Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[Michaeldsuarez]

the other forum.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Wiki/Wikipedia:

The Other Wiki Forum. The wiki forum that most few people are familiar with. The one that isn't us. The one that the spam filter doesn't want to see mentioned.

Let's dub it "TOF".

[Emperor]

I'm kind of offended by Piss Christ. How do I get that taken off Wikipedia?

[powercorrupts]

"blitzed our burgeoning discussion"? What does that mean?

zoloft tar-pitted (or whatever their equivalent is) our Muhammad discussion over at the other forum.

Was your discussion off topic? I'm not sure zoloft is a great start as an admin in the new site, but I've no idea what you wrote, or what your names are there. It looks like that site is only so-far half-developed (I can't find a tar pit, and the subject areas are limited), but almost everyone seems to have migrated to it.

Basically I p/word reset to see why there was so few new posts, and it looks like this place is falling apart - it's like whole topics are crumbling as you watch. I was getting cheesed off with it and went viewer-only, but had no idea it would decline as dramatically as like this. Is Selina going to the sell the site, or perhaps even just the domain? Has she suggested anything at all about her plans? I still think there is hope for WR if Selina ends her tenure as publisher/editor of The Review and passes the name on. I personally think the need for a fresh start has been around for a while, probably since the period where Selina wasn't even around posting.

[Tarc]

All you have to do is admit that it's the Islamic aspect of this issue that makes it impossible for WP to compromise, irrespective of your own feelings in the matter, and we'd be in complete agreement with no need for further jawing on it.

Y'know, whether they don't want to look at pictures of their prophet has never really been the issue. What puts the piss in my Cheerios is when they condemn the fact that the images are available period. That is what crosses into "tough shit" territory.

Let's dub it "TOF".

I've been partial to the "Kohsocracy", since the splinter group thing was largely a product of his infantile ego.

I'm kind of offended by Piss Christ. How do I get that taken off Wikipedia?

Do you have any self-awareness of how much of a dumbass troll you are, or are we dealing with a bit of a Dunning–Kruger here, chief?

[HRIP7]

Y'know, whether they don't want to look at pictures of their prophet has never really been the issue. What puts the piss in my Cheerios is when they condemn the fact that the images are available period. That is what crosses into "tough shit" territory.

You've never progressed beyond the reactionary position of wanting, nay, needing to be contrary.

[Somey]

Y'know, whether they don't want to look at pictures of their prophet has never really been the issue. What puts the piss in my Cheerios is when they condemn the fact that the images are available period. That is what crosses into "tough shit" territory.

You've never progressed beyond the reactionary position of wanting, nay, needing to be contrary.

True, but in his defense (for once), he has a right to be angry about that - and frankly, it really is an extremely problematic demand, given the modern technological age we live in.

I might even say that our problem here has been that we're actually talking about different issues altogether. He's saying the Western world should not be "held hostage" to old Muslim religious prohibitions, and he's absolutely correct to say that. But he either doesn't distinguish between Wikipedia and The Western World, which to me seems wrong almost to the point of irrationality, or (more likely) he believes that Wikipedia should be seen as a key battleground where culturally-progressive thinkers must "hold the line" against what he would probably characterize as backward, anti-progressive religious zealotry and extremism.

And, presumably, he either rejects the idea that a prohibition on such imagery is actually more progressive in the larger sense than having Muslims not care how their foundational religious figures are depicted, or else (again, more likely) he rejects the notion that major religions should receive that kind of "special consideration" at all. And if it's the latter, you can hardly blame him; I'm sure there are lots of people who would love to have images removed from Wikipedia for all sorts of reasons, but can't, and are ultimately just forced to lump it, just like the Muslims are now.

I guess we might never get Mr. Tarc to understand that Wikipedia is a terrible, terrible place for this "battle" to be fought - maybe the worst place on the internet - and that this is why many of us object to their carrying these images, far more than the mere fact that the images "exist." Having this conflict on Wikipedia solves nothing and can only exacerbate the problem and increase inter-cultural hostility, whereas if it occurred in a more controlled and civilized environment, ehhh, not so much. But I'll admit this is just speculation on my part... and either way, we'll probably never know now.

[Zoloft]

I believe that an encyclopedia is crippled if it defers to any religious or ideological dogma, and that an article is enhanced by images if they are relevant to the text.

Finally, cogent arguments!

I have been making that argument for years, not my fault that you're late to the game.

A shame too that the Kohsocracy just blitzed our burgeoning discussion over there, as the last point I made was really the heart of the matter. All you can do on this matter is talk talk talk, you lack the ability to actually do.

Pity.

Eh. It was off topic by a mile. I just stuck it on ice. You want I should shove it back in to the 'Off Topic' area?

I don't claim to be good at herding cats.

[Somey]

I just stuck it on ice. You want I should shove it back in to the 'Off Topic' area?

Naaah, you did the right thing. Mr. Tarc doesn't really want to discuss the issue in context, he really just wants to make us feel bad for being "ineffectual," even though few of us actually want what he thinks we want. You can't really blame him - it's a lot easier to think in those terms.

[Web Fred]

I do agree that endlessly talking about this is pointless, but as long as I'm in a semi-authoritative position here, I don't feel that we can let this type of argument go unchallenged. (That's not to say I won't die in a car accident tomorrow.) All you have to do is admit that it's the Islamic aspect of this issue that makes it impossible for WP to compromise, irrespective of your own feelings in the matter, and we'd be in complete agreement with no need for further jawing on it.

From a personal PoV I don't believe that WP should back down to ANY religious bollocks, regardless of the reason, regardless of the religion.

Religion is single-handedly the biggest cause of problems in the world today and as such shouldn't be allowed more of an effect than it already has.

[powercorrupts]

I do agree that endlessly talking about this is pointless, but as long as I'm in a semi-authoritative position here, I don't feel that we can let this type of argument go unchallenged. (That's not to say I won't die in a car accident tomorrow.) All you have to do is admit that it's the Islamic aspect of this issue that makes it impossible for WP to compromise, irrespective of your own feelings in the matter, and we'd be in complete agreement with no need for further jawing on it.

From a personal PoV I don't believe that WP should back down to ANY religious bollocks, regardless of the reason, regardless of the religion.

Religion is single-handedly the biggest cause of problems in the world today and as such shouldn't be allowed more of an effect than it already has.

That's such a shitty cliche. "Shouldn't be allowed" - you should listen to your language, and what it sounds like.

Others feel that greed and narrow-mindedness are the biggest problems in the world today, and that religion (realistic or not - and that is hardly the point) is a fundamental right (if not need), which typically leads to extremism when societies are controlled and bullied, usually so someone gets (and shuffles back) the best deal (a resource of some kind, perhaps) at the expense of the people (their personal and collective wealth, and their cultural and spiritual development). You only have to look at the qualities of the area and compared it to the qualities of the religion, though I suppose you would reverse the reasons and blame the extremism for cultural decay.

For me (and plenty like me) it is attitudes like yours above that actually creates 'bad' religion.

I'll pm Selina personally if nobody knows what's going on.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Sat 14th April 2012, 10:20am

[powercorrupts]

I believe that an encyclopedia is crippled if it defers to any religious or ideological dogma, and that an article is enhanced by images if they are relevant to the text.

Finally, cogent arguments!

I have been making that argument for years, not my fault that you're late to the game.

A shame too that the Kohsocracy just blitzed our burgeoning discussion over there, as the last point I made was really the heart of the matter. All you can do on this matter is talk talk talk, you lack the ability to actually do.

Pity.

Eh. It was off topic by a mile. I just stuck it on ice. You want I should shove it back in to the 'Off Topic' area?

I don't claim to be good at herding cats.

What parts are you good at then? You need to sort that kind of thing out. I've joined it, but I'm a bit hesitant to post yet (which on the content front would be something I never bothered posting here).

Is there an off topic area yet? You need to develop that site ASAP - it's not good to run it in a half-baked condition imo. You need a good start, not one where people complain about mod decisions (which could ostensibly be fine) - mods should be boring and invisible, at least when they are modding. You seem have carried on your gnomic comments there (ie re its content) - is it right for that site (ie from a mod)? You need to think about those kind of things.

Somey can give advice here and there - and some will be good, some will be bad imo - but really, this WPD (or whatever you call it) needs to be a new show. Don't take his negativity if he says bad x will definitely happen if you don't etc.

Getting the moderating right is essential. Look at the problems this place had from its very outset all the way to its seeming end.

You need to get more areas into it pronto too I would say, and develop the appearance if you can. Good luck though.

[Web Fred]

I do agree that endlessly talking about this is pointless, but as long as I'm in a semi-authoritative position here, I don't feel that we can let this type of argument go unchallenged. (That's not to say I won't die in a car accident tomorrow.) All you have to do is admit that it's the Islamic aspect of this issue that makes it impossible for WP to compromise, irrespective of your own feelings in the matter, and we'd be in complete agreement with no need for further jawing on it.

From a personal PoV I don't believe that WP should back down to ANY religious bollocks, regardless of the reason, regardless of the religion.

Religion is single-handedly the biggest cause of problems in the world today and as such shouldn't be allowed more of an effect than it already has.

That's such a shitty cliche. "Shouldn't be allowed" - you should listen to your language, and what it sounds like.

On the defensive right out of the gate eh?

Others feel that greed and narrow-mindedness are the biggest problems in the world today, and that religion (realistic or not - and that is hardly the point) is a fundamental right (if not need), which typically leads to extremism when societies are controlled and bullied, usually so someone gets (and shuffles back) the best deal (a resource of some kind, perhaps) at the expense of the people (their personal and collective wealth, and their cultural and spiritual development). You only have to look at the qualities of the area and compared it to the qualities of the religion, though I suppose you would reverse the reasons and blame the extremism for cultural decay.

