Talk:Muhammad/images

Important notice: This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page, within Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, please don't post here either. 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 on that page, you might want to read this: How to set your browser to not see images Suggestions are expected to be informed by Wikipedia guidelines, in particular Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Suggestions for an adaptation of standing guidelines are offtopic on this page and belong on Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Because of disruption and trolling, this page can currently be edited only by established Wikipedia users. Please be polite and calm. Trolling or aggressive rhetoric either for or against the use of images will not be tolerated.

Additions to the FAQ

To overcome the current deadlock on the proposed additions on the FAQ, I suggest we take Aminz's proposed additions one at a time, discuss them and see what agreement we can come to about their addition (the full list can be seen here: here).

Question 1 'There are non-consenting readers who might involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images when visiting Muhammad article; people who visit pornography articles do expect to see such images but Muslims do not have such expectations by the virtue of visiting this article. Another point is that if someone wants to get some information about Muhammad and googles "Muhammad", this article is the first website that comes up.

OK - I have a number of problems with the formulation of this question in terms of it's suitability for wikipedia - I'll leave possible answers to a later post. First, the concept of non-consenting readers is irrelevant in wikipedia terms and is covered by the general disclaimer clause (and the general disclaimer is included in the FAQ at length). The second part is inference because it presupposes who is visiting the pages, we have no hard data on the matter. We can guess that a lot of Muslims visit the page but we cannot present that as fact. The last part is also a problem because it presupposes that everyone uses google and that it's relevant how they arrived at the article.

A more neutral form of this question would be:

readers who visit the Muhammad article may not wish to view the images or be unaware that the images will be presented

I don't think this solves the original question. Another way of looking at this problem for Wikipedia, is that those who protest the use of images do so, not only out of respect for another culture, but in relation to the epistemological concerns presented through an “indigenous model.” An indigenous epistemology strives to reflect an indigenous reality. In short, such an approach works from the “ground up,” which usually REVERSES the “top down” epistemology from the privileged, typical Western model. Inside out, rather than outside in/emic, not etic. If the conceptual framework of an indigenous setting does not support a framework from outside that setting, we do not simply proceed by forcing the outside framework. That is not knowledge; that is ideology. The indigenous model goes beyond the surface structure of cultural competence, to the actual realities of indigenous people, which is what we want. If we want representations of the people from Sioux City, Iowa, we don’t illicit descriptions of Iowans from people who have lived in outer Mongolia (that would be in a separate section, showing us about Mongolians). If the indigenous approach- including the indigenous experts on the figure of Muhammad, states that you should not and CAN not obtain an accurate, true, and real grasp of this figure through images, and you dismiss this point of view through a theory of “neutrality” and general consensus (from those outside this context), then you have replaced knowledge for ideology. Now what is encyclopedic about that?Rtwise (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Once again, you seem to think that the images are presented as an EXACT, 100% image of Muhammad. They are obviously not. We don't even know for sure what a person looked like for sure until the technology of photography came into widespread use... probably around 100 years ago. Any picture or image produced before that time is not 100% accurate, be it of a man or of a time in history. Good Lord, look at any random painting of a battle from the past 2000 years. That alone shows how people picture(d) and represent(ed) their ideas. The images aren't there for any other purpose except to inform and share cultural views... sorry if you disagree, but it is a fact. Jmlk17 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They are obviously not exact. I completely agree. Saying that they inform is an opinion. The Islamic oriented cultures that produced this figure say it is a distortion and offensive. These are the facts. Action figures of this individual misses the point entirely as to understanding this subject. ThanksRtwise (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Herein lies the crux of your folly: Saying they inform is a fact that can be verified by checking the references. These are depictions of Muhammad, and go in his article. That some people think them distorting and offensive is also also a verifiable fact. This too goes in the article. That the pictures are distorting and offensive is opinion, and has no place informing an encyclopedia's editorial desicisions. -MasonicDevice (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments? --Fredrick day (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

in my book, Aminz is guilty of WP:POINT here. He is trying to sabotage the FAQ by making the questions argumentative (of his pov) and the answers unsatisfactory. This is not constructive. Aminz has been going in circles for weeks now, it is time he took a break from this. Let him take up my suggestion and discuss the "no disclaimers" page. As long as the "no disclaimers" policy stands, there is no point in harping about "non-consenting readers". Wtf is a "non-consenting reader"? Are we prying people's eyelids open with matchsticks and chaining them in front of their screens? A person googling "Muhammad" is obviously far from non-consenting to be exposed to anything the depths of the internet will ooze his way. I daresay Wikipedia is one of the more civilized items among that. If you don't want to be exposed to the internet as it is, don't use google, or at least, for the love of baby bears, use a web filter. Stop giving us grief because you have failed to install a net nanny on your end. thank you. The online Ummah is also free to google-bomb muhammad.net into beating Wikipedia on google. Nobody here will grudge them that if they can pull it off. If they cannot, again, why whine about it here? dab (𒁳) 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This question is, once again, irrelevant. While it might be true that 'Muslim' readers might not expect pictures of Mohammed to be in this article, and might therefore be unwittingly exposed to them, it is true that the 'average Wikipedia user', and I propose the vast majority of people who visit this page, 'would expect there to be pictures of Muhammad' and therefore will not be 'unwittingly' exposed to anything.

The concept that these images are in this article unexpectedly is once again based purely on a Muslim point of view. Most users of other cultures would expect there to be visual depictions of Muhammad. Lor (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with this statement. I think that you have a strong support from ethnology writers, as well as heremeneutics, anthropology. PLease examine the differences written about from an "etic" to an "emic" point of view. While not "sui genre," there are some experiences and aspects of human culture that can not be understood without an "emic" or insider point of view. Religion is often cited as one of those type of subjects. There are many, many people who do not want a general, average joe commentary. When people want to hear about a specific Indian tribe in North America, if they are really wanting to know, they want the particular tribe to describe what it is that they believe or are doing. It is now quite passe to have alledged academic experts come in for a comment from the outside, rather a native, or insider view actually educates. This point of view would go for many other religions and subjects. On this subject, the insider point of view is telling you that it is completely the wrong way to understand the subject. Once people understand this fact, then they ARE surprised of the ignorance, pretention, and lack of respect. Again, there are lots of articles that have no images in encyclopedias and we can't assume everyone expects pictures in them all, so why leave of the pics of Muhammed here? Also, as has been said elsewhere, the pictures are not historically or contextually at the time of Muhammed, and less (much less) than 1% of the Muslim world ever uses pics of Muhammed for any educational purpose. Why not give a single article on Muhammad, and have an entirely different article on this subject? No blinking lights or buttons to click or warnings. It is quite obvious that these pictures have offended a good deal of the world's population, and rightly so. Muslim or non-Muslim, let's have good, informed scholarship, and appropriate use of images in encyclopedia articles. Don't mix topics and don't offend an entire people. What do you think? ThanksRtwise (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

yes, but the (tongue-in-cheek) point is that these FAQs are questions frequently asked by Muslims. Nobody else is even likely to read the FAQ page. It is the whole idea of the page to address Muslim concerns, but Aminz is trying to abuse the FAQ page as a soapbox. I consider this disruptive. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was confused as to the changes to the FAQ, please ignore my arguments above. Lor (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question, it is a series of statements and points. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one other point. Edward Said wrote about this issue so well in his "Orientalism." The West used very selective pictures from the "Orient" to understand Arabic culture. The "haram," pronounced "haaraam" instead of "hairemm," which is the place in teh house and/or tent where only women or relatives of the women can go, was mostly a fantasy of European sexual life. The nature and structure of what it is was almost completely distorted, and this was done through pictures and art forms. There are numerous examples. When in popular talk the West says "sheeek," coming from the arabic "Sheikh," pronounced closer to like strawberry "shake," it is understood as "exotic," or in 60's slang "really cool, far out..." The sheikh is a guardian of honor, leader, wise person, etc. You have the representations that seem like understanding, but they are characterizations and distortions. The people from the culture should play a role in gauging what pictures are most appropriate, if any. Thanks. Rtwise (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

yes? we have an article about Orientalism. "The people from the culture should play a role in gauging what pictures are most appropriate" -- we have a full article about depictions of Muhammad. Notable positions of "people from the culture" certainly should be, and are, discussed there. Wikipedia has some inherently "Western" attributes built in: the radical anti-bias policy, its reliance on academia and its aim of being an encyclopedia. If you are unhappy with any of these core principles, you are free to visit some other website, possibly one with aims and principle more compatible with your own. dab (𒁳) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But I think that these concerns are directly related to this particular topic and should be dealt with here as it relates to this specific issue. The point is that the "anti-bias" policy, if there is such a thing as "anti-bias" (and recent scholarship says there most certainly is not!), is not evident here on this issue. Your own statement is conflictual, as you say an "inherently Western" attribute is "built in" which is somehow also "anti-bias." Rather than a general philosophical debate about what "academia" actually is or is supposed to be, I think it is best to frame things contextually and conceretely. On this concern regarding pictures of the Prophet Muhammad, the Islamic expert opinion, the "academic" point of view within the context of the experts on Muhammad (When I say Islamic, I refer to the full gamut of scholarship within the broad sweep of Islamic culture/s) is that pictures distort the subject matter. This might be the inherently "Eastern" academic attribute. Core principles may be debated elsewhere, as you suggest, but the offense and distortion are so clearly visible here. It isn't related to being pleased or happy either, you can be socratic about it. It is just not good scholarship to ignore the emic frame of a subject, here within this article. There is much within academia that would support a less distorted view on this cultural-religious subject, especially for an encyclopedia that purports to be international and comprehensive in scope.Rtwise (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

"conflictual"? Indeed. Radical anti-bias has a strong anti-bias bias. This is pure sophistry. It is simply not true that anything is being "ignored". You want to discuss Islamic aniconism? You are welcome to do that, in article space, go to Aniconism in Islam. We aren't subscribing to aniconism, but how is it necessary to subscribe to something in order to discuss it? Are you proposing we should subscribe to Communism, Satanism, Paraphilia and Veganism before we can host articles on these topics? No? Then how can you propose with a straight face Wikipedia needs to subscribe to aniconism before producing satisfactory articles on aniconism? I am sorry, you are not making one grain of sense. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sophistry is a waste of time and attention. It is great that you identify an approach, a bias. The bias is "anti-bias." But there are circles within circles of this, and it does seem like the dog trying to grasp its own tail if you don't address specific examples. Read the first statement I wrote above. If you really are supporting a project of anti-bias, which is the manners and rules here, then why don't you start with the people that are from the culture which birthed and have so thoroughly studied this topic? It would seem that if you are practicing "anti-bias," that you would include the emic point of view. Do you yourself speak Arabic? Are you within an Islamic culture? Do the writers of this article belong inside that circle? If not, where? Our orientation points are not in place very well in this obviously unsolved issue. We say "Middle East," but middle and east from what and who? In textual and iconic representation, we need a proper orienation to find out what the subject even is. Standing in Ohio with loads of books, for example, isn't the same as the fluid insights gained from inside indigenous Arabic, Islamic culture. My point is that the "core principles" you point to, are not practiced very well, conceretly in this setting. Thanks Rtwise (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Someone asked what "non-consenting reader" ment, I believe that is the same notion which censors for instance american tv, that you can't swear or show nudity because perhaps a child might glance at the screen and be ruined for life. While I don't like that particularly could a compromise for this article not be that the main article itself does not immediately display the images, but that one would have to click a link to see them - perhaps labeled something like "Follow this link to see an artists rendition". That way nobody would "stumble" on the picture, but it wouldn't have been removed from wikipedia either. --IceHunter (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

very deep. I did read your statement. It boils down to your disliking the fundamental idea of the Wikipedia project. There is no problem with that, you are not the only one, see Criticism of Wikipedia. You can open a blog dedicated to it. But it is perfectly clear that what you are discussing has nothing to do with the purpose of this talkpage. If you write a book about your "fluid insights gained from inside indigenous Arabic, Islamic culture", I'll be sure to include a reference to it on our Arab world article. If we started looking for "indigenous" editors to expound their "fluid insights" into their own culture, then we would be failing to "practice our core principle" (viz., WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV) and be running some sort of multicultural blog/myspace site instead. dab (𒁳) 15:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't find your response to Rtwise satisfactory dab. The point Rtwise is alluding too is deep. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

very deep. He should hold an existentialist colloquium about it, on his blog. This is far outside the scope of WP:TALK. Wikipedia has foundational principles. You accept them: you are welcome to contribute. You don't accept them: you are welcome to stay away, and even to bitch about them off-wiki. That's the long and short of it. dab (𒁳) 11:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a take it or leave it approach. Also, existentialism? Again, staying with the subject of displaying pictures of Muhammad. The subject of method and bias, as it relates here is something to note because of how it has offended so many, and because it is so clearly against the "core" literature from the culture that birthed him. I am sure you don't mean to say that indigenous knowledge is irrelevant for the "anti-bias" point of view (be assured it most certainly isn't; here is where your attention should be). In principle, "anti-bias" is admirable/appropriate as a project and program. There is nothing wrong with that, fairly normal stuff. You want to have an approach. But at least from teh time of Kant forward, we all know it is "as if." We have a practical way of approachig something, fine. We operate "as if" we locate a "bais" free point of view. We can even say "anti-bias." I have no problem with people contributing to the method's page you refer, it is just that here a very clear problem has emerged. This problem is real news, beyond debates of method. Briefly, in his "cave metaphor" I doubt PLato would have called it "existentialism" for someone to climb down into the cave to solve the problem of appearances/reality. My own reaction is it seems tautaulogical for people to simply revert people back to core principles and then believe something is solved or taken care of.... especially when it quite obviously hasn't. That is the procrustean bed (the Greek fellow that would strech people to fit his own bed or remove anything that went outside the frame). It isn't existentialism to look "deeply" into a cultural setting for what they see and experience. It is just something to be found, is there all over, in the books, the scholars, the writers, scientists, etc. You just let experts on the subject report what they know and see. Finally, if you yourself, or others, don't read or write Arabic, if you are not trained in an Islamic context (in whatever field you choose), aren't you at a great disadvantage as to determine if "anti-bias" has even been achieved? Shouldn't you take Wikipedia's tool box and "anti-bias" principles within the context of Arabic scholarship? If they respond back to you, that your approach to "anti-bias" is quite clearly biased (distorted and offensive), who then decides the point? In short, I don't think that dab has really addressed the point of an "emic" orientation, but has simply referred to rules of order and Wikipedia principles. The problem has most certainly not been solved by this redirection. Thanks Rtwise (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Okay, rtwise, all the isms aside, how do you feel that your diatribes should apply to the article? Remember that this is the talk page of a Wikipedia article, not a philosophical journal. What, concretely, do you think we should do? Aecis^Brievenbus 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? What Rtwise is arguing is: the best "unbiased" and "Scholarly" treatment of any subject, in this specific case the article on Muhammad, can best be achieved from an indigenous point of view. And that indigenous point of view is the Arab and Muslim point of view of the subject, which strictly restricts pictorial depiction of the subject. I am in agreement with every word of what Rtwise is saying and would like to add that, treating a subject from indigenous POV is fully consistent with Wikipedia policies as well. WP:NPOV defines NPOV as representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. If we take a census of all published reliable sources on Muhammad in all languages, there is absolutely no doubt that a sheer majority of them will be ones written from a modern Muslim point-of-view without any pictorial depiction. Arman ^(Talk) 09:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's only one problem with that reasoning: keeping the images out is not a neutral point of view, because an image is not a point of view. An image is just that: an image. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

At most, WP:UNDUE might be seen to apply, but the article also notes - in no uncertain terms - that naturalistic depictions are rare. -MasonicDevice (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Arman, this is nonsense. "NPOV" does not mean "indigenous point of view". "mainstream" does not mean "numeric majority throughout the centuries", it refers to current (2000s) academia. Third, and not least, the images do show a "Muslim point of view", viz. a late medieval Shi'a one. That's why we display them in the first place. dab (𒁳) 21:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Offensive? Haven't we been over this ground before? WP makes no editorial decisions to avoid offense. It's hardly a tautolgy to say that in the context of this site, "Y is an inviolable. To do X would violate Y. Therefore, we cannot do X." Context is key. It seems to me that you harbor disagreements with the policies in general, not just this application of policy. Get a blog and write on it there, but please, stop jamming up the talk page with your railing against "long" established WP policy. If you really don't like it, take this discussion to where it belongs: the policy's talk page.

Your charges that this bio offers a "distorted" view of Muhammad (solely?) because it contains pictures continues to ring hollow. You still fail to provide a single shred of evidence to back up the assertion that viewing an image of Muhammad impairs understanding of who he was, what he did, or his importance to society. This failing is not yours alone, as most of the scholars that also advance this viewpoint provide little in the way of evidence to back their assertion, either. Ask yourself, "What distorted viewpoint are these images promoting?" If you're going to make such charges, then you had better be sure you have an answer to this question. The nebulous answer "It's a distortion" won't cut it, nor will the complaint that "It's not customary," "It's not scholarly," "It's not how Muslim's see him." The first is too general, and circular to boot. The second is addressed in the article, and has a link to a subpage for a more detailed discussion. The third is wrong (several other dead tree or online encyclopedias include pictures of Muhammad). The fourth runs counter to policy, and isn't even a reason to remove the images, but rather to add text to explain how they do see him. No amount of Muslim scholarly agreement can make these pictures go away. Their existance and subject matter is verifiable and encyclopedic, and these are the only bars that we need meet to include them. I'm sorry you don't like the ruleset that WP operates under, but 'dems 'da breaks. If you can convince enough people over in the policy pages, you can affect a policy change.-MasonicDevice (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would go further and point out that anyone is free to create their own Wikipedia fork. All the text here can be copied, and the software is open-source, so there's really nothing stopping people who don't like the policies here to build on the work here but change it to their tastes. That's what Conservapedia and Citizendium did, and more power to them. Let a thousand flowers bloom. —Chowbok ☠ 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The zenith of cultural relativism. -MasonicDevice (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be an unacceptable approach to method as it relates to this subject. There are several good reasons why. Back to Procrusteus, the guy was a Greek robber/thief. He put people to sleep with his method (his bed) to steal something from them, and also create injury. American Indian literature is filled with charges of "ethnocide" from scholarly writings about them over the years, that they stole something. What? Identity, dignity, knowledge, a lot of stuff that people take when they hide behind methods... Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the "bias against bias" approach. But, if we are honest, it is fairly standard, bread and butter stuff. The statemetns written in Mason Device's post, that perspectives "runs counter to policy" and "dems 'da breaks" if you question them, is actually not good scholarship in my view. This is tautology in the end, back the rules...take it up with management. The oft quoted statement of "orders are orders" by the soliders that killed innocent people in Nazi Germany, applies. They deferred to the method and order...what do you expect? This is what the orders have said, so we have to continue doing this stuff. When you come up to something that an entire people, ,or an entire city of living Arabic/Islamic scholars tells you,that it is distortion and that it does offend, you have climbed into a problem. If going back to the play book doesn't work, then you have to look at other ways to represent something, ways that can fit into your method, and so on. Surely this can be done if you try. A great book, that is often called the definitive work on truth and method, is Hans G. Gadamar's "Truth and Method." You have to read through the development of all this to see the PREJUDICE camouflaged in a "bias against bias" method. Teh "bias against bias" is just the same old "prejudice against prejudice" of the Western Enlightenment (rose by another name..). You have a little trick going on in that, a play on language, because no one can escape prejudice, or pre-judgments, because we are all thrown by langauge and circumstance. There are circles within circles of judgements. No one can function with out them. Saying that we have a "bias against bias" or a "prejudice against prejudice" does not make prejudices disappear. But it is a good method to use ..... As far as methods for this problem....again, go to the culture, the expert scholars, the setting and let them direct you. I would think that someone would have to at least read Arabic, to have been recognized by the culture itself as an expert. There are lots of them. They would need to be thoroughly familiar with the main corpus of writings on this subject. Let them guide you if you don't know how to read Arabic, haven't read the sources, and are not from the culture...etc. Finally, for us Western types, I would refer you to Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method." There are situations you ditch method to really find something, important situations. In short,method is something we play with and should never be taken so seriously that it obscures a subject matter. Thanks...Rtwise (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Ho boy... I think we just got Godwinized. Look, man, no one here (on this page you're looking at right now) cares about your dead Greeks, your philosophy of scholarship, or epistomology, because they have zero to do with the list of policies that regulate this insitution. Thay don't tell us what can and cannot go into this article. Got that? You don't even attempt to apply your scholarship to WP policy? Why is that? Do you feel that your scholarship should superseed? I doubt even you'd be that arrogant, after all what makes you better than anyone else? The policies aren't absolutly good or absolutly bad in and of themselves, but they do absolutly regulate and stipulate the current MO. We can't just ditch our method whenever we feel like it, because we'd just end up with a bunch of articles of fashionable nonsense. WP is not anarchy. While a discussion on the general nature of scholarship is a good one to have, trying to have it in this space is a waste of your time. You're trying to fight a much bigger battle than you think, and you need to take it over to the NPOV, VER, and NOR talk page, and possibly the Village Well, to have any hope enacting the changes you seek. As the old saying goes, "Your princess is in another castle." -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MasonicDevice is right Rtwise. You raise some valid points, and they are definitely worth discussing. But since they touch upon the very basics of how Wikipedia works, this talk page is not the place for such discussions. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The assertion of the existence of one "indigenous POV" is highly questionable, as is referring to "the Arab and Muslim point of view of the subject." Races of people do not have a point of view; only individuals do. In the case of Islam, it has been demonstrated clearly that there is no historical unanimity on the question of portraying Mohammed or living beings, i.e. it is not wholly aniconic. Even if there were, imposing or adopting such a POV would contradict much of what Wikipedia stands for.

