QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sat 29th December 2007, 12:38am)
QUOTE(SenseMaker @ Fri 28th December 2007, 11:35pm)
Instead of the term "trolling", it may be better to describe this as a form of "baiting." Thus one could call what is going on with the Muhammad article "Muslim baiting."
Maybe just anti- fundamentalist Islam?
Which a lot of people feel these days.
The image in question is inconsequential to the article though. We aren't talking about the Danish Muhammad cartoon controversy, we are talking about the Muhammad article. There is already a link to the detailed "Depictions_of_Muhammad" article in the "See also" section.
My point isn't that we should bow down to those of Islamic faith on all articles (especially those dealing with radical Islam or other systemetic problems of intolerance apparent in some cultures), but rather we shouldn't go out of our way to be purposely insulting when there is no other point.
The idea of baiting, both Muslim baiting and Jew baiting, is to intigate a response which you can then use to play the victim. The baiting of Jews often entails a unfair overly general accusation to which someone calls it correct as antisemitism, but then the baiter uses the response to claim that "now everything is antisemitic" but in reality the baiter was purposely being antisemitic and is now false playing the victim, sometimes to great effect. The truth of the matter is that the baiter is trying to get a response so that he can then play the victim of the other group's seemingly over zealous accusations of intolerance. Muslims nor Jews nor Christians are all perfect people, but to purposely bait any of these groups is just going to widen divides and spread more intolerance (although sometimes this is exactly the goals of those doing the baiting.)
Wikipedia is allowing a few non-Muslim individuals to hijack the Muhammad article for the purposes of Muslim baiting. It is wrong and disgraceful. It is also highly anti-consensus of the boarder public.
QUOTE
Well it could be argued that not only that, but whatever other things to which Muslims or others decided to take offence could face objections and removal.
For instance, a few weeks ago on the village pump or somewhere, someone was trying to argue that the term "the five pillars of Wikipedia" might be offensive to Muslims.
I don't think this is a slipperly slope issue as the Muhammad article is a historical/religious/mythical figure, it is not a scientific article nor does it deal with Wikipedia policy. I am a beliver that selective and intelligent accommodation goes a long way to ensuring a functioning multicultural society. Although, it is also important not to confuse accommodation with appeasement, there is a significant difference.
This post has been edited by SenseMaker: