Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[Web Fred]

...wringing their hands over something that has nothing to do with them, that they have little actual understanding of...

Oh, I think I have a LOT more understanding of it than you, or most Wikipedians for that matter. Of course, I could say the same for my cat. In fact, I could say the same for what's in the cat box.

However, you might be right about the indifference and disdain. Thankfully, that's not the point, nor do I care either way.

Please don't confuse "having an understanding" with "having an opinion".

[HRIP7]

I've only meet one Muslim and that was while I was in college. I wished him a happy Islamic New Year and he looked confused. "Oh, we don't celebrate that where I come from. We just celebrate the regular New Year." Whenever I meet someone outside of my "cultural comfort zone," I always struggle to connect with them. I always want to say to them "Just tell me everything about you, your culture, your history, your country, etc." Instead, I try to think of something I read on the Internet or saw on TV and ask if that is true. "So, you're from Germany. Did you know that gay marriage was just legalized there?" "Yes, they enacted that in 2000." Then the conversation ended on a strange note. It's awkward and I probably do come across as an ignorant, white, male, Southern American to some people. But I try to connect and relate! Some people asked the poor German guy if he was a Nazi. At least, I had the sense and common decency not to ask that. And I certainly didn't ask the Arab-Israeli student if he was a terrorist (though I'm sure he may have heard that at least once. His drunken roommate once asked him if he was the Prophet. Major facepalm.).

I've read a great deal about Islam, but, since I am not immersed in it nor converse often with Muslims, my perspective and understanding is narrow as is many people. I have empathy and I try not to intentional offend (except in cases of dealing with a complete ignoramus who cares little for decent dialogue and wants to be combative. I'm looking at you, Osama bin Laden). It's difficult to explain to those outside the United States and "the West" about freedom of speech, thought, press, etc. when they have never been exposed to those ideas (Heck, even Westerners/Americans forget about those concepts. I'm looking at you, PATRIOT ACT). I do not believe in putting up pictures of the Prophet for "teh lulz" or to intentional offend. However, free speech means that such things happen. Society can shun and denounce, but not legally stop that sort of thing (at least in the U.S.).

If what Tarc says is true and that the images are for education exclusively, then they should stay. Does a chaotic and mercurial community like the English Wikipedian community (which does have a record of making decisions solely to "screw" with people) have the maturity and ability to make the editorial decision to keep those images? I don't think so.

Does anyone have access to Britannica, World Book, or any professional encyclopedia? What sort of images are displayed on the Prophet Muhammad articles? Any of the Prophet?

That was the argument by the likes of me and Elonka – that Wikipedia was showing more of these images than the literature generally does. There is certainly not a single such image in all of Encyclopædia Britannica.

I got in touch with one of the world's most prominent scholars on Muhammad images, Christiane J. Gruber, and posted some related comments by her in the RfC.

This is someone who researches and writes about Muhammad images for a living, and who knows them better than probably any other scholar alive today. Her recommendation was to use them "sparingly" in the Wikipedia article on Muhammad, saying that an "anti-censorship stance need not be bombastic; it can be nuanced and respectful, nicht wahr?"

Wikipedia, however, doesn't do nuanced and respectful. It's kind of the antithesis to what Wikipedia is about.

[HRIP7]

Oy, we heard you don't like images.

Guess what?

We put LOADS OF THEM in!

Because we can.™

The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked. Stop being such a fuckwit.

Sorry, I missed a few goes. No it hasn't!



You'd admit that, too, if you knew more about Islam than what can be written on the back of an envelope.

[nableezy]

All of the images in the article relate to the text nearby, i.e. the Black Stone image appears next to a passage describing...wait for it...the Black Stone, and its significance to Muhammad's life.

Out of curiosity, why did you pick that image? Because your use of it refutes your point. See, for example, this diff. Where exactly was the passage describing the "significance" of this event in Muhammad's life? It wasn't there, and it hadn't been there for three years. The material was added to the article most recently in a rather obvious, and successful, effort to keep the image regardless of the importance, or even the veracity, of the event it depicts.

The only way the "screw you" option would have any credibility would be if there were images in the article that were intentionally derogatory, e.g. the Jyllands-Posten comics or the image from Dante's Inferno. None of the images are like that though, they are simply there to accompany the text of the article itself. Nothing more insidious or devious.

I actually think the image from Dante's Inferno is one that should be used. If the point of the images is actually to educate, then the image that provides the most educational value, bar none, is that illustration. Put that in the section on European and Western views, replacing that useless "Muhammad Preaching" image, and remove the other images that serve only to adorn the article, not provide any "education" (Just looking quickly, the one about the last sermon and the one meeting Gabriel would fit that in my opinion, especially the Gabriel one).

[Tarc]

All of the images in the article relate to the text nearby, i.e. the Black Stone image appears next to a passage describing...wait for it...the Black Stone, and its significance to Muhammad's life.

Out of curiosity, why did you pick that image? Because your use of it refutes your point.

Um, no, it doesn't. The image was included without any mention or connection by the article at first, removal was proposed, but instead several editors worked on adding a section to the article to support its rete ntion.

Imagine that; a measured, collaborative effort to solve a sensitive/controversial issue. That's what editing the Muhammad article was like before the butthurt, i.e. Ludwigs and HansAdler, descended.

...wringing their hands over something that has nothing to do with them, that they have little actual understanding of...

Oh, I think I have a LOT more understanding of it than you,

You have about as much understanding as the poor white girl in my image example above does about black culture, i.e. nothing practical.

[nableezy]

Um, no, it doesn't. The image was included without any mention or connection by the article at first, removal was proposed, but instead several editors worked on adding a section to the article to support its rete ntion.

Imagine that; a measured, collaborative effort to solve a sensitive/controversial issue. That's what editing the Muhammad article was like before the butthurt, i.e. Ludwigs and HansAdler, descended.

Bullshit. A number of editors decided that an image on a topic that receives little weight in real biographies of Muhammad (see for example Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad") must be kept, and that anybody who wanted to remove a trivial image on a trivial, and perhaps bogus, event was a BadMan who wanted to OMG CENSOR OMG!!! So they added text to support the image. Not the other way around. That other way around being the one that would make sense if the "fuck you, I'll do what I want because I can" reason was not a, and likely the, driving reason for a number of your compatriots passionate support for what is a useless image.

[Web Fred]

Um, no, it doesn't. The image was included without any mention or connection by the article at first, removal was proposed, but instead several editors worked on adding a section to the article to support its rete ntion.

Imagine that; a measured, collaborative effort to solve a sensitive/controversial issue. That's what editing the Muhammad article was like before the butthurt, i.e. Ludwigs and HansAdler, descended.

Bullshit. A number of editors decided that an image on a topic that receives little weight in real biographies of Muhammad (see for example Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad") must be kept, and that anybody who wanted to remove a trivial image on a trivial, and perhaps bogus, event was a BadMan who wanted to OMG CENSOR OMG!!! So they added text to support the image. Not the other way around. That other way around being the one that would make sense if the "fuck you, I'll do what I want because I can" reason was not a, and likely the, driving reason for a number of your compatriots passionate support for what is a useless image.

Bollocks. The ones who should be buttfucked are those vandals who removed any reference to Cassius Clay.

Bastards!

[Tarc]

Um, no, it doesn't. The image was included without any mention or connection by the article at first, removal was proposed, but instead several editors worked on adding a section to the article to support its rete ntion.

Imagine that; a measured, collaborative effort to solve a sensitive/controversial issue. That's what editing the Muhammad article was like before the butthurt, i.e. Ludwigs and HansAdler, descended.

Bullshit. A number of editors decided that an image on a topic that receives little weight in real biographies of Muhammad (see for example Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad") must be kept, and that anybody who wanted to remove a trivial image on a trivial, and perhaps bogus, event was a BadMan who wanted to OMG CENSOR OMG!!! So they added text to support the image. Not the other way around. That other way around being the one that would make sense if the "fuck you, I'll do what I want because I can" reason was not a, and likely the, driving reason for a number of your compatriots passionate support for what is a useless image.

Can I have an English translation for this fuckwit's blathering?

An image was added. Someone suggested removal because it had little connection to the text. Text was added. Image was kept.

Its not rocket science, el Che.

[The Joy]

Um, no, it doesn't. The image was included without any mention or connection by the article at first, removal was proposed, but instead several editors worked on adding a section to the article to support its rete ntion.

Imagine that; a measured, collaborative effort to solve a sensitive/controversial issue. That's what editing the Muhammad article was like before the butthurt, i.e. Ludwigs and HansAdler, descended.

Bullshit. A number of editors decided that an image on a topic that receives little weight in real biographies of Muhammad (see for example Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad") must be kept, and that anybody who wanted to remove a trivial image on a trivial, and perhaps bogus, event was a BadMan who wanted to OMG CENSOR OMG!!! So they added text to support the image. Not the other way around. That other way around being the one that would make sense if the "fuck you, I'll do what I want because I can" reason was not a, and likely the, driving reason for a number of your compatriots passionate support for what is a useless image.

Can I have an English translation for this fuckwit's blathering?

An image was added. Someone suggested removal because it had little connection to the text. Text was added. Image was kept.

Its not rocket science, el Che.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse, though?

[nableezy]

Can I have an English translation for this fuckwit's blathering?

An image was added. Someone suggested removal because it had little connection to the text. Text was added. Image was kept.

Its not rocket science, el Che.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse, though?

That's the point, though it may be difficult to understand from a fuckwit, so I'll try in smaller words and less blathering. Tarc insists that each image is there not because of the personal prejudices of those who insist on keeping them, but because there is some educational value when an image augments the text. That is clearly untrue, as text is added to support the image. People insist on using images regardless of the images connection to the text, and the fact that an image was in the article for 3 years with not one word related to it in the text makes the point obvious, at least to those who arent, willfully or because they are really just that stupid, sticking their heads in the sand.

This post has been edited by nableezy: Sat 5th May 2012, 4:16pm

[Tarc]

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse, though?

Not really important if the end result is an improvement to the article.

That's the point, though it may be difficult to understand from a fuckwit, so I'll try in smaller words and less blathering.

Given your trolling of the I-P topic area for years now, that'd be no small miracle.

People insist on using images regardless of the images connection to the text,

That would be a lie

and the fact that an image was in the article for 3 years with not one word related to it in the text makes the point obvious, at least to those who arent, willfully or because they are really just that stupid, sticking their heads in the sand.

That's the beauty of the "anyone can edit" encyclopedia, right? The "So Fix It" mentality. The article is now fixed, so you can proceed to shut the fuck up about it.


The funny thing is, I've generally been on the same side as this clown over the years in the I-P battles. But touch his prehistoric religious tenets in the slightest?! Oooo, the gloves come off.

This is why I would gleefully nuke the whole fucking region into glass if my finger were near the shiny red button.

[nableezy]

People insist on using images regardless of the images connection to the text,

That would be a lie

Then why exactly was there an image retained in the article for 3 years with absolutely no connection to the article? And when it is removed for that reason, it is restored, again with no connection to anything anywhere in the article?

That's the beauty of the "anyone can edit" encyclopedia, right? The "So Fix It" mentality. The article is now fixed, so you can proceed to shut the fuck up about it.

I assume by "fixed" you mean giving an excessive amount of weight to an unimportant and possibly bogus episode just so that you and your pals can say "look at me, I can do what I want!"

The funny thing is, I've generally been on the same side as this clown over the years in the I-P battles. But touch his prehistoric religious tenets in the slightest?! Oooo, the gloves come off.

Dumbass, have you not noticed that I said use the image from Dante's Inferno? Do you know anything of what I have written on the topic on-wiki? You are drawn to controversial topics because you think taking some tough guy stance on the internet actually means you are a tough guy. You act like you were Obama's protection, and that you spoke for the oppressed in Palestine in the face of overwhelming opposition, or that you are the dyke that stops the Muslim fanatics, of which I am apparently one, from overwhelming Wikipedia with Wahhabi tenets. Youre not. I dont give a fuck about that article, I dont care how many pictures you put up. I think you are stupid for taking many of the positions you take, but I aint exactly what you would call rigid in my practice of religion, so if you think that posting some image or saying some nonsense will offend me then, well, I guess we can add one more bit of stupidity to your tally. If there is an image that actually is educational, serves some purpose beyond fulfilling your desire to act like the hardest man on the internet, then use it. Thats why I said use the Dante's Inferno image. The others serve no purpose, they are there with the aim of offending others or due to some misguided bunker mentality of "we must protect the wiki!!!". Or because some wannabe tough guy decided that this was the next fight for him to take on the internet. Where you fall in that list should be fairly obvious.

This post has been edited by nableezy: Sun 6th May 2012, 6:52pm

[Tarc]

...

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

(And as my racial makeup is best described as "Oreo", I get to say that.)

[Somey]

(And as my racial makeup is best described as "Oreo", I get to say that.)

You wouldn't if we had people with moderation privileges.

[Web Fred]

(And as my racial makeup is best described as "Oreo", I get to say that.)

You wouldn't if we had people with moderation privileges.

Good.

Moderators are over-rated anyway.

[Web Fred]

...

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

(And as my racial makeup is best described as "Oreo", I get to say that.)

Nigger or nigga?

Enquiring minds wish to know.

Oreo eh? Hmmm?

Does that mean you're green and furry?



Or blue?

[Somey]

Moderators are over-rated anyway.

You'd rather have racists than moderators? (Other than in-name-only moderators, that is...)

This says a lot about you as a person, does it not?

[Emperor]

I'm uncomfortable with anyone using that word, no matter what they say they are.

[Web Fred]

Moderators are over-rated anyway.

You'd rather have racists than moderators? (Other than in-name-only moderators, that is...)

This says a lot about you as a person, does it not?

The sort of person I am is one who supports free speech.

You gotta take the good with the bad.

[Somey]

The sort of person I am is one who supports free speech.

Jeez, how many times have we heard that before...

Racism is not "free speech," Mr. Fred. It's simply racism. Those who support racism under the false banner of "free speech" are actually harming free speech, by giving the ever-growing numbers of media-savvy extremist demagogues yet another excuse to try to curtail it. Luckily, nobody is listening to you or Mr. Tarc, or anyone else who posts here these days, including myself... but that isn't really an excuse.

Normally this thread would be closed around now, but I'm guessing that such nuanced approaches to maintaining topicality are just another thing we'll have to live without for a while.