Talk:The Sword of the Prophet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Clean up

This article needs a major clean-up. First, it states Trifkovic's POV as fact, and second, the article should be about the book, while the author biography should be moved to a separate article (or be deleted right away). Lupo 14:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I am trying to expand the article but editor SlimVirgin keeps reverting whatever I add. The irony is that I have read the book and I am trying to describe its content and I seriously doubt she ever read the book herself. --CltFn 29 June 2005 12:24 (UTC)

[edit] Mislovic Supporter?

I see an editing jihad going on. Accusations of the author being an ally of Slobodan Mislovic belongs on the page of the author. The book's content alone should be discussed in a NPOV way. Denials of a massacre has absolutely nothing to do with the book and creates a POV. Remember NPOV Barneygumble 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Without any discussion on this page there is still the editing war regarding the author's alleged support for Mislovic. While I agree with Slim Virgin's below comments that a lack of quotations and page numbers create a POV, so does equating the author to Mislovic. Does anyone seriously believe that anyone would read that statement and then not have a preconcieved notion about the book? Barneygumble 13:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The author has a known bias against Muslims, going so far as to deny a Well-documented Massacre (or two). This is inherently notable when he is writing a book about the religion of said Muslims. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
It's strange how there were anon IPs and barneygumble reverting to Jayjg's version within minutes. Are there really that many people interested in this pointless article that no-one will even read?Heraclius 14:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Irishguy, first off, accusations against the author belong on the author's page, not the book's. Secondly, when and where did he deny the massacre? If wikipedia is to gain credibility, passing off rumours as fact is not a brilliant idea. Barneygumble 17:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Is it also strange how User:Lapsed Pacifist and User:Heraclius were reverting my edits within minutes, particularly as its a "pointless article that no-one will even read?" Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
What's more strange is user JW who came here just because of a dispute about Northern Ireland with Lapsed Pacifist. By far the strangest thing, however, is the fact that there are ardent Israeli supporters willing to stand up for this Serge guy although he is a huge critic of Israel and says that the War in Iraq was because of the ZOG.Heraclius 22:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is that you assume editors are "ardent Israeli supporters" who edit for that reason, rather than the more obvious reason that the inclusion is poisoning the well, as are your more recent unsourced insertions? Jayjg (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this is a balanced opinion or not or would help resolve any issues. I believe that it is entirely appropriate that critisism of the author, if it is related to this particular subject matter, goes on this page. I also think it appropriate to note the biases, motivation or other criticism of the critics. Also, the term "Islamophic" can not just be assigned without noting who states it and why. --Noitall 23:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
You're right, Serge seems more like a White Supremacist than an Islamophobe to me. However, his controversiality should be noted: the guy is basically a holocaust denier.Heraclius 02:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
why don't you show us some exact quotes rather than fabricating those false charges?--CltFn 12:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


: Trifkovic is not a supporter of Milosovic , he was part of the movement that tried to get rid of Milosovic. But some editors keep blindly inserting these ridiculous assertions like holocaust deniers, without even bothering to read the citations or the book. --CltFn 12:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I can't see where the charges are coming from. Notice, the people that keep reverting the text, do not make any arguement on this discussion page. They blindly change back the text. Barneygumble 14:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Earlier, I mentioned that it would be appropriate to include criticism. I agree that any criticism must be sourced and based in fact. --Noitall 20:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well the source seems dubious at best, not to mention that the "source's" opinion is stated as cold hard fact. Also, not to mention other sources show that Trifolic protested Milosevic in 1996. Obviously, he is critical of Islam. Some apologist authors are unfoundly trying an ad hominem attack again by dubiously linking him to Milosevic. Instead of criticizing the book, people attack the author. Barneygumble 13:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Instead of getting in unending revert wars, why not post a proposed passage here and try some changes, so everyone is equally disatisfied and all proper criticism is addressed. --Noitall 00:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it's true or not; the point is, it's not about this book, and is merely information copied from the article about the author for the purpose of poisoning the well. Jayjg (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I have to respectfully disagree. What is the difference between valid criticism alleging bias and "poisoning the well"? All articles of scholarship should be exposed to criticism -- that is called the scientific method. (Note my statement does not mean that any criticism by any source is appropriate to be included -- that is a different issue) --Noitall 21:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cited criticism of the book would be good; cited criticism which states that the book is biased because the author is biased is fine too. However, an editor who inserts his own allegations of bias in an attempt to poison the well is simply violating Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

