User talk:BrandonYusufToropov

Archive1

"Hey, does User:BrandonYusufToropov reserve the right to delete, without explanation, material on his talk page that he, in his sole, exclusive, and perhaps even arbitrary judgment determines to be disrespectful or inappropriate?"

Your story

I read your story linked from Ibrahim's page. I wouldn't accuse you of being BhaiSaab. I do have a question for you. You disillusionment with Christianity is understandable. You might not be aware that the fact that the book of John is not a literal account was well known to early theologians of the church. I also believe Christianity to be bogus, not because of any of the arguments you raised, but because of the Old Testament. The consensus is developing now that the Israelites were originally Semitic polytheists like their neighbors, and they had their favorite god, the storm god Yahweh. Then at some point some of their leadership decided that in fact Yahweh was the only god. There is lots of evidence for this in the Old Testament, and you probably know where to read about it.

I also understand the pull of Islam. There are many compelling things about it. But as someone raised in a non-Muslim country, weren't you repulsed by the second-class status the Qur'an dictates for non-Muslims, and the injunction that apostates be put to death? In addition, you paid very close attention to the Gospel narratives and rightfully pointed out inconsistencies. Did you search for them in the Quran as well (they are there), before you embraced Islam? Arrow740 19:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Arrow, thanks for the nice note. Those who broadcast their discontent with Islamic punishments concerning apostasy have, I think, a flawed understanding of the history of the Islamic community in Medina, and, perhaps, a willful ignorance of the survival requirements of any nation-state, particularly an emerging one. Treason is treason, and that it is punishable by death is not, I think, a fact to be sugarcoated. We do not have an Islamic state today, however, so the question is moot.
• I was not in the least, and am not today, "repulsed" by the protection afforded to People of the Book under Islamic law, and I note with interest the thriving Christian and Jewish communities that persisted under various Islamic civil authorities down the centuries. There is apparently a group that followed John the Baptist (!) still functioning in Iraq -- assuming they haven't been blown up or anything in the late unpleasantness, of course. If you're truly interested in the plight of persecuted social minorities, you may well find them in Palestine and Abu Ghraib and various secret facilities in Europe.
• Finally, I have indeed searched diligently for inconsistencies in the Qur'an, and came away convinced, not of your position, but of the truth the message of Muhammad (pbuh). If you honestly believe you have found such problems (presumably in an English translation, for which we Muslims assume no responsibility), I can see how you might conclude that your best course would be not to become a Muslim. Personally, I have an aversion to the fire whose fuel is men and stones, so I urge you to study classical Arabic a little more carefully and then see what your take on the issue is -- and in the meantime avoid criticizing the traffic regulations until you have at least attained a driver's license for the locality in question.
• Ma-salaam, BYT 19:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mash'Allah. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you agree with the scholarly consensus that Yahweh was originally a storm god of the Semitic pantheon. I'm not sure if the interpretation of the statements regarding apostasy implied by your first post is correct. At least it appears to clash with the view of the religious leaders of Afghanistan, who tried to execute a convert this year.

I don't agree with it or disagree with it. I don't know enough to have an opinion about it. As for Afghanistan, whenever it comes up in a conversation, I find myself doing my Humphrey Bogart imitation: (Arrow: "How would you feel if we invaded Afghanistan?" Yusuf: "There are certain sections of Afghanistan I'd advise you not to try to invade.") If you don't like the way people f$%k with you, then rule one would seem to be "don't invade their countries." Again -- concerned about the rights of oppressed minorities whose members actually have been tortured and put to death? I have a list for you.

Yes, I am concerned for them; I'll look at the list.

Great. Please comment. BYT 15:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Arrow740 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[1]

That's horrific. Some of the worst things committed under Bush. Arrow740 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[2]

There's something terribly wrong with the people who perpetrated those acts, and with any person who would abuse people under his power to that extent. That, at least, we can agree about. Arrow740 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[3]

