Talk:Black Stone/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Qur'an says Black Stone is meteorite?

An anon editor added a bit of text claiming that the Qur'an and Sunnah said that the Stone was a meteorite. I took that out, because there were no references. I believe I've seen references to some Meccan traditions re the fall of the Stone, but that isn't the Qur'an. I don't understand what the Sunnah has to do with it. Zora 21:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just like SHiva cut od his fallus and threw it on earth in indian myths, a meteor as stranded too in Mekkah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N33 (talk • contribs) 17:28, May 27, 2007
Thank you for the information. Can you please provide a source to prove where this information comes from? --Elonka 23:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

linga

looks like a linga--66.114.207.162 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

linga tend to be much more oblong (for obvious reasons). This is much too rounded to be a linga, and its also very black, which would be quite an odd colour for a linga.
Lingams aren't always cilinder-shaped, some are round even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N33 (talk • contribs) 09:24, June 22, 2007

Straw poll: Should the image be included?

There seems to be an edit war brewing about the inclusion of this image: Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, so I thought I'd help clarify consensus here on the talkpage. If you have an opinon on whether it should or shouldn't be included, please post here. Please note that this is not a vote -- it is a discussion. But we'd like to hear from as many editors as possible, to check consensus, thanks. --Elonka 16:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Include. It's an appropriate image of 14th century artwork, that is directly relevant to the article. --Elonka 16:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: wikipedia is not a democracy where if you have majority then the image should be included. Please do not start voting on this. Mostly Muslims do not depict Muhammad in Pictures and I wish to have arbitration case on this issue sometimes soon. Per wikipedia WP:Undue weight, WP:Profanity this image have no place in the article. --- A. L. M. 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Mostly? Doesnt really sound like a hard and fast rule. Dman727 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Majority sound better? Replace it with majority and read again. More details at User:ALM_scientist/Is_wikipedia_Anti-Islam. --- A. L. M. 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Still doesnt sound like a hard and fast rule. Even if it is, its for Muslims anyway and doesnt apply to the larger wiki community. Dman727 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks God wikipedia is not a democary. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --- A. L. M. 16:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
ALM, profanity doesnt apply here: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.": First of all, the typical Wikipedian editor is not a Muslim so this image cannot be labelled as profane. Second, the exclusion of the image will cause it to be less informative, relevant and accurate. 3rd, not all Muslims find images of Mohammed offensive. 4th, images of Muhammad have already been included in Muhammad. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Include. Entirely appropriate, tasteful and relevant. Also wiki does not censor as per WP:CENSOR Dman727 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude per User:ALM_scientist/Is_wikipedia_Anti-Islam, That means per WP:Undue weight, WP:Profanity and WP:NPOV. Those picture represent a minority tradition hence including them is giving undue weight and against basic priniciples of (any) enyclopedia. --- A. L. M. 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: How can you say 'per' something that is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy? I could just as easily write an essay saying that all articles about black objects must have photos of them and then say 'per' that essay. Philip Trueman 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: It talk about policies (including WP:Undue weight, WP:Profanity, Wikipedia is not a democracy) and give many references. That is my argument. Just like above single line is your argument. Instead of saying same thing again I wish to refer to it. --- A. L. M. 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with Philip, this is a personal essay which a user might have tried to pass off as some sort of policy. I think having that kind of page is not allowed. ALM, can you check on that and delete that page if policy requires that? I will check on that with you later. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. No, such a page is definitely allowed. It's in his user space and poses a valid concern and his argument. It's obvious from the title of the page and the fact that it's part of his user space that he's not attempting to pass it off as a policy, although the use of "per" may be a bit misleading/can be misinterpreted (perhaps he should have instead written "per the arguments in..."). (This comment is based on what he wrote originally, not including the further clarification) — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 09:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. For precedent, it is probably useful to review this other Wikipedia article, Depictions of Muhammad, which has several depictions of Muhammad, and appears to be close to Good Article status. --Elonka 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Include The image is both appropriate and relevant, and as mentioned Wikipedia is not censored. -- Karl Meier 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Include This very notable image could hardly be more topical.Proabivouac 18:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Include: Entirely appropriate, an excellent addition to the article. Thanks for taking the initiative to improve the article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Include Directly relevant to the topic, no policy based reason to not include it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude per ALM.--Kirby♥time 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC) - striking out banned user's comments. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Kirbytime, you've been blocked 2 times for requesting offensive pictures relating to Child Porn, so I find it very funny that you would find this harmless picture of Muhammad offensive. As a Muslim, you should also know that there are many moderate Muslims who do not find images of Mohammed offensive. I would appreciate your input at an essay page I created here. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude per ALM. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Kirbytime and AktarAhmed, ALM didn't give an argument, but only linked to an essay in his user space which doesn't mention this article. What, then, can be meant by "per ALM?" Unless you are willing to state your reasons, I don't see why your "votes" should be taken into account.Proabivouac 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree with Proabivouac. This is not a vote. So anyone simply saying "support" or "oppose" is going to be ignored unless they actually have a comment that they wish to make. --Elonka 23:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree as well. I would like to ask these users Kirbytime and Aktar, what precisely they agreed with ALM on. I could expect to get a rational answer from Aktar. I think its pretty clear, the image will be a Keep (include) in the end.