100% agree. So what is the assessment of his source? --Noitall 05:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV chapter summary

CltFn, there's no way this edit [1] can stay as it is. I'm assuming these are your words, and this is your summary, is that right? If so, please go through it and get rid of all the POV language. If these are the author's words, we need quotation marks and page numbers. We have to write as though we have no opinion on the subject ourselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:49, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

These chapter summaries are POV, and we have no way of knowing how accurate they are, other than reading the book to check. I'd like to delete them. Does anyone else have a view? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
If you are going to get involved in this book page , then perhaps you should read the book. It is just amazing to me to see how many people who have not read the book yet who do not think twice at editing the contents of this page . Do you really expect to participate intelligently in any discussion and edits without doing any research?
The chapter summaries reflect the POV of the author in the same way that many other articles on other authors do. Now if you want to say straight out that you do not like what the author is saying and we should therefore censor the information like CAIR has tried to do, then say so.--CltFn 23:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC).

This article has some rather glaring flaws. I recommend that the people who are contributing, especially those who have read the book, look around WP at some other book articles for examples of what book articles should look like. WP is not a newspaper editorial page, and that's how this "book review" reads currently. I recommend something innocuous like David Copperfield (novel), Oliver Twist, A Tale of Two Cities, The Little Prince, or the top part of the article at Little House on the Prairie, or for a more controversial book, The Catcher in the Rye (a badly written article, but at least it doesn't get all entangled with reviewing the book like this article does). "But those books aren't about criticism of religion"? Excellent. Then they should serve as excellent models for articles on books that are. Tomer TALK 00:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Further criticism has been directed toward the author of the book[2] as a rationale for why the book is biased. Trifkovic has been a supporter of Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić and according to the BBC has had close relations with Ratko Mladić [3]. He has denied the massacre of several thousand Muslims in Srebrenica [4], describing the incident as a "stage-managed massacre" and "self-inflicted".[5]. He also claims, in a similar way to Holocaust deniers, that the figure of 250,000 Bosnian Muslims dead in the entire conflict is actually as low as 2,500[6].

This paragraph is causing a lot of reverting, and it's problematic because the claims are extreme and the sources are poor. The more extreme a claim, the more reputable and mainstream our references should be. First, we need a reputable, published source (not published on someone's website) that says criticism has been directed toward the author, and then the next bit "as a rationale for why the book is biased" should be rewritten, because as it stands it's a little unclear. Then we need reputable, published sources for each claim after that. We can't use sources like yahoo groups, or unknown people writing book reviews. I'm therefore going to comment out that paragraph until we find some decent sources to support it.

I agree that this page is POV, but inserting material with poor references won't make it NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Also, Heraclius has inserted the claim that the author is "highly controversial". According to whom? I wonder if we could include that qualifier when describing, say, Noam Chomsky. I highly doubt it. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I also took this out: "Critics have stated that "The book is similar to many such post-Cold War era books (written by pseudo-experts like Judith Miller & Co.) that are written to keep alive the perceived "threat" of Islam before our eyes, while guaranteeing themselves profitable fees, consultancies, recurrent appearances in TV and lucrative book contracts".
The critics aren't named, and there's material in quotation marks with no citation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
So the BBC is not a reputable source? The other's claims don't make him out to be controversial either?Heraclius 00:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
What source is that specifically? As for "highly controversial", is fairly meaningless well-poisoining. You could say the same about Bill Clinton, who also wrote a book. Those kinds of "qualifiers" are NPOV violations. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I have changed it to "noted for his highly controversial views". Please tell me how this is POV.Heraclius 00:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
According to whom is he "noted" for that? Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The BBC citation supported only the one claim, as I recall. What do you see it as supporting exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: I am afraid your mass removal of the criticism section will only cause more reverting. The whole point of a criticism section is to show criticism. Yes, some criticism may be biased, but it is still criticism.Heraclius 00:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the page needs criticism, but it does have to be referenced to credible published sources, or it's in violation of our policies. Yahoo groups and unknown book reviewers on websites are not regarded as credible sources for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Not only that, it's not criticism of the book, but criticism of the author. Criticism of the author is relevant on the author page; criticism of the book is relevant here. Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
And you have to produce a source that says he is "noted for his highly controversial views". You seem to be doing what CltFn did when he created this page. He just wrote a personal essay, with no sources, no encyclopedic writing, no respect for NPOV. It doesn't help to do the same thing again from the opposite direction. The bias of the criticism is not the issue: it's that we can't write personal essays or insert our own beliefs, then attribute them to unnamed "critics." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

This article has some rather glaring flaws. I recommend that the people who are contributing, especially those who have read the book, look around WP at some other book articles for examples of what book articles should look like. WP is not a newspaper editorial page, and that's how this "book review" reads currently. I recommend something innocuous like David Copperfield (novel), Oliver Twist, A Tale of Two Cities, The Little Prince, or the top part of the article at Little House on the Prairie, or for a more controversial book, The Catcher in the Rye (a badly written article, but at least it doesn't get all entangled with reviewing the book like this article does). "But those books aren't about criticism of religion"? Excellent. Then they should serve as excellent models for articles on books that are. Tomer TALK 00:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's inappropriate for CltFn to continue to add POV and possibly inaccurate material to this page, while other editors are trying to sort out existing POV issues. CLtFn, it would help if you could remove your latest edit until the page stabilizes, at least. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted to my last version and I got rid of "highly controversial". Before any disputed sections are added again, please be sure to include credible sources with them for each claim.
I also think CltFn's chapter descriptions should be deleted. They are POV, and we don't even know that he's summarizing them correctly. Does anyone have a view on this? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


This guy denies the Bosnian and Kosovan massacres. He has done so several times. I'm bemused why you guys want to take that out. You could chase up the cites in Siddiqui's review if you seriously doubted it. Here he claims the Kosovan stagemanaged their own massacres. Here is a nice bit of Islamophobia. He's not a supporter of Milosevic though, and that shouldn't be included; however, he is connected with the Bosnian Serbs. Here he suggests that certain Muslims should be barred from entry to the US by redesignating religious beliefs as "political" (in a typically Islamophobic article). I can't be bothered trawling through Google to find more of this guy's bile, but I wonder whether... well, best left unsaid, hey? Grace Note 00:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, the article about the massacres was certainly enlightening. I got to give it to you, he certainly seems deranged. --Noitall 01:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


This is by far my favorite Serge comment, given during an interview:
KRESTA: Let's leap from that to the Muslim next door. If what you describe is endemic to Islam, it is part of its basic standards, part of its history, why is it that in, say, Dearborn, Michigan, Muslims that I know do not seem as though they like Osama bin Laden?
Serge's response includes such great arguments as "When their numbers are low, with single-digit percentages, when they are only establishing themselves in an area, they will project an acceptable face." and "But we do have ourselves to blame for having fallen victim to the putrid, horrible, lukewarm ideology of multiculturalism that cannot be the basis of defense of anything at all. It is a form of anti-culturalism that opens the floodgates of hell." Once again, this guy is just a Neo-Nazi and here we have people defending him.Heraclius 01:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Must I remind the editors here that the issue is not what we think of Trifkovic, but rather what citeable and encyclopedic sources have said about The Sword of the Prophet. Please try to take the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies into account when writing articles, even about people you dislike. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not everyone disagrees with Serge Trifkovic

Trifkovic is a visionary, a great thinker, not politically correct at all, a rare quality these days , but his writings hit it right on the mark. Trifkovic speaks from first hand experience with the reality of being on the front lines of the Islamic assault on Europe, he is not one of the egg-heads writing in some library somewhere far removed from the real world.

Muslims do not like him one bit as he discloses the harsh realities about their culture which does not go down easily to say the least and so they desperately try to silence his voice and stereotype him with the usual labels they use on Muslim critics. And then there are the uninformed who come to a judgment about Serge's views without any on the ground experience with the Bosnian and Serbian conflicts and who are utterly ignorant of European history and the continuous Islamic raids in that area over the past thousand years and who just regurgitate the liberal media propaganda that has been stuffed down their throat such as "the Serbs are all war criminals and the Muslims their helpless innocent victims".

Its not like what Trifkovic says is not supported by tons of scholars and history, but then you would have to study history to see that.

Hats of to Serge Trifkivic for courageously standing up and telling it like it like he sees it. That cannot be said of the legions of politically correct folks who are in utter denial about the menace that is about to slice their heads right off. Anon 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No-one is saying that Nazis don't have their supporters. I hope you enjoy supporting Serge and his intelligent, enlightened statements such as "But we do have ourselves to blame for having fallen victim to the putrid, horrible, lukewarm ideology of multiculturalism that cannot be the basis of defense of anything at all. It is a form of anti-culturalism that opens the floodgates of hell."Heraclius 04:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes I get what he is alluding at , the kind of multi-culturalism that led to the Madrid and London bombings. The kind where you let in the enemy into your camp. He was also alluding to the kind of multiculturalism that falls prey to Al-Taqya, ie:
From Muhammad's time onwards, taqiyya - duplicity - is openly preached in Islam as the preferred and condoned tactic of softening resistance of non-Muslims to Muslim encroachment. When their numbers are low, with single-digit percentages, when they are only establishing themselves in an area, they will project an acceptable face. One may compare that to the early Muhammad, in Mecca: spirituality, tolerance, and all those Kuranic verses that were to be abrogated later on when he moved to Medina.
The Islamic world is not the best example of multi-culturalism and I am sure that most Muslims agree 100 % with Trifkovic, only they want to get the benefits of it in the West but not give it to others in Islamic countries. Sure they talk about tolerance etc right up to the moment that you pull out a bible and preach to muslims, then tolerance disappears really fast. Talk about multi-culturalisms to the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. Oh they agree with Trifkovic's statement alright.
I really do not know why the Muslims folks like yourself have to keep this totally unconvincing pretense that critics of Islam are misrepresenting Islam and that the Islamic world has only the noblests of intentions towards the non-muslim world. Give it up already, you are a disgrace to your own faith by lying through you teeth like this, I am sure more pious Muslims would agree with my remarks. You are out to conquer the world for Islam , you know it , we know it, so what is the cover-up , the big denial that continuously goes on ? What? you think you are going to be able to sneak up on the dumb and blind non-muslims? Forget it isn't going to happen at this point. The cat is out of the bag Mohamed, the world gets it.
Oh yes, the great big Global conspiracy that one quarter of the worlds population is keeping secret. You are on to it, quick, go tell the world! --Irishpunktom\talk 00:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need this talk section? It has nothing to do with writing the article and I have removed some of my more inflammatory comments. It seems that this will just turn into a pointless debate and it really poisons the atmosphere. I have already tried to remove it but I got reverted by an anon ip, hopefully some admin or other respected user can see the vitriol here and remove it.Heraclius 05:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
One more thing, how is flying planes into buildings "sneaking up" on dumb and blind non-Muslims? I mean this global secret conspiracy isn't being too subtle now, is it.Heraclius 05:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Well then you should stop your campaign to discredit critics like Trifkovic and others who are only stating things as they see it.

I see the old sources were put back in. These have been disputed so there's no point in re-inserting them. The editors who want to insert criticism have to find reputable, preferably mainstream, sources, instead of book reviews by unknown reviewers on unknown websites, or comments on mailing lists, which are unacceptable sources according to Wikipedia:No original research. It's also not appropriate to link to an article of Trifkovic's in order to show that he's highly controversial, because that means we're relying on the editor's opinion. Some might read that artice and not find it controversial. Instead, we need to find a reputable source who says he is highly controversial, or we need to find instances of controversy regarding him and his work. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think the many links that were provided, including the one on his own website, show that he has generated much controversy. Also, there have been no "mainstream" critics of this book because it is not that popular of a book. I have added a NPOV tag since the criticism section and any mention of his controversy keeps getting removed.Heraclius 03:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
If there been no criticism published by credible sources, then we can't include any. I've deleted the chapter descriptions, because they're POV and we link to a site that includes content anyway. Edits like this: "Unlike the Christian god who loves all creatures in his kingdom and allows free will, the Islamic god Allah only loves believers and rejects unbelievers, condemns them to fiery deaths, and forbids free will" are just silly, and we don't know whether CltFn is summarizing the chapters accurately. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
It is your conclusion that he has generated much controversy; it is not something you have provided citation for. Quote someone who says it. As for the book, your belief that there are no mainstream critics doesn't get you around the notability requirements for citations. Not to worry, though; Irishpunktom will be along soon enough to revert without comment, as is his custom. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I'm more worried about Cltfn coming back here and reverting without comment.Heraclius 04:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter summaries

