Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

Mediation

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

Protection

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

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

Background #5

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

• As User:FormerIP has pointed out at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images#Calligraphy issue (sub-head inserted late), there is no clear evidence that renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common than depictions, and are more widespread geographically.
• Moreover, in the public literature and realm, the written name of every person is trivially more common than their depicition, not only of Muhammad.
• Today, everbody can look at pictures of Muhammad on various internet sites from every point on the earth with internet access.
• [1] is showing a mural painting from the Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque with: "first cousin and son-in-law of the prophet Mohammed; Ali assassinated at Kufah, Iraq; also identified as assassination of Ali in 661 AD; veiled figure is Mohammed or his spirit". So depictions of Muhammd appear in mosques.
• File:Hilye Iran 19th c with image.JPG includes a picture of Muhammad. According to Hilya, "These calligraphic panels were often framed and came to be used as wall decorations in houses, mosques and shrines". So it seems possible that this Hilye has been shown in a mosque.
• editions of the Quran with pictures of Muhammad do exist, e.g. in Spanish editions from 1932 and 1979, see [2]. The 1979 edition is still being offered by second hand sellers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of contents

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

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

Remove 'Sense of consensus' section

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

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

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

Sequence of options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question for Jheald

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I almost wholly agree with alan here.

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

Click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taken from Wikipedia:

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

Taken from your comments in the RfC:

“Muslim-sympathizers”

“Islamic mumbo-jumbo”

“Over-sensitive lunatics”

“Islamic hyper-sensitivity”

“Its penchant for gratuitous communal violence”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@veriticheck,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Matt

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

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

@Balloonman

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

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

And also, why are you assuming the authority to judge what is conducive and what is not? I think you're no more tolerant than me. <-- I take that back.

@Tarc
"bit of an extremist" - I'd like to ask you what exactly do you mean, Tarc? I am looking to change myself. But, for that you have to tell me what is so extreme in my views here. Tell me what to change and why! I am sincerely requesting you to clarify and it will help me become more acceptable. Brendon is here 02:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I do think that Brendon111's views are quite reasonable, but I do think that it would be more constructive for Brendon11 to also focus more on the relevant issues than the commentators. I also understand that rhetoric may not be the best way to argue things, even if they do not amount to commenting on commentators―much of the time, it is better to use "boring language" rather than "strong language," but at the same time, use "strong arguments." Perhaps commenting in a more "boring style" sounding as if one is detached from the issue would be a better way to address things. It is quite a paradox that accusing others of personal attacks is also in itself a personal attack (but it is), so sometimes there are things that are better "left silent." It may sometimes be better to let on-lookers decide for themselves; no need to point out the bad behavior of others all the time, and focusing on behavioral issues also invariably distracts the conversation away from the main topic. In other words, some things may be true (like others' behavioral issues), but are better left silent. Even if others have been rude, it is also rude to point that out. This is something I would highly recommend to Brendon111 to take note of if others have been complaining about your comments, even if they are your opponents in certain discussion points.--New questions? 07:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Many, Many thanks to you, User:New questions. I now understand my fault. Yes, indeed I was using relatively strong language. I would change my rhetoric. I promise. Thank you again for helping me be a better communicator. Brendon is here 20:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If I may, I would also recommend against usage of bold for the purpose of emphasizing anything, other than for basic stuff like bolding "support," "oppose," "comment," etc. Bold is like all caps; it is almost never needed in discussions. Italics for emphasis is better.--New questions? 20:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This might be too late to address the OP question of: if we had the technology/capabilities to allow Muslim readers to voluntarily opt out of images of the prophet, would that be a working compromise in your opinion.

There exist one effective technology method that would allow Muslim readers to voluntarily opt out of images of the prophet that I doubt anyone on Wikipedia would try to prevent. You could create a Sunni Muslims version of the English Wikipedia. If there is a substantial readership for it, Wikipedia fundation might even sponsor it. You could alternative do a Sunni Muslims gateway/mirror, which filter out the images. All you need for that is a server, domain name, bandwidth and minor amount of code. Again, if there is a substantial readership, then getting donations to run one should not be complicated. Simply put, technology methods to allow Muslim readers to voluntarily opt out of images is fairly easy, and most could be made outside the Wikipedia community if needed. Remember, Wikipedia is free content. Free content can always be copied to an new website where modifications can be made, and this is actively encouraged so long the license is respected. For more information, see Terms of use. *Disclaimer*: Please take the suggestion as it is, and accept that it is in no way trying to suggest that Sunni Muslims is not be welcome here. It is simply a technology method where different cultural or religious values can co-exist. Belorn (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there room for another Question on creating a 'Sensitive Religious Imagery' guideline for per-image SHOW/HIDE toggling within MOS/Images?

Does anyone think there is room for another question? I'm thinking of one that suggests a new guideline within MOS/Images. The question could be called something like,

Question 10(?): Should Manual of Style/Images have a 'Sensitive Religious Imagery' guideline that offers advice on per-image SHOW/HIDE toggling?

The suggested addition to MOS/Images could read something like,

Sensitive Religious Imagery

When there is sufficient evidence of significant and widespread offence cause by a specific image, a recommended option is to use the Show Image and Hide Image graphics. There should be an unambiguous description of the image's name or content directly beneath both of them. The initial state should be for the image to be hidden, leaving the onus on those wishing to see the image to reveal it. For instructions go here.."

The Question should then point out that using calligraphy or not at the top of the article is a separate argument, and could also point out that hatnotes can be seen as invasive and overly negative by some people. The per-image solution also keeps the other images on the page of course, preventing real inconvenience to the person who wishes to hide just the one. The principal is that the onus is on those wishing to see the image to click on a graphic to make it appear (or hide again), and the MOS inclusion makes it incident-specific - ie to be decided by those contributing to each specific topic, who ideally would know more about the subject than general Wikipedians.

A graphics hand could make a simple stretchable graphic saying "Show image". When the actual image is displayed, a graphic directly underneath it (and of the same width) could read, "Hide the above image". I'm sure toggling like this is technically possible, even if it takes a programmer to create code for an image box perhaps (I forget all that kind of stuff). I assume it hasn't actually been tried before - I don't know.

(This SHOW/HIDE approach, if it works here, could also be tried in other areas (the grossly explicit sex act articles perhaps?), but not as a matter of course - as the MOS entry part is simply too focused for misuse. A similar principal could work for child protection if a child-protected version of Wikipedia is ever created. There are numerous ways of doing that of course, and certain images that are already unshown could be tagged to always remain unshown if a particular image-type choice was taken as a child-protect preference). Matt Lewis (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Any change to guidelines or policies, has to be done in a different venue than an article specific RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

To some degree one depends on the other, so how about posing it here in the capacity of the Request for Comment, and moving on to the other if it seems realistic? Guidelines are at heart of everything surely? I don't mind doing it being done somewhere else - but I think it needs at least some backing here to move ahead given the discussion here. At some point I'm going to run out of time btw, (as usual).

On the other hand, without counting anything, it looks to me that the responses to these questions are pointing to calligraphy and no real consensus beyond that. Does anyone else agree with that? If that is the case, and it's also the case that new participants are drying up, then maybe I have a decent mandate to take the above in the procedurally apposite area? I wouldn't mind some feedback on it here because it seems realistic to me, but clearly I don't know for sure. I'm a bit out of touch with Wikipedia of late, but it seems to me that productive changes are occurring at least on a more regular basis than they used to be - ie Wikipedia is a little more open to the concept of improvement. Even a small change in that makes a big difference to me. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, Wikipedia could defend itself better against the various tidal waves of spurious arguments that make these things so difficult. It could state that NOTCENSORED is not a bludgeon, and that recognising undisputed injurious offense and looking for approaches to avoid expanding it is actually fully encyclopedic, as it recognises a fact and looks for neutrality. Recognising and legislating for undisputed injury is NOT something out of Wikipedia's remit, and is NOT giving a Point of View by automatically taking a side. No one can properly communicate while habouring the extreme NOTCENSORED attitude, in real life or on Wikipedia - hence all the dogma in place of argument when people constantly recite it. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reading of consensus. As for the rest, I reiterate the "no forum" instruction at the top of this talk page: it is not the place to discuss changes to policy or guideline. There are two different issues, 1) the proper construction of current guidelines/policy in relation to this RfC, which editors are invited to opine on/discuss on the Project Page (tab at top), and 2) changes to policy/guideline, which they are welcome to discuss in the proper forum but not here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I take it you are telling me to discuss this on the project page not the talk page? I'm initially asking whether a new question is allowed/worthwhile (it can easily be posed a little differently if needed) - surely this talk page is the fist place to ask that?