That's sad too. Both Jews and Muslims are committing atrocities over there; at least the Christians, Druze, and Bahai are staying out of it. Zionism was and still is a bad idea. Arrow740 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. We agree, then, that these are bad things. My question for you is: which would seem to be the more pressing global problem to you right now; the number of Muslim apostates being executed by Muslim politicians for renouncing Islam -- or the number of Muslims being beaten, tortured, falsely imprisoned, and murdered by non-Muslims? BYT 03:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad also executed innocent people, you know. Children, even (the 14 year olds of the Banu Nadir, for example). This is attested to in multiple places, including Bukhari's collection. No doubt you have a justification for that. I don't see why I can't be worried both Abu Ghraib and the unacceptable qualities of Islam. To answer your question, the murder of apostates is less of a problem. Muslim violence is a serious problem, however. It is interesting that Palestinian Christians don't commit suicide as they attempt to kill and maim. Arrow740 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess you haven't heard about the apostate in question: he's Afghani. Arrow740 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not running Afghanistan. There are a lot of things political leaders do that I would do differently. Were we talking about contemporary politics, or about Islam? BYT 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam. Arrow740 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi status means a lot more than "protection," they also have to "feel themselves subdued." But since I haven't experienced it, let's forget it.

Good idea.

Indeed the fire apparently contains anything not divine which is worshiped, as well. You could be right that it is not possible to learn the contents of the Quran without learning classical Arabic. It is strange that only Muslims make this argument, though. Did you learn Koine Greek before rejecting the Bible, for example?

If I were persuaded that Jesus (pbuh) spoke Greek, I would have.

You said you were once Catholic. Maybe you weren't told that most Christian scholars have never understood the Gospels to be a literal account. The idea that a religion's holy book must be literally true to be true makes sense though. Arrow740 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't much care what most Christian scholars understand the Gospels to be. The texts were manhandled in a way that is unacceptable. BYT 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The texts we have are actually essentially the same (this has been studied extensively; one later editor interpolated a story in John, that seems so be the most significant manhandling) as the ones that were written in the first century. The problems with the Gospels come from the original authors. Arrow740 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not what I'm talking about. The reading I've done suggests a verbal tradition of "pearls" or sayings attributed to Jesus pbuh, a tradition that predates the Gospel narratives. Shoehorning these sayings into stories where they don't belong, or couldn't have been proven to belong, constitutes manhandling. Always this fixation on what was happening in 100 AD -- who cares? Not talking just about you here, but about the vast sea of academics and Christians who try to avoid the intellectiual responsibility to determine, not what the literary leanings of first-century church fathers were, but what Jesus pbuh actually was likeliest to have said and taught in 30 AD. BYT 13:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it would be great to know what he actually said. The fact that the texts were "manhandled" (how could they have been manhandled before they existed?) doesn't make Christianity unbelievable, just less convincing, because you need to throw in "divine inspiration." Like in Islam you need to throw in "abrogation" to make the Quran make sense. Arrow740 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found it reasonable that if the big three Muslim translators agree about a verse, it's safe to take their consensus as the meaning of the verse.

You are thus choosing to remain trapped in English, which is certainly your right. Chomsky points out that translation from any one language to another is quite literally impossible, inasmuch as language systems encode, not different vocabularies, but different worlds of experience. Nowhere, in my view, is this more true than in the Classical Arabic-to-English model. Do keep grinding that dead battery, though, and pumping the gas pedal.

Did you learn Arabic before becoming Muslim, or become Muslim with an incomplete understanding of the verses of the Quran? I'm taking Panjabi now because I'm considering Sikhism. Arrow740 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A little, yes. But I certainly did not have, and do not expect to have, total mastery of Qur'anic Arabic. It's an interesting question how much Arabic I will have before Allah(swt) calls me from this joint, but alhamdullilah I'm learning more every day. Personally, I'm of the belief that the Qur'an is like an ocean that laps against a beach. Children (and knuckleheads like me) can play in the shallow waters; specialists can launch undersea missions to depths most of us will never fully comprehend. Will you deny me my tin pail and red plastic shovel? Mind is a good servant, a lousy master. (This is one of many intriguing points where Muslims and Zen Buddhists are in full agreement, BTW) BYT 15:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That is an important truth about the mind. Since you started driving without a driver's license, to use your nice way of putting it, when you joined the ummah you were living by it. Arrow740 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

They seem to agree about this one, for example. Arrow740 07:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not going to play, thanks. Suffice to say a) you're not going to find a verse I haven't looked at closely, including that one, and b) I'm still cool like unto Fonzie with following my personal decision as to what constitutes Divine Guidance. BTW, we do have classes here in my masjid for those who actually want to learn Arabic -- they take place from appx 6:15 - 7:00 am -- i.e., after Fajr. If you're ever interested, and ever curious about the status of your immortal soul after death, drop a line. If not (and this is ultimately your call, of course), then don't drop a line, and postscript don't make my talk page a hate site or a debate club over the merits of my faith choice, as that's bad maners. If you display poor manners here, PDYC (peremptory deletion of your comments) may ensue. Peace out, BYT 12:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your response is strangely hostile for someone open-minded enough to adopt a new religion. I don't hate anyone. In fact I believe that God treats everyone equally regardless of religion, and so should we; after all, the religious beliefs of any particular person are determined by various factors, internal and external, some of which the individual doesn't control. Arrow740 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hostile" is in the eye of the beholder. So is "snide," which is what I've been picking up here with your lectures about Yahweh and the church fathers. From my own side, you should know I've reached a point in my life where I will no longer a) undercut a given individual's beliefs unless asked specifically for my opinion about something or b) listen passively while people attack Islam to my face. You're a guest on this page, and so I believe your etiquette in dealing with such standards is your responsibility, not mine. That "strangely hostile" reaction you sense may be a reason for you not to have a conversation here. It is, however, what happens when you search out individuals to lecture about theology, or hold an entire faith system responsible for the actions (or, in this case, non-actions) of a small, carefully selected group, such as the Afghani jurists you identified. Finally, note that I didn't say you hated anyone -- I said you were trying to turn my talk page into a hate site, and the reason I said that was that that's where these kinds of rhetorical ploys are generally found. If you stop doing doing that kind of thing, we'll be fine. BYT 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ploys? I'm not trying to lecture you. I read your website, linked from your userpage, where you eloquently discussed some of the aspects of the New Testament which should give anyone pause, and I responded to it. More fundamental problems with Christianity as a belief system arose a lot earlier than the first century. Modern textual criticism and archaeology have given us a clear picture of the worship of the ancient Israelites; their monotheism evolved out of polytheism. The other local cultures had paradigms similar to that of Israel, and some of their ancient texts have been discovered with similar stories (replace "Yahweh" with "Chumash" and "Israel" with "Moab," for example). Arrow740 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. You are responding. And I am responding your response. I am doing so by sharing frankly my discomfort with your blithe repetition of all-too-familiar rhetorical hot-buttons that I believe are designed, not for discussions with three-dimensional Muslims like me, but, rather, designed to further terrify non-Muslims already pre-disposed to be terrified of CARTOON Muslims. Cartoon Muslims slaughter apostates, or (gasp) think about doing so. Cartoon Muslims oppress Jews and Christians as dhimmies. The scripture of cartoon Muslims is a caricature of religious belief, deficient and extreme.

These are hate radio talking points, and when you use them, you should expect to polarize a dialogue, not improve its chance of resulting in meaningful communication. I'm glad you know what you know about the current theories on the ancient Israelites. That's not as relevant to me, though, as the irony that it is the three-dimensional Muslims who are ACTUALLY encountering the very abuses you appear to be ascribing to the hands of the cartoon Muslims. WE are the ones who are ACTUALLY being slaughtered and tortured. WE are the ones who have ACTUALLY been relegated to second-class status in Europe and North America. WE are the ones who are ACTUALLY paying the price for the scriptural dementia of milennialist Christians, such as the one currently inhabiting the White House. The more you sound like him, alas, the less attention I am likely to pay to your theories on archeology. BYT 03:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need cartoons. Muslims are the only people slaughtering in the name of God. This is because of Islam, obviously. Muslims have it good in America, as you possibly have experienced. In Europe they have problems with jobs, yes, however they did ask for it by moving there. On the other hand, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus cannot maintain their religions structures in countries under Sharia, let alone build new ones or proselytize. Muslims build mosques in America all the time, and proselytize as well. I am by birth and by choice very firmly in the Dharmic fold. For you to at the same time accuse me of sounding like Bush and claim that US foreign policy is dictated by his interpretation of the Bible is nonsensical. "My" theories on archaeology show that you (and over half the world) are worshiping the storm god of the ancient Semitic pantheon, not what you're told. Arrow740 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an is saga of the preaching mission of the Prophet Muhammad. As the basic principle of Tadabbur-i-Qur'an, every word can have multiple meaning, but if it is put it in a sentence and then sentence is put in the context and the text is also flawless then it should bring only one meaning. And the context of every verse in Qur'an is the life of prophet Muhammad himself. Hence, from this very view, Muhammad performed Itmam al-hujjah (completion of the proof) and then those people who denied were punished. These punishments are all discussed here:[4][5]. I am not an appologist and I don't think every Muslim should be! Polytheists of Arabia were persecuted and people of the book were subdued and similarly apostasy was also punishable by death. But can these punishments apply even afte the prophet and his companions (who, according to the Qur'an, were raised to the level of witness of the truth)? I, in this case, agree with Ghamidi that it cannot be applied. And those people who say that christians and jews shouldn't be friends according to Qur'an, they are understanding out of the context, as Qur'an also says that you can marry from people of the book hence if first is considered eternal directive, the second will be contested. But this is only because of our flawed understanding of Qur'an ,when we understand things out of the context. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 11:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Eric Robert Rudolph