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you seriously asking this on purpose? The reasons for the exclusion of the picture is outlined in that essay. Do you want him to copy/paste his reasons here?--Kirby♥time 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC) - striking out banned user's comments. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the essay brings up points which would favor inclusion of the image. Normal interpetation of concepts mentioned such as WP:Undue weight and Wikipedia is not a democracy would indicate inclusion. At least one reason is ludicrous - WP:Profanity. The essay of course neatly skips over other policies such as WP:CENSOR. Regardless, while the poster certainly is entitled to write an essay if that pleases her, that is no way shape or form is indicative of wiki policy. Dman727 07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Kirbytime, I asked you and AktaraAhmed respectively for your reasons why you believe this image shouldn't be included. Even so, ALM's essay says nothing about this image on this article. Were you to say that, beneath all the wikilawyering, the real point of his essay is that depictions of Muhammad should not appear anywhere for any reason because they offend his personal religious sensibilities, I would agree with that, but then that would amount to an admission that appeals to policy and context are only arguments of convenience. Taken naïvely and at face value, his essay purports to be analysis of the proper interpretation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight as it applies to Muhammad. That ALM has appealed to it here, to those who will take the time to consider it, confirms (again) that his current arguments are not sincere.Proabivouac 07:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
ALM, just give your reasons here instead of refering us to a 5000 word essay over something that doesnt deal with this directly.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I have already given my reasons above. Please read them. A. L. M. 11:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Replied above. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
ALM, here is my response: Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That essay cannot reflect any sort of community consensus as not only is ALM deciding who edits it, but who posts on the talk page. The fact is that essay reports the situation in a way that is not as informative as it could be(and in fact may misinform), see the edits I have not been allowed to post on that essays talk page for details[1]. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Include What could ever be the reason for suppressing it, other than pandering to the sensibilities of the <insult removed>. And Wikipedia is above that. This image has a notable relationship to the subject matter and aids to illustrate and broaden the context for encyclopaedic treatment.203.49.244.63 00:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude : Image Of any Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad is not allowed in any form whether it is informative or any other relegion. plz delete this image from this website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.30.106.23 (talk • contribs) 22:36, August 1, 2007
  • it is my request as well not to include any snaps.. thankz (Shakeeb Ahmed)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakeebahmed (talk • contribs)
  • Excluded: Plz dont display the image of Holy Prophet. It is strictly prohibited in Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.30.106.23 (talk • contribs) 04:25, August 3, 2007
  • PLEASE REMOVE THE PICTURE OF PROPHET MOHAMMED (PBUH) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsin mk (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude : The image is unnecessary. It offends people. The only reason to keep it in is to offend people. Sorry, but wikipedia is a source of relevant information, not a place to take cultural potshots at each other. I don't see a picture of any cartoons of Clinton having sex on his wiki page, and the fact that it's a portrayal of something that happened and would sure stick it to censorship buffs is irrelevant in this case as well as that one. It's not necessary to the article. It adds nothing. It is not worth preventing Muslims, who are the ones who probably care most about this page, from viewing it in order to keep with their principles. Peter Deer (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: The placement of the Black Stone by Muhammad is an extremely relevant piece of artwork and adds significantly to the article. Implementing censorship because a loud minority claim not not be able to look at the article is not acceptable. Consensus is to leave it in, so dont remove it until that changes. --86.131.33.229 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    "Peter Deer", read WP:CENSOR and all the previous discussion on this topic. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    reply: The artwork is extraneous. Or would you have objections to me replacing it with an MS Paint image of the same thing? The fact that it is an old painting does not change that it is extraneous, unneeded, and rather than adding to the article it detracts from it as it makes it unreadable to the tenets of the faith of which it is the subject. Furthermore, I will continue to edit out the image until moderator action is taken and this page is protected, and I'm guessing that I have a lot more time on my hands than you do, but if you want to waste your time editing it back in go right ahead. Peter Deer (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not going to waste my time in repeating the same arguments we had in the last consensus. Please go back, read the talk archives on this article and the one on Kaaba. Your arguments have been dealt with there. You will be reverted and blocked if you continue disrespecting consensus like this, so good luck on that. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    So be it. If I am to be blocked to undo what is entirely part of your personal campaign against this then I shall have to accept that. But the fact of the matter is, despite all your wikilawyering, the content discussed is extraneous and you are turning this wikipage into your own little battleground on this issue. Perhaps you should check out the gaming the system article to show why what you are doing is absolutely against the rules as well. Peter Deer (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    1. Read this carefully. 2, the image is not "extraneous". Its a relevant historical image. All this has been discussed before. I dont think you're bothering to read previous discussions on this. Can you please do that? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) The issue has been discussed, and the consensus is to keep the image in the article. If there is disagreement, we can of course continue discussion, but edit-warring is going to be completely ineffective. And may I please encourage everyone to stick to discussing the article, rather than the editors. --Elonka 23:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Caption

Just a thought: Would the tensions de-escalate here, if we removed the name "Mohammad" from the image caption? For example, instead of "A 1315 image of Mohammad lifting the Black Stone into place", change it to, "A 1315 image showing the Black Stone being lifted into place"? Then we could include a paragraph or two about Mohammad and the actual related story, further down in the article (which I think would be a good addition anyway). --Elonka 03:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No.--Kirby♥time 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a modification if it would de-escalate and lead to a reasonable compromise. However I sense there is no willingness to compromise whatsoever. Therefore I support leaving this appropriate, topical and tasteful art in place. Dman727 07:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No. As long as it is one of those few paintings that represent a minority tradition, it should be deleted from the article. It is agaisnt WP:Undue weight, WP:NPOV and WP:Profanity. --- A. L. M. 08:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, the majority of the world doesnt have a problem with this. Of course we reconigze that A minority portion representing Muslims do object, and yet a further sub-minority of Muslims agrees with the rest of the world. WP:Undue weight indicates that to WP:CENSOR it based on a minority opinion, would violate WP:NPOV. Objections based on WP:Profanity are quite ridiculous - the paintings hardly represent pornograph in way shape or form. Even then WP:Profanity is permitted if "their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, ". Dman727 09:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It is much more worst than pornography hence WP:Profanity do applies. Secondly, In wikipedia no Muslim had been supporting Muhammad pictures. It is rediculus that Muslim do all the contributions and non-Muslim add pictures of their choices. --- A. L. M. 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
On what basis do you purport to know the religous beliefs of individual editors? To suggest that some editors are less worthy due to your determination of their religion is prejudicial, discriminatory, offensive and improper. This kind of intolerance has no place on wiki, or anywhere else in the world. Dman727 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There are alternatives available. Get any photo of black stone. If you wish then I can provide one from flickr. Hence WP:Profanity do applies. --- A. L. M. 09:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with DMan. The majority of the world doesnt have a problem with this and hence its wrong to take down the image. I do believe we should say "Muhammad" in the article because thats what it is. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem with the picture. No good reason has been given for the removal other than that essay, and ALM won't even discuss that essay on the talk page of that essay, so how can I address the issues brought up? Every point brought up has been addressed by months of discussion in the past. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving the image lower on the page

Here's another possible way of handling it. In the Ba'hai faith, it is considered disrespectful to display a photograph of their founder. In the Bahá'u'lláh article, they covered this by posting a clear disclaimer at the top, that the image was at the bottom. This allowed those who were interested in seeing it, to get there, but kept it away from the eyes of those who would have rather not seen it. Would this kind of a solution work for everyone here at the Black Stone page? We could move the grainy Black Stone image up to the top of the article, and move the Muhammad image down to the bottom, with a disclaimer saying, A 1315 artistic rendition of Muhammad lifting the Black Stone into place can be found at the end of this article. --Elonka 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bahá'u'lláh situation is terrible, and shouldn't be repeated here. However - and I am loathe to aid the cause of religious censorship, but nevertheless - the photograph of the Black Stone would be a more topical lead image than the one illustrating this dubious hagiographic tale, which should probably accompany the text recounting the myth in the section, "Significance of the Black Stone."Proabivouac 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to treat this differently than any other image. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That being said, Image:Blackstone.JPG seems to be the better choice for the lead, it being a real photograph. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Right. I am trying to do what should be done if demands for censorhip are simply ignored.Proabivouac 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
To others who may have misgivings about this move, consider the text of the lead:
"It is the eastern cornerstone of the Kaaba…The Stone is roughly 30 cm (12 in.) in diameter, and 1.5 meters above the ground…The Stone is in pieces, from damage which was inflicted as part of a theft in 930. Qarmatian warriors sacked Mecca and carried the Black Stone away to their base in Bahrain. It was returned twenty-two years later, but in a cracked and damaged state. It is now held together by a silver frame, which is fastened by silver nails to the Stone."
The photograph couldn't be more informative.
"Early chroniclers say that the Kaaba was rebuilt during Muhammad's lifetime, after damage caused by a flood. Around 600 A.D., the various tribes worked together on the project, but there was some contention among the Quraysh, Mecca's ruling clan, as to who should have the honor of raising the Black Stone to its final place in the new structure. Muhammad is said to have suggested that the Stone be placed on a cloak and that the various clan heads jointly lift it. Muhammad then placed the Stone into its final position with his own hands"
Ditto for the Muhammad illustration.Proabivouac 23:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't pander to Islam, that's for muslims. If a subject warrant a mention on wikipedia, it warrants a bold treatment.

I like the current condition. The primary picture (just the black stone) is at the top and the secondary image is at the bottom. Elonka thanks so much for your initiative in this whole issue.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course pandering to extremist IS wrong, however in this case I think the photo at the top is a better choice on its own merits. Its an actual photo of the stone and the painting, which definitely belongs in the article is still there. While I suspect that this will still not satisfy the extremist on this matter, this is an improvement to the article. Dman727 01:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Please use terrorist instead of extremist. I am more used to hear terrorist then extremist now. Thank you. --- A. L. M. 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The word extremist better describes your point of view(it is a bit extreme), terrorist would be an inappropriate term. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur, this is an extreme view that pictures should not be included and all. There are many moderate people out there who dont have problems with images like this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I like this format better, and it makes more sense to have the images closer to the actual text where they are discussed. --Elonka 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
ALM, please AGF. Do you think there's anything further you want to do about this issue? Arbitration is going to be a mirror of the process here, you can be assured, so you should not try that. It will just waste the time of the administrators (but its up to you ofcourse). Once again, no one is there out to get you or other people. This is a nuetral encyclopedia. Its primary job is to collect information. If we start worrying about who its offending then this could result in the primary mission being compromised and thats not good obviously. I hope you understand this. If you always do the rational thing, you'll end up better.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you guys beleive we have to go through so much trouble just for including an image where it absolutely belongs? I could go right now and put a picture of a carrot in the "vegetables" article and no one would care. But in this case this is like we had to face so much resistance putting a picture of a carrot in the carrot article itself, where it absolutely belongs. But things have gotten better in this encyclopedia with time. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. And also, this article isn't titled Depictions of Muhammad.--Kirby♥time 02:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC) - striking out banned troll's comments. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely how is it soap? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How does whining contribute to writing a better article? Per WP:TALK--Kirby♥time 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC) - striking out banned troll's comments. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask you again: Tell me how this satisfies SOAP. You have to know more than just the name of the shortcut.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Its un-ethical to hurt someone's feelings. Even its against Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Profanity. Also WP:NOT#CENSORED:—Preceding unsigned comment added by Engr.saad (talk • contribs)

Merge with Kaaba?

I wonder if this article shouldn't be merged with Kaaba, by adding a Black Stone section to that article. The Black Stone is for all practical purposes part of the Kaaba, and an important one. There is nothing here which would be off-topic there. Length is not a problem, as the combined article would be under 29k. Of course, if we had reams of material on only the Black Stone, then a separate article would be warranted, but we'd still probably want to summarize it in Kaaba. Such a result, I feel, would be greater than the sum of its parts.Proabivouac 21:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the subjects are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate pages. --Elonka 20:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Picture is forbidden

This Article include the fake sketch of Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) which is not accepted in islam and to the muslims. Whether it is drawn to convey complete knowledge or for any other resons, it is forbidden in islam, and it hurts the feelings of Muslims. So please Remove the picture as soon as possible. Thank You.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamir009 (talk • contribs)

what ever the wikipedia policy may be,but dont do that things that hurt someone.its highly condemnable and regrettable ,so plz remove the picture.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.36.157.176 (talk • contribs)

Its un-ethical to hurt someone's feelings. Even its against Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Profanity. Also WP:NOT#CENSORED:—Preceding unsigned comment added by Engr.saad (talk • contribs)