I would ask what your own take on the consensus was, but clearly you won't answer it here(!) Surely you have noticed that the project page is now really long (the unfortunate side-effect from so many questions), and most of the remaining comments are from a single chap called Brendon. You can't always cross at the lights you know.

Does anyone actually object if I make a new Question on creating over-image toggle graphics and adding a "Sensitive Religious imagery" paragraph to the MOS:Image guideline? They both come together. I've only been contributing to this for a few days so obviously need some advice on whether it is worthwhile or not. This RfC is still actually in the watchlist remember (unless it's been hidden of course). I'll make sure it doesn't break any rules, ie I'll make sure it points towards there being a new discussion in the proper forum (ie that it is not passable here - just something being posed). Matt Lewis (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"most of the remaining comments are from a single chap called Brendon." Matt, seriously what is your problem with me? Why can't you leave my name out of arbitrary discussions? I want to avoid dispute and the first step would be to focus on content instead of editors (as far as possible). Don't get personal here, please.

@Alan,

"it is not the place to discuss changes to policy or guideline" - I wholly agree. Brendon is here 03:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Policy and WS is best discussed first at the Village pump. The use of SHOW/HIDE toggling can of course be discussed at the Muhammad talk page, but I don't see it being approved without lengthy discussion. Belorn (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Page too long

At 830,609 bytes, it is starting to slow my browser when I open the page. It may just have something to do with the fact that I have many tabs open, but I do not think I am alone in this. How does one usually deal with this?--New questions? 06:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

True. It is perhaps one of the longest pages in Wikipedia. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages, this only ranks 455th. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That means that there are 454 pages that are more problematic than this one.--New questions? 19:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OMG! Especially List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) needs immediate split. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 23:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody is already fiddling with the images and content of the article Muhammad

Click here. I don't know if the editor who is performing the changes is for or against WP:CENSOR, but I think I've seen this user (User:Amandajm) in this very RfC.

I think, this user has already heavily rearranged the images and the contents of the article. This RfC has not concluded yet and where what image would be placed is still under consideration. So, is he/she allowed to do that?

Does this RfC even matter? Or is this just a farce? (Just asking out of curiosity) Brendon is here 20:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is not under any injunction, so I don't think it is disallowed to make changes while an RfC is going on, although I am not familiar myself with the process, so I might be incorrect here. Whether this RfC matters or not is something that should be judged after it is concluded―too early to judge now, I say.--New questions? 21:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This is just a Request for comment - as far as I know they don't ever have to officially end (but I could be wrong on that). It was pre thought-out though, so it's worth being polite about it. RFC's on their own are never directly linked to an article's edit status. This is not an arbcom matter as far as I know, it seems to be just trying to find out how people feel by posing various questions and inviting discussion. Sorry to disappoint you Brendon, but this could only really matter when people who have new things to say enter the debate.