Operating on a basis of cultural relativism (even assuming definable "indigenous" POVs) results in a shouting match, with the winner being the loudest shouter or the one having the most shouters on his side. I don't get the attempt to one-up "prejudice against prejudice" - but I do agree there can be "anti-bias" extremism where methods become more important than the value itself (of being unbiased). When support for Western-style intellectual freedom itself is labeled as bias, you lose me though. To me, it's axiomatic - and a superior position because it encourages learning and growth and extends a courtesy to multiple viewpoints and worldviews that is certainly not reciprocal. Twalls (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay…maybe I went a little over the top… Can I respond to the above comment, that “Western-style intellectual freedom itself is labeled as bias..?” Again, I refer to the history of the American Indian who was surrounded by Western style intellectual freedom. Look at the critiques that are leveled at well meaning scholarly writings on the American Indian over the years, and to the present date (Deloria, Churchhill, Duran, et.al). They all thought they were being fairly “objective” and neutral. It is utterly fascinating how we, who are in the center of Western culture, can not conceive that this perspective IS a bias. Isn’t that something? This is a larger question…., but I think you really ought to relook at the idea that Western-style intellectual freedom is not a bias. You can go back to the beginning, (cf. Nietszche on Socrates in the Birth of Tragedy), but you really have over 90% of our current mindset/culture at the time of the Enlightenment….and this is all packed with bias. M. Eliade wrote that the Enlightenment philosophies are themselves a “decomposition product of Christianity.” This is where I think this entire issue is not addressed very well because people behave “as if” there is not bias here, when there is. It is very similar to pressing people to be “free” “equal” and “democratic” because you believe that is some how more developed to be that way, and/or not a biased point of view (when it is a belief and a bias!). There is a bit of scariness to this, because we are unconscious that their own culture and point of view is itself culture bound (I think your statement about “shouting matches” shows some awareness about what can be underneath supposed value free efforts). But, historically, the British empiricists all of them, are circles within a cultural project. Gadamer pointed this out in his Truth and Method; there is an entire historical development to the “prejudice against prejudice.” It is birthed within a cultural frame, with a bias that is evident like any other cultural project. Finally, it depends on what you mean by “cultural relativism” I don’t think anyone can argue for a complete/total cultural relativism. We are human beings. I don’t argue for a sui genre approach to this subject, I argue for an emic/etic distinction. Western style presentations of Muhammad, using pictures, are just neo-Orientalism. While it is true that there is no complete anti-iconic history in Islamic countries or total “unanimity” (Islam encompasses many cultures and many centuries), the occurrences of making pictures of prophets are far less than 1% of the total. The injunctions against picturing Muhammad are not debatable within an Islamic context, and the exceptions to this prove the rule. I would suggest...one more thing about this dilemma… We are doing the same things here that people did over 200 years ago, the same mistakes. It is top down rather than ground up. Let the culture and community who birthed this person guide you in how your essay is presented. ThanksRtwise (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

This article is not Islamic in context, and barring a policy shift, never will be. If that's a bias, it's a bias that the project and most of it's editors are willing to live with and attempt to explain on numerous meta-pages. - MasonicDevice (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It most clearly is a bias. I find this take it or leave it approach disappointingly unscholarlyRtwise (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

This is not a scholarly journal, and said bias is stated. See WP:ENC.-MasonicDevice (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

By what aspect of the WP policy is the Islamic oriented contribution on this topic removed?Rtwise (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

I'll not dignify that question with an answer. The criteria for inclusion of all (yes, even Islamic) information and sources should be clear to you at this point. It is clear to me that you disagree with policy as currently stated. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What about this practical idea? Why don’t you submit Wikipedia’s policies on “anti-bias” to the major centers of learning in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, etc., and ask them to work up an article for you on Muhammad using the most widely known experts and authors on the subject? Give them some time to come up with a consensual presentation, and send it back for a look over from Wikipedia? Use established criteria, but with the caveat that the article must be representative from within an Islamically conscious setting, that the writers be able to read/converse in Arabic, and that sources quoted are representative of Islamic and/or Arabic scholarship. Request that all the policies must be followed, but within an Islamic, particularly Arabic context (I say Arabic because of the basic corpus of writings are in Arabic). This would hopefully allow for an indigenous response to a “Western intellectual style,” as found in the “bias against bias” approach of Wikipedia policy. Thanks Rtwise (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Assuming that WP:NOR is followed, editors are free to add references to scholars in these "major centers of learning" in the Muslim world and modify the article based on their work right now. I fail to see how your solution improves upon the current state of affairs. What editors are not free to assert is that Muslim understanding of these images, or the subject, is just cause for the image's removal. No amount of relativisitic understanding of the subject can change what these images verifiably are: depictions of Muhammad, the subject of this encylopdia article. We can't set aside policy to conform to some nebulous concept of cultural relativism, but policy can change.-MasonicDevice (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear that there is an identifiable prejudice here when Masonic Device states that writers are “not free” to “assert” “a Muslim understanding” of these images or use thereof. How did/could anyone neatly excise the Islamic context/culture as a, if not the, major contributor on this subject? If someone went to the Lakota tribe of South Dakota, and set up a method of discovery that said something like, people are allowed to share about what they know of the Sundance, but if you actually practice it, we don’t want to hear about it. Does this make sense? Also, if a Lakota sundancer does tell us about his ritual, about the founders (if they are nice to do that), does that mean the exchange is to be understood as dictatorial (which is often the projection thrown on Islamic oriented writers)? Can’t they say what the experience is without an idea or need to believe that everyone is “equal” to the task of describing what the sundance is, how it should be represented, and so on? Surely Masonic Device doesn’t intend to exclude the totality of Islamic culture (I hope?), but appears to not want to give an Islamic oriented point of view any privilege status. Here is the unsolvable conundrum, the place that the talkpage group seems stuck (failure of nerve and/or trust?). I would argue that WP policies are best served within (not outside) the cultural context of persons that know about the subject and I would seek a consensus within the specific cultural circle or context (as you are able). Cultural relativism may seem nebulous, or even nefarious in the abstract, but if you look at this specific instance, you see that cultural sensitivity is required. It is wreckless disregard to press forward with representations about a specific culture or an individual founder of a culture, especially when the vast majority of the people within that culture, say that these representations are a distortion and offense (use of pictures to portray the Prophet Muhammad). Again, nothing has been solved by a simple redirection to WP policy…. Also, if the issue IS actually already solved, why patronize people here? Just shut the page down and move forward…thanks. Rtwise (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

What I said: "What editors are not free to assert is that Muslim understanding of these images, or the subject, is just cause for the image's removal."

How I was quoted: ...states that writers are “not free” to “assert” “a Muslim understanding” of these images or use thereof.

You distort my position greatly. Please, acutally read what I write, as your denunciations of a postion I do not espouse are tiresome and wordy. Simply stated, just because a group claims that something impedes understanding doesn't prove that it does. These claims, and the evidence that supports them, must be weighed against opposing claims and evidence. All this bison dung about Lakota sundancers proves nothing. You seem to know something about them. Go write an article. Once people know it's there, they'll add to it. After a while, it could become a good article. A really good one would have a historical and cultural description from the outside citing sources on the inside and outside, maybe a link to a video of an example if a verifiable example could be found, and probably a picture or two. In both the case at hand and your Lakota example, objections to depiction would be weighed, found to be unsupported by any verifiable evidence, noted, and explained in the article, but said depictions would remain due to the measureable increase in the encyclopedic value of including them in the article. When you weigh verified evidence against empty claims, the evidence wins every time. Some things aren't relative to frame of reference. If it's sitting right in front of you, some things just are. This isn't a cultural anthro journal, it's an encyclopedia. Encylopedias are, by their very nature, etic, as they seek to compile information and write in a manner that eases cross-cultrual comparison.