Hajj

The annual Hajj, the largest pilgrimage in the world, will be starting on December 18, so this page will probably be getting an increased amount of traffic. I would encourage all editors involved to please be sensitive to the views of others. Especially to the experienced editors here, please remember WP:BITE. With increased traffic, though there may be increased vandalism, we also have an opportunity to attract new editors to Wikipedia, who could be of great help on multiple articles. And we definitely need all the help we can get! So let's do what we can to be patient and welcoming. :) --Elonka 00:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the traffic.
If people don't care about reading previous discussions or respecting consensus and engaging in edit wars while doing their own thing like what was done here and then if they proceed to threat and say they dont care about being blocked, then we dont have to abide by WP:BITE anymore obviously. If I see any vandalism here, I'll ask you for help if I need it in reverting or dealing with people here. You already have the article on your watch list probably. Also, if we get too much vandalism, we can get this protected. We dont need to deal with new comers coming in and rushing to take the image out just so we can get some new editors. We dont need those kinds of editors here. We need people who will respect policy. Also, I'll say it again: Policy overrules consensus. It is not possible to make a consensus over something which violates a core policy. The right way is to keep reminding people that Wikipedia is not censored. Please dont ask people to form a new consensus. That consensus poll above was flawed any way in the sense that again, we cant form a consensus which violates policy. I cant ask people to form a consensus if we should follow the NPOV here or not. Its a core policy and compromise is not possible on it; likewise on WP:CENSOR. If you tell people they can start getting a new consensus if they want, it will only inflame and continue the conflict and we will be back to square one with another poll and 3 more months of discussions. Just tell people simply that Wikipedia is not censored and ask them to read previous discussions, thats it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that if someone overtly says that they've going to edit war and don't care about being blocked, that WP:BITE does not apply. However, in less blatant cases, I still think it's worth being patient with new users. Wikipedia is a large and confusing place, and a new editor who is arriving into the hubbub may feel disoriented and defensive. Imagine if you walked into a large crowded bureaucracy building (like in the government), and you're not sure where to go or what to do, but you're trying to get something important done, and no matter where you go, someone pushes you away and says, "Stop doing what you're doing, figure it out on your own, I don't have time." That new person's frustration level is going to rise rapidly. Which doesn't mean that they're a bad person! Some patient tutoring may be all that's needed, and once they're "over the hump" on how Wikipedia works, they could be a really useful member of the team. :) The best way to turn someone into a good editor, is to surround them with solid examples of how good editors behave. New arrivals in our community will be closely observing how other editors interact, so that they can learn how they should act. So it's very important that the experienced editors on Wikipedia set a good example of civility and emotionally mature behavior, so as to best influence the next generation of editors.  :) --Elonka 19:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to this recent altercation or you are only talking about future editors or both? If the former, I was as civil as I could be and then if someone tells me "Furthermore, I will continue to edit out the image until moderator action is taken", I don't think I'm obliged to give them smilies especially if they're not even a new comer. The user above has an account 7 months old, FYI. Plus, good users are those who come here and already know that they cannot do as they please, rather there are certain rules and regulations. Those are the kinds of editors we need to attract and care about. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sidestepping the issue

This probably won't satisfy anyone, but here goes. Aside from any question as to whether Wikipedia should consider itself permitted to post images forbidden under any particular interpretation of any religion, two other questions present themselves. First, does the image actually contribute to the article? Does it convey something that the text does not? Is it worth its space in bytes? Second, infinite resources--including infinite energy among Wikipedia editors and staff--do not exist. In this case, if the image in question doesn't really contribute something new, additional, or helpful to the article; and if it basically burns up resources among Wikipedia contributors, in exchange for no real benefit (see question #1), then why do it? If the image doesn't really contribute something new or additional, yet chews up a lot of good will, why bother with it? Is anything really lost from the article if the image is removed? To those who will argue something along the lines of "Yes! Freedom of speech!", I'm sympathetic, but would remind all that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a soapbox for this purpose. (...true, not meant as a soapbox for propounding particular religious views, either...) In short, this isn't a place to make a symbolic stand just for the sake of making a symbolic stand. I'd like to see some frank discussion and evaluation of whether the image in question is actually worth the fuss, whether it really does contribute something NEW or ADDITIONAL to the article that the other parts do not. Xenophon777 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the preceding discussion: it's not about freedom of speech at all, but responsibility to build the best encyclopedia. Learn about the image and its history: it's as far as it can be from an arbitrary image chosen to prove a point. Were it only a 1315 illustration of the Kaaba, who would think that disposable? Yet it's even more informative than that, and was produced under the supervision of the famous scholar Rashid al-Din as part of a famous work of great historical significance.Proabivouac 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

According to none other but wikipedia, the so-called scholor "Rashid al Din" was a Persian Jew. He was not muslim, and no muslim can sketch the picture of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.30.106.146 (talk • contribs) 18:27, August 7, 2007

He converted to Islam and even if he wasnt a Muslim, so what? Read this as well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
How did I know this was bound to come up sooner or later?Proabivouac 00:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You are just making this discussion long ,, nothing else,,our demand was just to remove the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.30.106.146 (talk • contribs) 09:16, August 9, 2007

Your demand does not go along with Wikipedia policies. Please stop removing the picture. Did you read this? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Stone/Archive_2&oldid=1136567644"