Unless anyone knows anything else? There were a lot of questions I suppose. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• The changes to the images are just minor ones of placement. The Rfc is likely to end on the 19th, after 4 weeks, or is it a month. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting comments made by others at RfC

moved here from [3] Please do not "comment out" the email information that Jayen posted at the RfC. He says she's aware of it. That's plenty enough. If you think she doesn't want it posted then email her yourself to ask. Do not presume what you do not know, especially when the presumption includes a lot of bad faith on Jayen's part if it is correct. Anyway until you know he's done something wrong it's against policy for you to mess with his comments. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not enough. It is not my obligation at all to email or ask anyone. It is the obligation of those who publish confidential mails to prove that they have a permission. I don't presume anything I don't know. I don't presume any bad faith on Jayen's part. I know that he has posted an confidential e-mail without proving that he has a permission to do so. I don't think he has bad intentions, but am afraid it could be harmfull for Gruber, --Rosenkohl (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No proof is required except his word, which he already gave. Once he's given his word it is absolutely your obligation to prove otherwise. That you don't think his word is enough implies, whether you intend it or not, that he's not being honest. As I stated already, you may contact Gruber if you think this is harmful to her or if you think she does not want this. Otherwise stop messing with a good faith editors comments when they have already stated that the other party is fine with it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think that he is dishonest. But for publishing from confidential mails, a third party giving "their word" is never enough. Who, by the way, here is even an anonymous Wikipedia account.

The protection of privacy and data security must be fundamental for Wikipedia. Furthermore, here even the reputation of a real person and scientist could be on stake. Jayen gave his word that he notified Gruber of the posting. Even if Wikipedia believes that he notified her, and personally I don't have any doubt that he actually did, Wikipedia doesn't know if Gruber has read this notification yet, or if she found time to care for it, or if she is actually aware what it means that her E-mail is published on this content page. Wikipedia could know this only, if she herself would declare, that she agrees into the publication of the E-Mail, on any channel like editing under an account attributed to Gruber, or per OTRS-ticket, etc., --Rosenkohl (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayen has said that not only is she aware of the posting, but that she wishes to contribute to the conversation in this fashion. Once again I will repeat myself. If you are concerned about her or think that she may not be giving her permission you can email her directly. The fact is that by your own logic above you can't even know if she wrote the email, or that she even exists. So you either trust Jayen or you find out for yourself. I wont repeat myself again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you can't contribute content by third party user accounts, only by posting the content yourself. No, it is the other way around. If you think that she wants to give a permission, you can email her, and then try to get an OTRS-ticket for the e-mail. The e-mail has been published under Gruber's real name, and in fact there is no serious doubt that Gruber wrote it, --Rosenkohl (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not third party content. It's information given to Jayen in a direct communication to him with permission also given to him in direct communication. Where on Wikipedia does it say that he needs her to file with OTRS in order to repeat what she told him? If you think this is a Wiki policy then link to it.Griswaldo (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Global perspectives on this issue

We’re all products of our backgrounds to some extent I expect. I was curious about what parts of the world some of the more outspoken editors on this talk page come from. It seems that English is not the first language of everyone here. Do you think it colours our opinions? I’m a Canadian living in Italy. Feel free to weigh in or not; I respect the right to anonymity. Veritycheck (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What's your intent behind bringing this nonsensical drivel into the current discussion? You claim to be a Canadian who is living in Italy.

So?
What does that have to do with this discussion? Could you please shift your curiosity from editors' background to any pertinent topic which could be discussed in this talk-page? Brendon is here 00:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Brendon, could you please be civil? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Veritycheck has already proved his knack of getting under my skin with his irrelevant chicaneries which are anything but logical. See how he is trying to bring in discrimination based on "background" (what he referred to is nationality) in the garb of "curiosity". But why? What is he trying to prove? Because he is from Canada, he is more credible? What, a guy from France or Australia or China or Russia or whatnot, can't be trusted? (I don't know if I'm being unduly uncivil)

Nevertheless, I will really try my best to not be uncivil. You should also take into consider the fact that I am just a human, okay. Cheers! Brendon is here 05:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one

Am I the only one who has found Brendan's attitude and contributions to be entirely tiresome? Billigerent and unhelpful? Who wonder's who Brendan really is? Sorry, but this account was created pretty much with the intention of contributing to this discussion---whoever it is, it is somebody who is familiar with Wikipedia, but this account is brand new and has virtually no edits outside of this discussion. Frankly, I can't stomache his edits.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No you are not alone. Have a look at his talk page and mine. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)