USA. In fact the 'over-simplistic' (for Europe) dichotomy of East/West does get questioned at lot in Europe, and we have a sizable population of Muslim people who are simply British as well as being Muslim.

Balloonman's question is a good one though, and I know what the answer would be from the majority of Muslims in the UK (toggle). Muslims here are about 5% of the total population (about 3 million of 6o million), and are set to double in numbers in the next 20 years. There are broadly as many Muslims in the UK as there are Welsh people, or people in Wales to perhaps be more exact. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a large growing population of Muslims here in the US too. But "Western culture" broadly construed, tends to advocate less censorship and more openness. Now it does vary from country to country, but on a whole... most European Countries tend to frown upon censorship to some degree or another.---Balloonman 16:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, apart from the fact that there is debate about whether Islamic culture is Western (which in many ways it is). This kerfluffle over the "no image" option is a tad absurd; the no image option is not hidden, it's there for anyone to choose, and to state over an over if they would like. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, I separated this out to find out from a muslim perspective, would the hatrack option be a viable option. Not to debate semantics or placement of a question.---Balloonman 17:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I almost wholly agree with alan here.

Balloonman wrote, "if we had the technology/capabilities to allow Muslim readers to voluntarily opt out of images of the prophet" I am glad to say that this "option" already exists (and thus, it obviates any need of an image toggle or other potentially disruptive and gratuitous modification of Misplaced Pages interface).

Click here.

Onus of avoiding images based on religious tenets or people's hyper-sensitivity, doesn't fall on[REDACTED] editors, rather it falls on the individual who is reading the article. Please don't obfuscate this line of distinction in between.

No human, or cohesive group has the right to dictate rules and regulations that curtail legitimate freedom while unnecessarily affecting others, just to appease their fragile sentiments or to make others bow down to the laws of their religion. That's not what is helpful for[REDACTED] community and flow of information. Brendon is here 19:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"I almost wholly agree with alan here." - are you sure? My reading of Alan's comment is that he's saying that it is absurd to say that providing people with a choice to see an image is the equivallent of "hiding" the image. I couldn't agree with that more, but I prefer the idea of over-image click-text over the specific image box, rather than top-page hatnotes, which I find a bit heavy going. People who wish to see the controversial image should click to see it - not the other way around.

I've been taking some stick from you Brendon, but the observation I made on your own rhetoric has always remained valid - you cannot seem to comment on other people's "sensitivities" without using some form of perjorative language like "fragile sentiments" above. And by the way, you have no need to quote my general user talk comments in an RfC like this, esp when you have no idea what I was actually talking about. When it comes to editors persistently going beyond the debate to undermine someone, Misplaced Pages is nowhere near as naive as it used to be, despite your unsubtle prompting. And before I hear it again, almost every comment can be subject to 'AGF' when discussion becomes more of an argument. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Here here... I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one...---Balloonman 00:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"I've been taking some stick from you Brendon" - I mean only good for you.

"you cannot seem to comment on other people's "sensitivities" without using some form of perjorative language like "fragile sentiments" above." - It's your presumption that being a man of "fragile sentiment" is a bad thing. Still I'm going to clarify my position, I used the phrase "fragile sentiments" (like "delicate sentiments") to refer to the habit of getting relatively easily offended and react inconsiderately while offended. Those who demand all images about their religious leader should be hidden or taken down depriving all other readers of the opportunity to view the page with those images, in order to keep them from getting offended, are, to me at-least, people of extremely delicate sentiments (not to be mistaken for anything else).

I'm offended by a lot of things (e.g. a stupid, hate-inciting religious book that says infidels are inferior/evil people who deserve death, hell for their infidelity and are also unworthy of friendship or anything good in this lifetime) but that's not the point, is it?

"My reading of Alan's comment is that he's saying that it is absurd to say that providing people with a choice to see an image is the equivallent of "hiding" the image." - You're interpreting or misinterpreting his words and I'm not going to do that since it's not about alan, is it?

But Matt, why are you so eager to assail me with your unbecoming crudity? Why don't you just focus on why we are here rather than my personality and rhetoric. Don't forget that it's not me who assumes that Misplaced Pages has a "dark heart" and is "the purest form of madness" whose "various creeping conveniences will end up destroying us all". Like I've told you before, no disrespect to you sir, but you lack good faith. Brendon is here 20:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's bunk and you know it. Your view point is intollerant and judgmental. I've rarely encountered somebody on Misplaced Pages whose views and arrogance I've found more offensive; but your viewpoint is simply islamaphobic/islam-intollerant. You use phrases to demean and degrade an entire culture. Sorry, but that's intollerant. If you made blanket statements about other cultures, there would be hell to pay. But you make degrading comments about Muslims because they have a different world view than you... I find your attitude repugnant. Making ad hominem attacks and casting dispersions on those who hold different values is not mature debating, it is elitist garbage.---Balloonman 21:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the above comment shows your true colors, Balloonman. FYI, I never said anything about Islam. You again presupposed that by "a religious book" i was referring to Qur'an. Why would you think that? Does that mean you believe Qur'an is indeed "a stupid, hate-inciting religious book that says infidels are inferior/evil people who deserve death, hell for their infidelity and are also unworthy of friendship or anything good in this lifetime"?

"your viewpoint is simply islamaphobic/islam-intollerant" - I am not the one demanding censorship in[REDACTED] just to appease my sentiments. I am offensive? Oh! you mean you're "offended" again? I just told you what I feel. I wasn't looking to offend you. I didn't use any slang or explicitly derogatory language.
"If you made blanket statements about other cultures, there would be hell to pay." - "an entire culture", "Blanket statements"? Where did I malign entire Islamic culture? I never said anything about Islam or Muslim culture specifically. But why is it so offensive to you when I forthrightly express my view or rather call a spade a spade?

"Hell to pay"?? Where does that come from?
"casting dispersion"? "elitist garbage"?

Do you think that disdainful and irate response was justified when I did nothing more than exercising my freedom of expression and just told you my true opinion? BTW, a highly sensitive man could have also been easily offended by your inane threat of hell along with numerous other lofty accusations. Always remember, you are not the only one who has the right to be offended.

And you accused me of committing "argumentum ad hominem" fallacy? :D Calm down! Brendon is here 23:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Brendon111, I have chosen to include the following comment here as other editors have already brought this into the discussion.

Taken from Misplaced Pages:

Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme.

Taken from your comments in the RfC:

“Muslim-sympathizers”

“Islamic mumbo-jumbo”

“Over-sensitive lunatics”

“Islamic hyper-sensitivity”

“Its penchant for gratuitous communal violence”

A perfunctory glance at a sampling of the comments you have left throughout the RfC in all their dizzying array of shades and sizes paints a striking picture without the superfluous need of an image. Namely, fanaticism comes in many shapes and colours.

With that said, you had better familarise yourself with Wikipedias rules concerning fonts/colours which you can find here Misplaced Pages:Font if you don't wish to continue your numerous violations. I also urge you to contemplate Neutral Point of View and see how you can better accommodate it into your edits. Your arguments would be infinitely superior were you able to refrain from the disparaging remarks which currently litter your comments without furthering your cause.

Lastly, “In an encyclopaedia, sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter”.

I reject this. Offending those who come to Misplaced Pages is not the best path, nor is it in the interest of Misplaced Pages; no matter what the article is about, nor who the visitor or editor might be. How do we foster enlightenment if we disrespect and affront those who come here seeking or offering it? Veritycheck (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The offense is not done with intent, though. The offense is a byproduct of our desire to create and present a free and open encyclopedia. One ideal is conflicting with the other , that is the problem. The purpose of this RfC is to determine if some openness should be tempered due to the offense the images cause, or if doing do would be too great a price to pay and be detrimental to the project's ideals. Tarc (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't egg him on Tarc. Who is "our"? Unless you are somehow connected to not-one-month-old editor Brendon? Look at what you are supporting here - ie his hostile rhetoric, not just his '=censorship' position. It reminds me of a conversation I had online when someone suddenly said "we athiests..." when he didn't suspect that I'm an athiest myself. It's so silly to support each other based on something as unrealistic as equating simple consideration (basically, life) with a (supposedly) biased postion that amounts to censorship. As if anyone disagreeing with your viewpoint is 'pro censorship'! It's just so stupid. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Unless you are somehow connected to not-one-month-old editor Brendon?" - what does that supposed to mean? What are you trying to imply, matt? What exactly is your problem with me? Is it that I express my strident views forthrightly? I would like to learn the issue as perceived by you personally. Time and time again you, veritycheck and balloonman digress away from the topic and shift your focus from the topic to my perspective and phraseology. The topic here is not my rhetoric, is it? Why don't you just really try to stay in the topic? I am amenable to any sober discussion, but you, veritycheck and balloonman must start assuming good faith first, it's my request. Stop instigating others against me please. I implore you to just focus on content instead of focusing on editors (like me). This is a step to avoid disputes. I want to avoid disputes with anybody. Brendon is here 02:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

@veriticheck,

Although I think excessive focus on how (i.e. style and niceties of my rhetoric) rather than What (i.e. content) I express is a tad too much, which in my opinion, is also unneeded at this point and exists with a high degree of negative presumptions, I thank you for giving a chance to clarify my stance as well as those seemingly aggressive assertions (which were anyway quoted out of context).

“Muslim-sympathizers” — What's wrong with that phrase? And didn't I annex a "no offense please" tag behind that also (which you forgot to quote)? I'm assuming that you didn't leave it out intentionally. But still, if it hurt anybody I offer them my most sincere condolences.

“Islamic mumbo-jumbo” - Yes, this might seem a bit aggressive. But again, You didn't write the whole line and to give others a sense of the context I'm going to quote the line, I wrote, "Frankly speaking, if it were not for Islamic mumbo-jumbo, there wouldn't have been any discussion regarding sober depictions of dead people." So I assume you might understand my disgust behind that line too. And also, the stringent practices of Islam don't make any sense logically, that's what I was indicating by "mumbo-jumbo". But is it a crime to express genuine views frankly? I dare say, no. Moving on!

“Over-sensitive lunatics” - This phrase in and out of itself refers to only those who are over-sensitive lunatics. If a person is not one of those “over-sensitive lunatics” it should not hurt him. I referred specially to those who are over-sensitive and also lunatic (I didn't say that pointing towards any other group or person). But you again presumed I did.

“Islamic hyper-sensitivity” - I don't want to sound like a statesman, but every religion has hyper-sensitive people. Islam is no different (has adherents who are more sensitive than what's normally accepted). You must have heard of the Danish cartoon controversy aka Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam just because he made a film which "hurt the sensitivities" of some Muslims. These provide frightened non-Muslims like us with a certain amount of leeway for using phrases like “Islamic hyper-sensitivity”, or even “Over-sensitive lunatics” while pointing towards those who generally fit the description.

If it were a RfC about censorship of the Image of Jesus, I would have probably used phrases like “Christian hyper-sensitivity” (because the demand itself is extremely detrimental to the reliability of an encyclopaedia) but sadly It's not about Image of Jesus but Muhammad.

“Its penchant for gratuitous communal violence” - Wow! You almost made it sound as if I was referring to Islam. I wonder why do you forget to mention the whole line. I wrote, "Misplaced Pages must not mollycoddle pander to the ever-increasing, unreasonable and incessant demands of any religion (no matter how much is its penchant for gratuitous communal violence). Thank you! :)" I wasn't referring to Islam. Hence, what's so important about these phrases that I used in my comments?

And, Why did you neglect the line where I clearly wrote, "most Muslims are moderate and, with good reason, don't expect everybody else to cater to their views"?

"Offending those who come to Misplaced Pages is not the best path" - Is "censoring information just for the sake of not offending people" the best path for an "encyclopaedia"? I stick to my view. I tell you again, in an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability, fidelity to the true nature of information while representation and the quality of information are what count.

If anything, anything at all, clashes with these policies (not to mention, which have been majorly responsible for the free-flow of information without killing the whole enterprise) then I think its better to reject that thing than to reject the policies altogether. Brendon is here 21:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

SMH... Please read my post again... if you made comperable statements about any other group, then there would be hell to pay... but because you are making them of Islam/Muslims, that's ok. But your intollerance is disgusting. You don't even seem to realize how insulting you are. As for Tarc, please review his edits in specific. You and I may disagree about points of this RfC, but Brendon's posts are almost entirely laced with vicitude and are not conductive towards conversations/dialog.---Balloonman 22:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no comment on Brendon's posts, I tuned him out as a bit of an extremist awhile ago, I was just refuting a specific point made by Veritycheck. And to Matt Lewis I say "our" in the general sense of "the Misplaced Pages", as this is the general sentiment of the project (anti-censorship). Tarc (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You know it's funny, but I made that honest mistake because I genuinely do not see Misplaced Pages as a collective of people that stands behind NOTCENSORED the way you and many others clearly do. Sure - for some people it is pretty-much the core policy, but for most people it's just more in the labyrinth, and for many of us it's frankly just an unhelpful hindrance to a balanced encyclopedia (and paradoxically actually ends up censoring the encyclopedia from being a truly broad, balanced and human experience). For some it's even slightly creepy that the powers that be seem determined to keep this place so anarchic and inclusive (no fundamental changes to adminship or policy after all these years? I thought Misplaced Pages was supposed to be progressing?). I personally think that most people come to edit the site to correct mistakes or omissions that they cannot on-balance personally accept being here - for me those people are not 'Wikipedians'. But then we have the argument of what constitutes a 'Wikipedian' I suppose. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

@Matt

"truly broad, balanced and human experience" - (Focusing on content) Firstly, Misplaced Pages is not about Human experience. It's not the mission of Misplaced Pages to try and make the readers feel good. Secondly, balanced based on what? If you're referring to WP:NPOV then I'm with you. But I should say, WP:NPOV doesn't call for needless censorship or negation of any other policy. Thank you!

And also, this idea of editors trying to speak for "most" of any group is, in itself, a fallacy.

@Balloonman

"but Brendon's posts are almost entirely laced with vicitude and are not conductive towards conversations/dialog." - I'm sorry if any of my comments hurt you, balloonman. You rather rudely personally attacked me with the accusation that I'm an "intolerant" and "elitist" person; yet i'm the one who is judgmental. My question is this, why are you, veritycheck and matt constantly picking on my rhetoric and phraseology as opposed to the proposals?

I implore you to just focus on content instead of focusing on editors (like me). This is a step to avoid disputes. I want to avoid disputes with anybody.