Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, I'm shocked, shocked to find drama on Wikipedia Options

[Eva Destruction]

Three-to-one-on that this argument results in (1) someone being blocked, (2) someone saying "do you know who I am?", (3) someone whining on Jimmy Wales's talkpage and/or (4) a mention in the Register. You heard it here first.

[thekohser]

Who's next? The Wikimedia Foundation headquarters?

[mbz1]

Who's next? The Wikimedia Foundation headquarters?

No worries they will not touch The Wikimedia Foundation headquarters, at least not while administrator rama is tagging the Holocaust related images with {{di-replaceable fair use}} and not while administrator Gatoclass states something like that:

Thirdly, even if one took seriously the evidence presented by the Russians at Nuremberg that the Danzig Anatomic Institute conducted such experiments, AFAIK no evidence has ever been presented that the raw materials came specifically from the fat of Jews being slaughtered in Nazi extermination camps.

and not while wikipedia will host such antisemitic garbage

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Tarc]

Who's next? The Wikimedia Foundation headquarters?

The lengths these backwards knuckle-draggers will go to enforce their warped fundamentalism is nauseating. There's nbeen a slow-burning shitstorm at the Muhammed article regarding images over the last few weeks, too.

and not while wikipedia will host such antisemitic garbage

Whether it is antisemitic or not (I find it to be more of a criticism of Dershowitz for being a hypocritical asshole rather than for being a Jew) is largely irrelevant. Just because the Wikipedia hosts an antisemitic poster doesn't mean that their are abetting or perpetuating the antisemitism.

They have the Jyllands-Posten poster too. Do you decry the Wikipedia for hosting "anti-Muslim garbage" ?

[mbz1]

Who's next? The Wikimedia Foundation headquarters?

The lengths these backwards knuckle-draggers will go to enforce their warped fundamentalism is nauseating. There's nbeen a slow-burning shitstorm at the Muhammed article regarding images over the last few weeks, too.

and not while wikipedia will host such antisemitic garbage

Whether it is antisemitic or not (I find it to be more of a criticism of Dershowitz for being a hypocritical asshole rather than for being a Jew) is largely irrelevant. Just because the Wikipedia hosts an antisemitic poster doesn't mean that their are abetting or perpetuating the antisemitism.

They have the Jyllands-Posten poster too. Do you decry the Wikipedia for hosting "anti-Muslim garbage" ?

I do not believe that because the Wikipedia hosts an antisemitic poster it means that they are abetting or perpetuating the antisemitism. Not at all, but antisemitic pictures should be added to the right category:Category:Antisemitic pictures , which this is not, and it makes all the difference.

On the other hand this poster is added to the category "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" with the key word here being "controversy", but honestly I do not believe wikipedia should host any images concerning Muhammed at all. If it is so important for Muslims not to have the images of their Prophet, if it is prohibited by their believes why to make people suffer?

This post has been edited by mbz1: