Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:57, 3 March 2009

Important notice: This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page, within Misplaced Pages talkpage guidelines. If you have come here to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, please don't post here. Such objections have been raised before, and been given our consideration. If you have come here to protest against how Muslims are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Misplaced Pages, please don't post here. That is not new either. A summary of the current consensus regarding pictures of Muhammad can be found at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you personally want to avoid seeing the images, you might want to read How to set your browser to not see images. Suggestions are expected to be informed by Misplaced Pages guidelines, in particular Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles. Suggestions for an adaptation of standing guidelines are offtopic on this page and belong on Misplaced Pages talk:No disclaimers in articles or Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Because of disruption and trolling, the Muhammad page can be edited only by established Misplaced Pages users. Please be polite and calm. Trolling or aggressive rhetoric either for or against the use of images will not be tolerated. As a Muslim, I find it troubling that so many people wish to use their religious beliefs to impose on the actions of others. Muslims have suffered from such impositions. We as Muslims are forbidden from displaying said images; we are not required to make it so the whole world does the same. If you as a Muslim are uncomfortable with displaying the pictures of Muhammad, then don't. But don't expect the world to follow the rules of a religion that they have not accepted. There is nothing in your faith that requires you do so, in fact many of the laws of Islam plainly and clearly state that they are applicable only to those who have embraced the faith. You shouldn't use your faith to attempt to control the actions of others. — Nableezy, 2009-01-12

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Archive Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Honorifics

I think it makes sense to not insist that Misplaced Pages use honorifics like pbuh or saaws after the name of the Prophet Muhammad.

I'm pro-freedom of speech and definitely appreciate the fact that Misplaced Pages is democratic consensus-based type of knowledge repository. But I would note that just as "pornographic" images or other offensive images don't litter every article where they are conceivably topical, perhaps we could find a less contentious way to deal with the images of Muhammad. For example, there is a seperate article on the portrayal of Muhammad. The images can be placed freely there and the Muhammad article could refer to that one.

Also, in terms of neutrality, it appears to me that many of the people in favor of places images of Muhammad on the Misplaced Pages page are not just calmly, neutrally in a scholarly fashion promoting truth and accuracy but that they are emotionally insisting that the pictures be put up, precisely because they are offensive to Muslims. And in giving in to such an animus, I would suggest that Misplaced Pages has lost a certain amount of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.201.171 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploading Our Beloved Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) is offensive

Not Only this but also on Misplaced Pages wherever the word Mohammad is meant for Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) it should be with (Peace Be Upon Him). That is a part of our religioun.

Remove the pictures which point to Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) Add (Peace Be Upon Him) in Misplaced Pages where it mentions Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

Majority is not a question but quality and approval from the concerned scholars is more appropriate otherwise England is not a Christian State under Church of England but a Secular state if you wanna talk of majority.

You were not the first to ask this, and you will not be the last. No, we will not remove the images. No, we will not use the words peace be upon him (or pbuh or saw, or anything else) to refer to Muhammad. We are not bound by the rules and laws of any religion or of any religious scholar. Misplaced Pages has no religion. Aecis·(away) 19:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

England doesn't have its own government, under the Church of England or otherwise. It's a constituent of the United Kingdom whose government, despite the existence of an established church, is indeed secular to all intents and purposes. 82.132.136.190 (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct my if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason you don't like the pictures of Muhammad because your religion is afraid it will promote idolatry(worshipping of the image of Muhammad instead of Allah)? If that's the case then have some self-control and just don't worship the images of Muhammad. If you're really that worried you'll start worshipping the images don't even look at them. You know there's a picture of Muhammad in some government building in DC(forget which one, Supreme Court of Congress). It's been there for a long time aside other paintings of people in history. Haven't heard any Muslims complain about it.TheRealdeal (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Every one of your points above are addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Please read it.

By your definition, all historically significant drawings are "fake". That is not an acceptable point of view to inflict upon an encyclopedia.

You are free to follow your faith, and not put up drawings. Because you did not put the pictures in this article, you have done nothing wrong. You do not commit a sin by happening to view a picture.

The rules you follow are applicable only to you, not to the rest of the world. Even the Qu'ran says that many of the rules apply only to the faithful.

The drawings are respectful. Perhaps not according to your personal beliefs, but according to the Muslim artists who created them, they are respectful. Many other Muslims have no problem with the images. Removing the images doesn't show "respect". In fact, it shows just the opposite, by diluting the encyclopedic value of this article, because information of interest to non-Muslims is eliminated, thereby disrespecting the non-Muslim readers.

Read the quotation from a Muslim at the top of this page.

Remember, Misplaced Pages is not censored for the benefit of any religion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel a point was made by a very intelligent and reasonable person, so I deleted my last writing. Thanks for giving an understanding, and hopefully, people will take your words with a smile. 69.118.145.80 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

This article needs more images if anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.172.101 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you back that up you'll probably find that you're ignored. RaseaC (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith with new or anonymous editors. They may not realize that the image of Muhammad is a sensitive issue in the Muslim faith. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More images of what? gren グレン 20:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kittens, of course. — Hiddekel (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Standard Reply

Being as this page has had the same argument repeated many times, surely Misplaced Pages could release a statement which could be just pasted after every objection, thus saving time.

My Suggestion

After much concesus it has been decided that the material in question shall remain. Misplaced Pages does not endorse any product, organisation or belief and therefore its internal policy does not take the requirements of such into consideration. Misplaced Pages is not censored and as such has no obligation to respect the wishes of any religious, political or other view.

Or perhaps something less diplomatic

Please stop forcing your views on the rest of us. We will view/read whatever we want and if you don't like it then sod you!

Either one if fine with me. I suppose what I am trying to say is that this seems to be continuing indefinately when a firm decision has allready been made. There is no point in continuing it any further, perhaps a statement from someone in authority could draw a line under it and then such discussions could be terminated. Talk pages are not supposed to be spouting/whinging pages but a facility for discussing content and such. Such contencious issues only clog them up with whiners and do-gooders each wanting to have the same moan as the last one.Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this would go against various policies which have already been discussed when your suggestion has been made in the past so go ahead and look through these archives for why this can't be done. Also, WP has made enough statements in various newspapers, on various websites and on various articles to no avail so it probably wouldn't work anyway. RaseaC (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to quote, at the top of this page, the Muslim editor who wrote the gracious and wise words in the section called #A Muslim reaction above. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

...which just got archived, so I included it in the lead infobox above. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for including it at the top. Just thought I'd make my thoughts known incase someone argues against.RaseaC (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a surprisingly lifelike stick figure drawing my son did of Muhammad I think should be included. That the picture is not of Muhammad (saw) the religious figure, but of our neighbor's son, shouldn't matter. Nor should the fact that this picture comes over a 1000 years after the actual Muhammad lived. Nor should the fact that there is no drawing anywhere that shows what he looked like and any drawing of him hundreds of years after his death has no baring upon a biography of him because you aren't talking about that time period at all. If you put a drawing of Muhammad (saw) that comes hundreds of years after his death, I don't see why my son's drawing can't be included as well. Get back to me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.204.94 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your son's drawing will be included in the article when it is deemed notable by professional artist and historians. See needed for inclusion and more specifically no original research. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"when a firm decision has allready been made. There is no point in continuing it any further, perhaps a statement from someone in authority could draw a line under it and then such discussions could be terminated." - intransigent positions like this are not beneficial to Misplaced Pages. Someone may have an argument that could change the current consensus on this matter. I would rather this be kept open for discussion. Your position is no different to those who insist on having the images removed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The only argument anyone has been able to muster against the images so far is that they are "against Islam", an argument which cuts no mustard at all here. If they were to argue that the images are somehow not notable, or in violation of wikipedia rules, then they might have something. Baseball Bugs 13:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What people have argued previously is irrelevant - the point is that regardless of how often someone uses the same argument, that in itself should not render all discussion on the topic obsolete. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

However, the argument that it's "against Islam" remains an irrelevant argument, until such time, if any, that wikipedia changes its policies to allow pressure groups to censor content. And that's pretty much the only argument that's been posed here. Baseball Bugs 19:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's in fact true. The actual use has changed substantially (if slowly) since I first became aware of the issue. It's possible (though it seems unlikely) there's some argument that just hasn't been considered. WilyD 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote

Is there any chance we could give Nableezy's quote (at the top) some context? I've been following this page for a while (since well before it was there) and it seems as if it's just been plonked at the top. If it's there to serve a purpose to editors coming here to comment on this whole issue, then it should be introduced to them. I just don't know what I'd put to give it more context – only people who saw the original discussion really know the context; who wrote it etc. Cycle~ (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I havent been here in a while, and as flattered as I am that you think my words may help stop this constant demanding that the images go, it seems my comment was a violation of the rules posted at the top: If you have come here to protest against how Muslims are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Misplaced Pages, please don't post here. That is not new either. Seems odd to put a post like that directly beneath rules that say you shouldnt write something like that. If yall want to keep it up there that is fine with me (I dont really have a choice though as whatever I write here is in the public domain). Whatever yall want to do though feel free. Nableezy (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

how much donation you need to remove the pictures..

i am ready to donate the amount to wikipedia just to remove the pictures from the article forever ....give me your demand & i'll send you.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't for sale in principle, but considering the current state of the economy, we must be realistic: if you can cough up, say, USD 787 billion you have yourself a deal. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good down-payment. Baseball Bugs 14:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Information is priceless. Resolute 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to the deletionist wing of the community. Baseball Bugs 15:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll bid against Dbachmann. For the low-low price of just US$5 billion wired to my Swiss bank account, I will delete the pictures. I can't guarantee that they won't be re-added within seconds, but that's why you get the discounted rate. Dzimmer6 (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yall should watch out, in a few months that 787 billion USD could be worth 12 pesos (or 40 CD). Nableezy (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Please send gold :) Garycompugeek (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

or make that oil. We can't operate the servers by burning gold. --dab (𒁳) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i did'nt get you guyss....at one end you are saying not for sale....and on the other imposing your demands. you guys are dying for oil, gold, etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything has a price. "Not for sale" is usually just a slogan meaning "It might be for sale, but you couldn't afford it." Baseball Bugs 12:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All Muslims see now wikipedia has its demand for removing the picture thier encyclopida is for sale...in fact, they were waiting for this moment to sell the pictures.now you realize what they are about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all Muslims, just the ones who lack a sense of humor. On the other hand, if y'all come up with a check for 787 billion dollars, we'll have to consider it. Once the check clears, that is. Baseball Bugs 12:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is lost on the masses. Resolute 14:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just impressed that they're apparently considering the 787 billion dollar asking fee. Maybe we set the bar too low. We should add another 700 or 800 billion to cover Bush's bailout also. Either that, or they're funnin' us. :) Baseball Bugs 15:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If this has a chance of working let's ask for jet packs, money trees, unicorns and anything else we can think of. RaseaC (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That, and peace for our time. Aecis·(away) 15:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How true. But here's the deal-breaker: A World Series victory by the Chicago Cubs. Baseball Bugs 16:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And us finally winning the World Cup. No, that's really impossible ;) Aecis·(away) 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You will probably win the World Cup before the Cubs win the Series. Baseball Bugs 17:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

you are just being greedy now, dears, what will the Muslims think? I think it will be a fair deal to ask for a pony for each Wikipedian. I for one pledge that I will remove the images once (only) for every pony delivered to me. --dab (𒁳) 21:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You're eventually going to end up with more ponies than you can feed in an economical manner. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Dab, I agree with Briangotts. You're just being silly now! RaseaC (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you know I intend to feed them? I never said I was a vegetarian. --dab (𒁳) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Either way, the complainants here would have to pony up. Baseball Bugs 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

thats why we love you guys your demands never sleeps....  :)you guys need only a little push...

what do you think??? i wont give you even a single penny for these FAKE IMAGES.... :)

Whatever. The guy who started the thread made the open-ended offer. We just tried to answer it. With sincere, not-at-all-sarcastic responses. Baseball Bugs 12:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary?

The art depicting his face is not really necessary, seeing as its usually just a generic arabic face. Anyone can draw that. So saying that it should be kept because it is informative and relevant is note exactly true. Don't you think it should be removed of the main Muhammad page? You can leave it else where, such as on the article about depictions of Muhammad, but the pictures are something that people would find offensive. I know the wikipedia is not censored, but there should be some decency. I might want to be able to find out about pornography without seeing a picture of a slutty girl with her mouth around a massive penis, just the same way I might want to read an article about Muhammed without seeing something I find offensive blasted in my face. I'm not even suggesting deleting the images, I just think that it should be left out of the main page. If people really want to see it, you can keep it on a separate page, but remove it from the main page at least. It's like having a picture of Christ nailed to an upside down cross in the Christianity article. Yeah sure, maybe it might be relevant if there was a a section on the page related to Satanism, Anti-christianity, etc., but would you really put that there? It would probably be taken down being, deemed offensive. So why are pictures of Muhammad left up, when it is clearly something that offends the people of the world's second largest religion. --68.199.39.111 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparing a depiction of Muhammed to a porn picture is pretty offensive by itself. Baseball Bugs 18:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

When you look up a subject in Misplaced Pages you are likely to see a picture of the subject. If that offends you then I suggest you don't look up that subject, or if you like use some sort of image blocking add-on for your browser. You don't have to load it. Chillum 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's vaguely similar to the argument about whether to reveal the endings of movies. If you go to a page, you can expect to see ANYTHING that's factual. And if it's factual and you don't like what you see, don't look at it. That seems simple enough. Baseball Bugs 19:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the time-honoured WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED is needed here. However you put it, however you argue it, however you phrase is, your argument is calling for the censorship of Misplaced Pages and guess what? Yep, you guessed it; WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. We do not censor our encyclopedia. We will not allow censorship on Misplaced Pages. We will not undertake censorship programmes. We do not bow to demands for censorship. Hell, I'm bored of rephrasing it now, just remember WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. RaseaC (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The exception to that general policy would be where information is in violation of the law. For example, child pornography is subject to censorship, i.e. wikipedia is bound by the law. Same goes for, for example, publishing the whereabouts of members of the witness protection program. Although I could also argue that that kind of information is also forbidden by law from being published by reliable sources. Presumably if wikipedia were being hosted in Saudi Arabia, maybe the law would forbid these images (and thousands more, but that's another story). But it isn't. Baseball Bugs 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, staying on the right side on the law is a little different from taking off some pictures. RaseaC (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the arguments you are making are incorrect here. Misplaced Pages does not censor images that add encyclopedic value to an article, it may 'censor' images that do not. The proper answer to such a query in my mind is explaining what encyclopedic content is added by these images. There are answers to that question. If somebody comes here with the standard demand that because it is against Islam it should not be allowed then WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED may be accepted as a standard response. I think the OP is incorrect in saying that the images are not informative or relevant, as they do provide an insight into how people viewed Muhammad, and that is certainly relevant to an encyclopedic discussion on him. I have two problems with this discussion. The people demanding it be removed because of their religious beliefs, which I have already spoken on, and the people who seem to want them included because it insults a group of people. I make no claims that anybody here has done that, but it has been seen. There is intolerance on all sides of this issue. I recognize the contradiction in my beliefs as a Muslim and my responsibilities here on Misplaced Pages. My religious beliefs should not impact what content is available on Misplaced Pages, which is why I can say I think the images are valid and encyclopedic and rightfully belong in the article. But neither should my personal feelings on other groups influence content in articles. I was equally pissed off going through the archives on this page from those who called for them to be removed because of their own personal feelings as I was by those saying to keep them basically as a fuck you to all the Muslims out there. Again, neither of you have said such things and this isnt meant as a reply to the above. But I do think the answer if somebody asks what value the images bring to the article is to show what value it brings, not just say Misplaced Pages is not censored. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good explanation. Baseball Bugs 21:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

we dont mind if you bring Muhammad PBUH's real life images in order to bring the so called value to your article as i have always seen real pictures of the real article. if it is NOT CENSORED then please post the real pictures. i believe it will add mocking value to your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning what? Baseball Bugs 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the anon wants us to find a photograph taken some 1400 years ago and use that. Nableezy (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I read it as too. RaseaC (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I for one am not doing his research for him. He can go look for the photo of Muhammad, and get back to us when he finds one. That should keep him busy for awhile. Baseball Bugs 23:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont think he is going to want to look for another picture of Muhammad to put in the article, but thats just my guess. And there is that pesky problem of when the methods of photography were first used, would seem to make that a pretty difficult picture to find. Nableezy (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I could lend him my digital camera and my Wayback machine, and he could go back to the appropriate time and take a photo himself. Baseball Bugs 23:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