You're right that sending people to WP:LOP doesn't "solve" the problem, but that's because you can't see the forest through the trees. Nothing is ever "solved" on WP WP:CCC. The point of sending people off to the policy page is to tell them that current consensus is that policy prohibits honoring their request. You're free to accept policy as it is or try and change policy or its interpretation.-MasonicDevice (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but it is tantamount to the same thing. They and their perspective are irrelevant, in your position, particularly regarding the removal of imagesRtwise (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

"bison dung about Lakota sundancers?" Mason Device shows how he sticks to his professed principles of civility, by cussing, insulting cultures, and deleting other people's messages. If you had read my point, you would have noticed that I said that after a consensus was found within an Islamically oriented cultural setting, then the article would be referred back to Wikipedia for their assessment. First things firstRtwise (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

That is exactly what I thought and mentioned above....just a lot of venting and patronizing blah, blah...good luckRtwise (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Firstly, no. It's not tantamount to the same thing. If it had been, why not quote the whole thing? It would have been easier, no? It just didn't say what you wanted it to say, so you cut off the entire second half of my sentence. That's dishonest. The clause you so conveniently left out restricts and narrows the scope of the statement to say that emic claims should not be taken as gospel when evidence lends credence to opposing claims. Secondly, back to the swearing charge, eh? Whatever. You're so predictable. Do you wonder why I said "bison dung" instead of something else? If you were any sort of a serious anthropologist, you'd know that. Bison dung or chips are useful stuff - in the right context. When you're burning it in your winter fire, or using it to cook pottery, it's great, but stepping in it during the summer can make a pointless mess. Likewise, your opinions on the construction of WP policy are fabulous for a discussion on policy, but as out of place as a foot in a pile on the prairie in a discussion of how an article can be constructed while conforming to policy. Do try not to judge, ok, hon? I insult nothing except your choice of venue. -MasonicDevice (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dishonest...funny. You are just argumentative, circular, and avoidant. I said the consensual emic point of view that you would receive, would then be directed back to Wikipedia and thrown to the winds for etic others. To be honest, if someone reads all of your posts, they are worn out, reworked, rehash of the same thing over and over, so that after about five readings, you stop paying attention. What would motivate someone to quote chapter and verse of "core" principles of Wikipedia, principles that you don't even follow, over and over? Also, nice try with "bison dung" in relation to what is for them a sacred ritual. Try that out on a Lakota to see how far you get. This is an example where "core principles" brings a near total disconnect from reality. If it were arranged for you to come and present your association of Lakota dancers to "bison dung" inside the reservation, the absurdity of what you say might leak through. Oh, but you wouldn't see any reason for an emic first step. In short, you do delete other peoples messages, are hostile in tone, cuss, and are offensive to culturally senstive issues. Smell the coffee.12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Look, I could have said "bull shit", but I didn't because it didn't say what I wanted it too. In addition to being unecessarily crude, it was not apropos or specific. Note also that I didn't call the rituals themselves "bison dung" but rather your use of them. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I should expect as much from an antropologist. Not dying from exposure in a North Dakota winter, while not a sacred ritual, was critical to the survival of the Lakota. Like bison dung, you're points aren't bad, but they're horribly non-constructive in this context. Perhaps you're just upset I got a high hard one by you on your supposed subject of expertise? I choose my words very carefully, and sometimes the subtlety takes a reading or two. It's also why I undo your comment splitting. As for civility? You lecture me? Frankly, how dare you? You're the one that keeps posting out of place, splitting comments, making absurd ad hominem charges about "cussing" and "censorship", and carrying on about an issue that has a clearly reached a consensus in accordance with the principles that guide WP.-MasonicDevice (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This statement by Mathias Schindler, who works for the German-language version of Wikipedia, said "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for an inner-Muslim debate." I would say that Mathias, and his group, should relook at this either/or dichotomy. Is it possible that the current polarization of the West with Muslim cultures has allowed people to be less fluid, flexible in how they approach a subject. Also, doesn't the closed nature on the subject, show a level of defensiveness on Wikipedia's side? Why begin a page that says no matter how much you say or demonstrate, we will not change our decision. How is this academic freedom? What precident is there for something like this in encylopedia history? The "inner Muslim" context would be your emic point of view.Rtwise (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Your ontological essay about the general workings of Wikipedia aside, Rtwise, could you please explain why a secular project like Wikipedia should obey the rules and regulations of a religion? Because that is basically what you are saying. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rtwise, you've told MasonicDevice: "In short, you do delete other peoples messages, are hostile in tone, cuss, and are offensive to culturally senstive issues." I can understand that discussions like the one above can be very frustrating, but please try to keep a cool head and remain civil. This is not a matter of life or death, the two of you are basically arguing over a bunch of pixels on a screen. If this discussion makes your blood boil, take a short break, have a cup of tea, do the groceries or the laundry, anything but Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Is it possible that the current polarization of the West with Muslim cultures has allowed people to be less fluid, flexible in how they approach a subject." No, i think its certain.

"Also, doesn't the closed nature on the subject, show a level of defensiveness on Wikipedia's side?" Yes, thats due to constant attacks on wikipedia (by many different groups).