Hey Brandon, I've been doing some more research on the "Christian"ness of Rudolph. It is undeniable that his terror motivations were founded upon fundamentalist Christian ideologies but the closest reliable source that I've found that approaches establishing that he was indeed Christian was here with the line: "He said, 'I was born a Catholic, and with forgiveness I hope to die one.'". Are you aware of any other reliable sources that establish that he was indeed Christian at the time of his acts? (→Netscott) 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

Cause for concern. (→Netscott) 07:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Brandon, I know you've expressed an opinion about Ahmadinejad previoulsy regarding Holocaust denial so I was wondering if you might join this discussion? Thanks. (→Netscott) 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

I noticed that you are attacking another individual editor on your user page, labeling his edit summary the "most ridiculous edit summary of December, 2006". That is not just a personal remark. That is a personally attack, and if you do not remove it yourself, then I will do it and report you for this. So please do the right thing and remove it yourself. I have recently mentioned this on the talk page of the Eric Robert Rudolph article, and now I also mention it here. -- Karl Meier 23:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right -- my error. BYT 23:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:User WikiProject MuslimGuild

Hi; This template is up for speedy deletion. Would you like to maintain it in your userspace? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BrandonYusufToropov -- Karl Meier 07:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission

Can I keep your name at my user-page? [6]-- ALM 14:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Saint Paul

Hi BrandonYusufToropov,

I was reading your homepage [7]. Very interesting to read. In fact what you wrote "The fact that Paul never seemed to build a theological argument around anything that Jesus (pbuh) actually said was a big, big problem for me." is a significant(I guess) academic POV (I have read it somewhere in a scientific journal article). Having said that I had a question. I think Paul has one and only one message: being born of the Spirit- a transformation of mind- being God centered instead of Self centered. I think it is close to the conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus. And submission to God's will might be an Islamic translate for that. Am I right? Cheers, --Aminz 16:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice note, and for the compliment, comparing my wholly untutored skepticism to an actual academic critique.

We disagree. To whatever level you and I can regard Jesus' (pbuh) reported dialogue with Nicodemus as representing something credible (and this is always a bit of a crap shoot, in my opinon), the Gospel discussion you reference would not present Jesus (pbuh) as violating the First Commandment, which Paul manifestly does in his persistent efforts to convince people to worship a created being. So I would have to see the two points of view as quite different.

Speaking personally here, I think the born-of-the-spirit business may, historically, have more to do with Mithraism and its antecedents than with Jesus. Quoting from the WP article here: Mithra's worshippers "partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross" -- note too that "Mithras was born from a virgin on December 25 ... his followers identified with him by eating a sacred meal of bread and wine, and ... his devotees were baptized in water." For more on Paul's importation of Mithraism's symbols and rituals, you may want to check out this book. [8]

Peace, BYT 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Muhammadimage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Muhammadimage.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the {{pd-user}} tag to it as requested at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#muhammadimage.jpg. --WikiSlasher 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and you might want to crop that - there's lots of white space on the outside of the picture. --WikiSlasher 02:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: but doth suffer a sea change into something foul and strange

Well said... This whole thing has been driving me nuts. Thank you for saying this. futurebird 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome note