its obvious, if you dont have any images why you are tilting peoples mind on the wrong directions by showing them wrong pictures. the images are FAKE and projecting a wrong image of Muhammad PBUH. and for taking picture back in times MR.Basball bugs or Balls Bug....i am not intrested in these FAKE images you are so positive in posting those fake pictures i'll leave that job for you and for the job you have time machine too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. We do not have actual photos of Muhammad, nor of Jesus, nor of anyone who lived before photography. We only have note worthy artistic representations. They're not "fake", they're "art". -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

brother how can you associate the artistic presentations if it does not reveal the actual image becuase the images i see over here are far too different than the real Muhammad PBUH character.

Oh? And when did you last see Muhammad in person? Baseball Bugs 14:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes..!! Every time i read Quran i meet him, every time i read his daily life routines i meet him in person. my friend this is the only religion where we can see Muhammad PBUH life & character so easily so closely that you can impose his life routines into your's & this has done purposely by GOD if we can’t see the prophet’s life closely like meeting him personally than I think there is no need of prophets they were here to tell us the truth & to show us the right path you will not see a single man on earth revealing his whole personal life for a man kind. Answer to your question. What if I post a picture of Jesus without beard without mustaches? With shaved head & with nice colored shades will you agree about the depiction in the artistic representation I am sure you haven’t met him in person too..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If this hypothetical image of Jesus in sunglasses and with a shaved head was historically significant it would certainly be used in the article. --Leivick (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

yes..!!! you got it... thanks for realizing the fact....the images we see over here are not HISTORICALY SIGNIFICANT. Publish the images that are on the basis of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

the images are historically significant. Read the faq. They are well within our standard practice of illustrating articles on historical figures, and probably have seen closer scrutiny than the images on any other article on Misplaced Pages. We illustrate the King Arthur article with a 14th century image. We illustrate the Charlemagne article with a 13th century image. We illustrate the Alexander the Great article with a 15th century Persian miniature. We illustrate the Gautama Buddha article with a 2nd century statue. We illustrate the Jesus article with a 6th century mosaic. Noted a pattern yet? It means that we bloody well will illustrate the Muhammad article with notable 14th to 17th century Muslim(!) artwork, because Misplaced Pages isn't censored, and because the only reason to refrain from doing so would be "we must not offend Muslim sensitivities", not points of encyclopedicity. All of this is perfectly obvious from reading the FAQ, and no amount of repetitive "buts" is going to change that. In fact, I believe we have already de facto caved in to the bigot whining and censored ourselves by removing these images to the lower half of the article. This was probably a mistake because it means we'll never have peace now.

But in fact I believe the anon has a point in that we do need an image of a beardless Jesus at Jesus, because that is how Jesus was depicted in the very earliest artwork. The bearded Jesus is probably informed by the Turin shroud. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can find one with Jesus in shades, then you'll have something. Or a snap of the famous moment where Jesus was in line at the Jerusalem Steak n Shake, and Satan wickedly jumped the queue, and Jesus said, "Hey! Get behind me, Satan!" Baseball Bugs 12:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Friends, your ongoing policy like attack is the best defense is very clear it’s not my headache if wiki is censored or not. If you've placed the pictures little lower good for you what can I say more I am not going to say thank you for all these FAKE images these so called artistic representations have no concern with Muhammad PBUH or with Islam or with your non-neutral article. I don’t know what enraged you either my ironic points or simple valid questions which you haven’t answered yet again I request you to Publish the images that are on the basis of facts which speak about the character of Muhammad PBUH. If you do so, what should I worry about? If you think that you have done a mistake I don’t care for your own personal peace..!!!! You have had a chance and you’ve lost it long ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

who is enraged? PBUY, and maybe find some other website PBUI which you like, ok? The internet PBUI is big. There is no reason to prance around websites that you do not enjoy. --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

who is enraged….??? I am not probably. You are no one to dictate me what to do and what not to do ok..??? Secondly i am enjoying what you are doing right now Mr. Dbchmann. I am free and wiki allowing me my freedom and the freedom of speech. You can't control everything over here while roaming around