"Why begin a page that says no matter how much you say or demonstrate, we will not change our decision." Because we won't, thats because we know if we give in to one groups demand then ALL gropus will want special treatment and this will destroy this encyclopedia.

"How is this academic freedom?" Freedom isn't free and needs to be protected, no wikipedia no freedom.

"What precident is there for something like this in encylopedia history?" No.

"The "inner Muslim" context would be your emic point of view." No it would be that german guys, lots of different POV's here but most are western and don't want to be forced to obay Sharia on a project we created. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Your ontological essay about the general workings of Wikipedia aside, Rtwise, could you please explain why a secular project like Wikipedia should obey the rules and regulations of a religion? Because that is basically what you are saying."

This is a good observation. Basically I would ask Wikipedia to think beyond an old Enlightenment paradigm (secular vs. sacred). Trying to be parsimonious… One of my doctorates is in the academic study of religion. As you know, it is possible to discuss religious topics academically and include them as a subject of study. Now, if you add to this the most recent writings in ethnology and anthropology regarding the emic point of view (and I apologize for repetition), then you can see that the red line between “secular” and “sacred” is not so clear or distinct. In other words, we really ought to treat religion and the topics of religion just as you do a foreign culture. If you come at them from the outside, then you are not only superficial (as in Orientalisms), you may be recommitting the worst kind of academic colonialism and suppression of genuine knowledge. I only mention American Indian literature as one example because it is so full of this critique, of how textual representations were overlayed on top of their own setting. Go check out the historical trauma literature on this subject, to appreciate the comprehensiveness of the objection. It should give pause for reflection, as to the wide spread rejection of most academic presentations of their own culture/s. If you care about such things, then why keep this kind of approach going…? Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

" If this discussion makes your blood boil, take a short break, have a cup of tea, do the groceries or the laundry, anything but Wikipedia."

Point taken…maybe there is also a little humor and irony… Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

"No, i think its certain."

When you say “its certain,” I don’t know what you mean. Do you mean that the tension would still exist prior to 9/11? A certain clash of perspectives? Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

I'd say it's pretty certain that some clash of perspectives exisited before 9/11. I have a similar arguement with my conservative friends say that on that date, "Everything changed". It didn't really (WTC 1, USS Cole, Kenya and Tanzania, etc.), but this time it was on live TV. -MasonicDevice (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Also, doesn't the closed nature on the subject, show a level of defensiveness on Wikipedia's side?" Yes, thats due to constant attacks on wikipedia (by many different groups)."

I think when you are on the defensive, and with so many groups, you have to re-look at things. Don’t you think this makes sense? Maybe something is on the wrong footing. Are a all these different people and groups, who on the attack, mistaken? Is there something to their critiques? Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

This might be the case, but it isn't the place. -MasonicDevice (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"'Why begin a page that says no matter how much you say or demonstrate, we will not change our decision.' Because we won't, thats because we know if we give in to one groups demand then ALL gropus will want special treatment and this will destroy this encyclopedia."

I don’t think you really can know this… we can’t predict the future. Stand on your policies, but also adapt them to the subject matter. I think that Wikipedia got placed in the bullseye on this one, but they could avoid it. Side step it a little…. Look at how Australia came out an made a public apology to the indigenous people there. You make a good faith alteration and go forward. Placing images of the Prophet Muhammad in this article on him is something that 98% of the Muslim oriented cultures will not appreciate ten, twenty plus years from now.Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

"'How is this academic freedom?'" Freedom isn't free and needs to be protected, no wikipedia no freedom."

Can you explain this a bit? I don’t know what you mean by “no wikipedia, no freedom.” I am trying… Do you mean that you have to create policies that protect academic freedoms? I would agree with that. Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

"The "inner Muslim" context would be your emic point of view." No it would be that german guys, lots of different POV's here but most are western and don't want to be forced to obay Sharia on a project we created."

I appreciate the struggle you mention here. I do think the concern about “obeying” Sharia is somewhat of phantom fear of Western types…”the sky is falling!” If you maintain an academic point of view, Sharia is just one source out there. It does happen to be one of the major inside sources on this subject. You walk into that setting, as you walk into a deep cave, and you start to document the story. If you stand outside the cave, you can miss quite a lot.Rtwise (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

If the cave is the subject, than what you're describing is akin to a tour in the dark by guides wearing night-vision goggles. They can describe in great detail what the cave looks like, but you can't see it. Wikipedia is more like a selfguided tour, or a torchlight guided tour. The descirptions from those in the know are there, but anything that can be seen is fair game.-MasonicDevice (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Heck... I'm not even really arguing with him anymore. I'm just asking him to write somewhere where he can actually implement the changes he seeks. -MasonicDevice (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Need to contact the person who created this site

Don't worry, I'd would like to ask you a few questions about rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.136.154 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no one person, but you are more than free to email myself, any other admin/user, or ask here on on my talk page. Jmlk17 05:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You could also ask here. If your questions are about the images, you should first read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This page has hundreds if not thousands of authors. This encyclopedia has millions of authors. You can see the details in the "history" button at the top of each page. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If by rights you're referring to a desire to copy some of this article, see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)