Slim I have reinserted the chapter summaries, if you wish to challenge the content I invite you to get the book and read it and see for yourself. Until you read the book yourself you should not be making any major edits to this page as you are groping in the dark. If you want direct quotes then I can certainly provide them as time allows. --CltFn 04:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page) I do not know what is your agenda is, but have the integrity to read the book first before taking further actions on that page. If you have a valid point to make then I am open to it. Thank you.--CltFn 04:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
My agenda is to stop POV being inserted. I find it hard to believe that an author with a PhD in history would state or imply anything like this: "Unlike the Christian god who loves all creatures in his kingdom and allows free will, the Islamic god Allah only loves believers and rejects unbelievers, condemns them to fiery deaths, and forbids free will." It seems to me that this is your own idiosyncratic summary, and it bodes ill for the accuracy of your other summaries. We shouldn't have to read the book ourselves to judge whether what you've written is correct. Please find a credible source who summarizes the chapter contents, and either link to it or quote from it, depending on how neutral and credible it is. Otherwise, what you're doing is original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Well how about if I list short excerpts from the text to support the summaries I provide, would you then consider that this would pass the no original research standard?--CltFn 05:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem would remain that you'd be selecting what you thought were representative quotes from each chapter. It would be more encyclopedic to quote from a third-party source if you can find a neutral one who has written up chapter summaries, or better still, link to one in external links, then people can click on it if they want to read summaries. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:24, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Read my previous edit here on this talk page, and take it to heart. Also, take a look at my brilliantly written book article at Fatu Hiva: Back to Nature, and try to emulate that. I'll feel really flattered. Thanks. Tomer TALK 07:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good review, Tomer. It makes me want to read the book. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Oooh! Flattery! Me likes! It really is an enjoyable read, especially if you like Heyerdahl's ability to draw connections between dots everyone else says don't exist.  :-) Tomer TALK 23:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pleased with changes =

Yes I am happy to see this page has been made to a more NPOV standard. Presenting any material contained in the book is insensitive to the Muslim community. Saduj al-Dahij 19:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Your statements are mutually exclusive. Making the article NPOV disregards concern for the sensitivities of Muslims. If material contained in the book is expunged because it's insensitive to Muslims, that act, in and of itself, specifically makes the article POV. Tomer TALK 23:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Good point, but wasted on a strawman sockpuppet. A funny one, mind you, not like ProudWHITEIsraeli/TelAvidKid. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah context. Thanks for the laugh EnviroKnot (I assume)! :-)~ Tomer TALK 01:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter summaries to be re-inserted

On further reflection , the chapter summaries are valid material in this article. I see absolutely no reason why they should be censored. What is needed are other editors who have read the book to validate the accuracy of the summaries to deal with the concerns of some of the editors who have not taken the time to do the research themselves.--CltFn 04:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reinserting the chapter summaries. Not only are they POV, but they're also inappropriate. Please review What WikiPedia is not. As I've said previously, it would behoove you to review Fatu Hiva: Back to Nature and attempt to model this book article on that one. Please stop trying to turn this article into a book review/critique/analysis. Tomer TALK 03:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I respectively disagree, chapter summaries are in use in numerous book pages , though I will concede that the example that you provide is good. However I would like to suggest that this example that you give is not a very controversial page and therefore it is somewhat easier to develop it. I would even argue that were you to attempt to do a similar development on this page you would be met with fierce opposition by POV editors. Perhaps you could prove me wrong on that , you being a wise and seasoned editor as your advice seems to suggest.--CltFn 03:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this book is difficult to write an article upon which all interested parties (of which I do not consider myself one) can agree. That is why I referenced the book article I did. The fact that I happened to have been the primary author of that article should not negatively influence its consideration as a model for this article. In fact, the mere fact that that article is on a book that is not highly contentious, I would argue, makes it a perfect template for how to write the article on The Sword of the Prophet. I think we can agree that the Fatu Hiva book article is quite objective in its treatment of the book. This article should be likewise. I have no problem with a brief summary of the book itself, replete with quotes, but the chapter summaries end up analyzing the content of the book rather than simply discussing it neutrally and briefly. A section discussing the controversy the book has stirred up, here called "Criticism", is appropriate, and can even be expanded, but as soon as you start engaging in your personal analysis of the contents of each chapter, you start delving into the realm of original research, which is taboo in this venue. Tomer TALK 09:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not re-insert the chapter summaries. They are not encyclopedic. Rhobite 16:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Sword_of_the_Prophet_ea7e.html"