I will try not to start edit wars and I usually give up if my explanations for my edits fall on deaf ears which they usually do. FYI Though you would have noticed my anti-zionism I should inform you that I am an athiest and work against all forms of non skeptical/rational/open thought so unfortunately, merely the fact that you are a mosalman will mean I am as critical of your views as I am of zionism. but thank you for the positive message I wish we were on the same side.Esmehwp 00:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Jurisprudence

You wrote "Excuse me. This is an article about Islamic'jurisprudence, which means (cue scary music) fatwas. Get your sources. It's like writing about the Crusades by quoting St. Luke" Sorry, can't excuse. If you start an article titled "Fatwas and Absolutely Nothing Else" I promise I won't add information about the Koran. As for the current article, it should be blindingly obvious that information about the Koran is relevant to Islamic Jurisprudence. It feels that some editors are ashamed of the world being educated about what the Koran actually says. NN 03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

Look at Harry S. Truman now. I think the autonumbering problem was related to the fact that there was inconsistency among the citations --- three were embedded citations and all the rest were footnotes (using the ref tag) --- these two methods of providing citations are given autonumbers separately, so there were two 1's, two 2's, and two 3's. I turned those three embedded citations into footnotes into ref's, so they are now all on the same autonumbering scheme with no duplicate numbers. As long as editors are careful to use the same method of citation, then the autonumbers should stay good. Cheers! Rickterp 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC nom

I've fixed your Harry S. Truman fac nom. Put your nominating statement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman Raul654 21:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I am agreeable to a mediation provided we agree on the questions to be mediated beforehand, rather than unilaterally deciding on the questions and then asking for mediation. NN 06:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamic military jurisprudence. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Your Qur'anic quote

BrandonYusufToropov, Karl Meier has removed material from your user page which some editors will surely find offensive.[9] It is (at least) uncivil to threaten other editors with eternal torment in Hell. This is being discussed on WP:ANI if you are interested in chiming in.[10] Please do not restore this material; it violates WP:USER and leads to hard feelings without improving the encyclopedia.
More generally, refraining from partisan pronouncements will spare you pointless controversy, help ensure that your contributions are judged according to their merit, and help us all get along.Proabivouac 07:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked repeatedly whether it might not have been better simply to have left a civility-affirming request that I remove this quote, and I have gotten either silence or doubletalk in response. I would have been glad to take it off if someone had taken the trouble to discuss the matter with me. Perhaps Karl Meier, or yourself, or whoever started this little P.C. undertaking could see fit to offer an apology for peremptorily messing with my userpage.

This was the first complaint I ever received about the passage. Is there any other text on my userpage I should expect the Powers That Be to edit for me? BYT 13:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men

We need to add content about the Muslim protesters in the Bexhill camp to the article's "contemporary references" section. I'm hoping you can help in that regard. I have sources if you need them. —Viriditas | Talk 12:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. I'm a huge fan of the film, as I think you are as well. Peace, BYT 12:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being snippy. As I said before, I like your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 12:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No apology is in order. :) Looking forward to working with you. BYT 12:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You certainly deserved an apology. I also wanted to mention that your help is needed in the DVD section, too. It can be greatly expanded to describe the philosophers and commentators, and their respective positions as put forth in the documentary. —Viriditas | Talk 12:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI... "intentionally evoke" was correct, and the source reference refers to an interview with the director, who designed these scenes to intentionally refer to the locations mentioned. Please change it back. I know you are new to the article, but keep in mind everything has been checked, double-checked, and triple-checked for accuracy. There is an ongoing dispute over the lead section, however. Please look through the archives for more information before changing the meaning of the text. —Viriditas | Talk 13:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to bother you, but it occurs to me that if you found the statement "intentionally evoke" confusing, others probably will as well. If you have any interest in rewriting that statement to address the problem you found, please do so. Also, if you have access to any reliable film criticism from the Muslim world, I would greatly appreciate its inclusion in the article. Thank you for your help. —Viriditas | Talk 21:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a few sources for some of this, and I will be adding them, but I need more to keep all of it in the article:

Numerous references to modern Islamic and Islamist movements round out the picture, with the term Intifada in misspelled Arabic recurring as wall graffiti throughout the camp alongside the English-language equivalent, "uprising", and a procession of green-bandannaed men firing machine guns into the air as they chant shouting "Allahu Akbar" as a prelude to the uprising.—Viriditas | Talk 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your instincts are sound. What you find interesting, "the film seems to be as dubious of the motives of the (emergent) leadership of the Fishes as it is of the motives of the government" is absolutely correct, IMO. In fact, we should put that in the article. I'll look for sources. You are right about the Muslims. This leads me to believe you support removing the unsourced material above at this time. I would concur with this removal. After all, the sources I have for this are very few, and don't say much at all beyond an interpretation of what the reviewer is seeing in the film. Can we agree that it should be removed? Both the book and the film do not explicitly comment about Islam or Islamist movements. —Viriditas | Talk 23:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll check the edit history to see who keeps adding it to the theme section. This is third time I've removed it.—Viriditas | Talk

Plot

Brandon, there are two outstanding issues with the plot section. As a member of the Film project we have style guidelines for plot sections (the spoiler guideline is currently disputed). In general, plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot." Prior to your edits, the plot section was a lean 877 words and getting smaller. After your edits, the plot increased to 1108 words, which goes against the film style guidelines. Secondly, you changed the conclusion of the film to include "as the screen cuts to black and the film's credits appear, we hear the laughter of small children." This has been discussed extensively in the talk archives, and the consensus is that this is not part of the plot. Many editors are getting this information from less than reliable sources (such as user-generated sites like IMDB) because some people spammed dozens of websites adding this fancruft. In fact, not a single reliable film source describes this ending, and the director has never commented on it. It short, consensus is against including this in the plot section as it is an interpretation of the credits, not the plot. Please consider restoring the original plot length per Film style guidelines and restoring the conclusion. This is something that many editors have worked hard to perfect. —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A third opinion was offered by User:The Filmaker here, and User:Snuppy ("The sound of laughing children is not immediately introduced or supported directly by events - it's a harbinger of things to come, not the very next step in the story, and as such I don't think it qualifies as plot"), User:A Man In Black ("(It should go) Nowhere. Its importance and relevance is disputed, and there's no reference to back any view"), User:Yllosubmarine ("I'm removing the statement because, for the millionth time, it isn't part of the plot") User:Erik ("I have no problem with exploring how reviewers have viewed the conclusion (and there's already something in the Themes section about the director saying how you interpret the ending is the kind of person you are), but it doesn't belong into the basic description of the plot"), and myself and others. We agree that the "sound of children laughing" doesn't belong in the plot. —Viriditas | Talk 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the original plot version of 877 words with the original conclusion, which was worked out by many editors over many months. —Viriditas | Talk 02:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Brandon, that concsensus was months old, and I ahppen to agree that it should be in. The two opinions mentioned above were made in absence of any other dissent. Consensus is not a static thing, but is wont to change as editors change. I think that, as an observable part of the film, it should remain. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There are five opinions mentioned above, not two, and that is only a small sample. Notice, I did not include myself, which would make it six. Nobody agreed with your pet theory, Arcayne, because no reliable references support that opinion. You're confusing consensus about policy, which changes over time, with consensus about a static work of art which lacks the necessary supporting documentation. Per WP:CITE, which applies to articles not policies, "material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source...Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." The "laughter of children" in the credits has been interpreted by various bloggers and was spread around the internet to various user-generated film sites, and lacks any and all supporting, reliable citations. The plot is defined as "a planned series of interrelated actions that take place because of the interplay of one force upon another through the struggle of the opposing forces to a climax and resolution." The "sound of laughing children" in the credits has never been referenced in this way by any authoritative and reliable source and continues to be an interpretation. It exists as part of the soundtrack and has no sourced meaning within the plot. —Viriditas | Talk 06:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was noting the opinions of third parties who stepped in to help break the ever-present dissent between you and I. The other opnions were of editors who no longer work on the article, one of whom was of two minds on the subject. As previously stated, consensus is not a static thing. It can change at any time. And, as the action was an obserbable part of the film, it doesn't need to be cited. Perhaps you didn't hear the voices. That's always possible, I suppose. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the third parties wrote, "The information present in a "Synopsis" section should be based on the question of comprehensiveness, but also elegance and encyclopedic relevance. I don't believe that the addition of these references to the said phrase and sounds are relevant to the plot enough (it at all) and therefore should not be included in the section." [11] What did the other one say? Per WP:CITE any contested material needs cites, and film-related articles are no exception to that rule. I will source the entire plot section if you want me to do that. Lastly, I most certainly did hear the voices in the credits at the end of the film, and knew instinctively that it could mean many things; perhaps the director was alluding to this ambiguity with his comments about the audience seeing hope or hopelessness, i don't know - nobody knows. That's the thing. I can think of a dozen explanations, none of which are sourced, none of which are plot-related. This isn't about my opposition to inclusion; I have an open mind. This is about adding material to the plot that isn't supported by WP:RS. What you find to be "observable" was in fact auditory, and it occurred in the credits after the film was over. Now, if it is important enough to be included as part of the narrative, or in the plot, or in any other section, a reliable film critic will have published an article about it. —Viriditas | Talk 21:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cast section

I left you a message on Talk:Children_of_Men#Cast_section. I would like to see the Lennon stuff you wrote in the article, but please add sources for it. —Viriditas | Talk 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You aren't alone

There are others in the Children of Men article that are defending your edits and stance. Don't give up just yet. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ive commented in CoM regarding the issue. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User was reported for 3RR violation here.

Your note

I've left a reply on Talk:Zionism. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men

I'm looking forward to your new material. I've written a few paragraphs as well, so perhaps we can combine efforts. I'm sure you will do a fabulous job improving the article. —Viriditas | Talk 23:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tashbih Sayyed

Brandon, are you familiar with Tashbih Sayyed? I didn't know that he had died. I want to expand his article, but I'm wondering if you can recommend some good sources, or if you have any opinion on the man. —Viriditas | Talk 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

BYT, thank you. It's much appreciated. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. To be more specific referring to other editors as "trolls" is not acceptable. Please stop your name calling. I made this request to you several times before, and this is the last time I am doing it. Any more name calling from you and I will ask an administrator to do something about it. -- Karl Meier 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Help me out, Karl. Which editor are you saying I made a personal attack upon? BYT

I actually think it is you that will have to help me out. Who is it that you are talking to here?: [12] -- Karl Meier 16:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, BYT - dont call editors "trolls" here. This is trollish on your part actually to call everyone else a troll. And dont make bad faith assumptions like "we are here to provoke", or "we are just here for a campaign". The only campaign that exists here and succeeds in the end is a campaign to improve articles and to provide information. I would appreciate if you shared your opinion Pro's post here about the structure of the Kaaba. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You're all bright people, so this shouldn't be necessary. But just for those who may read this and actually believe you've got some point here ...

WP:NPA has to do with attacking a person. It does not have to do with identifying trolls, as a group, as a real-world phenomenon, or addressing trolls collectively.

Since you're all citing WP:NPA, I'd like of you to tell me what specific example from WP:NPA actually applies to this discussion if you feel this discussion is important to you. Or, altertatively, you could stop cluttering up me about this. (By the way, WP:NPA specifically identifies falsely accusing someone of launching a personal attack as a personal attack.)

Those are your two options. Tell me what part, specifically, of this guideline, you believe me to be violating. Or drop it. If you keep it up, I'm deleting this whole thread. See the top of my userpage. BYT

Your comments on the image of Muhammad

Here you said that the image of Muhammad was not offensive. Then you said the opposite thing, saying the image was "incredibly incendiary, incredibly insensitive". Can you please explain your comments? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy to hep you out, Matt. Some people might find a given image incendiary, and thus inappropriate for a given article, without finding it personally offensive.

A doctored photo of "Contemporary American Religious Leader X" with blood dripping from his mouth, for instance, might be something I find unpleasant, but the image itself would not personally offend me.

The image would, however, be inappropriate for inclusion at the article Contemporary American Religious Leader X, in my view. Not because it "offends" me as a person, but because it is over-the-top, coars, and fundamentally insensitive to the realities of the world in which we live, a world in which people view direct attacks on their spiritual figures as attacks on themselves.

There was a time when encyclopedias did not make those kinds of attacks, or even risk the appearance of doing so.

Note, however, that the same image might be quite appropriate in an article such as Political cartoon. It's all about context.

Experienced editors learn to make these kinds of judgment calls. I hope you will eventually come to appreciate their importance. BYT 11:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your book

BYT, I read your book Beyond Mere Christianity last night. Though predisposed to agree with your central premise, I still estimate that readers who aren't should find your discussion quite challenging to their preconceptions.Proabivouac 21:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT as Susan Alexander Kane in Citizen Kane: Come around and tell me your life story sometime. BYT 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)