I'll agree that greed and narrow-mindedness is a problem, but could equally be aimed at the Roman Catholic church.

I see your attempt to turn a black and white argument into a grey one, but as my DNA doesn't allow me to be sensitive to shades of grey I'll just have to disregard it. What I do know is that religious extremism wouldn't exist without religious dogma, which in turn exists because of the existence of organised religions.

For me (and plenty like me) it is attitudes like yours above that actually creates 'bad' religion.

Alas, it's attitudes like yours that allows religions to exist.

I'll pm Selina personally if nobody knows what's going on.

And just what do you think is "going on"?

[Fusion]

Practising Christians compared to practising Muslims? It would be interesting to see the figures for the comparison.

First, you have to define "practising". Is not a Muslim only a practising one if he prays five times a day? Must not he have absolutely nothing to eat nor drink, no not a sip of water, throughout daylight in the month of Ramadan? How many Muslims do all that? And I expect that a Shia Muslim would claim that no Sunni Muslim is properly a practising Muslim. And vice versa. No, all we can go by is does someone identify with a religion and not claim to be lapsed?

Muslims are the new Jews.

Who will be more offended by that idea, I wonder? Jews or Muslims?

[Fusion]

I don't claim to be good at herding cats.

That suggests that you may be relatively bad at being a forum moderator! Maybe you could practise by assisting Kofi Annan in Syria. If you could get all the parties there to be friendly to each other, you would be ready to begin to learn how to handle the big beasts on a certain forum!

This post has been edited by Fusion: Sat 14th April 2012, 1:51pm

[Web Fred]

Practising Christians compared to practising Muslims? It would be interesting to see the figures for the comparison.

First, you have to define "practising". Is not a Muslim only a practising one if he prays five times a day? Must not he have absolutely nothing to eat nor drink, no not a sip of water, throughout daylight in the month of Ramadan? How many Muslims do all that? And I expect that a Shia Muslim would claim that no Sunni Muslim is properly a practising Muslim. And vice versa. No, all we can go by is does someone identify with a religion and not claim to be lapsed?

The problem is how the figures are collated in the first place. I know in the UK it's a combination of census data and birth data. Technically I'm classed as Church of England, though in reality I'm an agnostic. My next door neighbour considers herself to be Christian yet hasn't been to church since she was a young girl. I'd consider someone a practising Christian if they attend church at least once a week, the same for the Muslims.

I'd be willing to bet that the number of regular church attendees (or Muslim equivalent) is far higher in the Muslim camp.

I don't claim to be good at herding cats.

That suggests that you may be relatively bad at being a forum moderator! Maybe you could practise by assisting Kofi Annan in Syria. If you could get all the parties there to be friendly to each other, you would be ready to begin to learn how to handle the big beasts on a certain forum!

By all accounts he's not doing a particularly good job over at the other place.

[powercorrupts]

I do agree that endlessly talking about this is pointless, but as long as I'm in a semi-authoritative position here, I don't feel that we can let this type of argument go unchallenged. (That's not to say I won't die in a car accident tomorrow.) All you have to do is admit that it's the Islamic aspect of this issue that makes it impossible for WP to compromise, irrespective of your own feelings in the matter, and we'd be in complete agreement with no need for further jawing on it.

From a personal PoV I don't believe that WP should back down to ANY religious bollocks, regardless of the reason, regardless of the religion.

Religion is single-handedly the biggest cause of problems in the world today and as such shouldn't be allowed more of an effect than it already has.

That's such a shitty cliche. "Shouldn't be allowed" - you should listen to your language, and what it sounds like.

On the defensive right out of the gate eh?

Others feel that greed and narrow-mindedness are the biggest problems in the world today, and that religion (realistic or not - and that is hardly the point) is a fundamental right (if not need), which typically leads to extremism when societies are controlled and bullied, usually so someone gets (and shuffles back) the best deal (a resource of some kind, perhaps) at the expense of the people (their personal and collective wealth, and their cultural and spiritual development). You only have to look at the qualities of the area and compared it to the qualities of the religion, though I suppose you would reverse the reasons and blame the extremism for cultural decay.

I'll agree that greed and narrow-mindedness is a problem, but could equally be aimed at the Roman Catholic church.

I see your attempt to turn a black and white argument into a grey one, but as my DNA doesn't allow me to be sensitive to shades of grey I'll just have to disregard it. What I do know is that religious extremism wouldn't exist without religious dogma, which in turn exists because of the existence of organised religions.

For me (and plenty like me) it is attitudes like yours above that actually creates 'bad' religion.

Alas, it's attitudes like yours that allows religions to exist.

I'll pm Selina personally if nobody knows what's going on.

And just what do you think is "going on"?

You seem to be the one with the 'prior knowledge' here! The above argument on religion is the one I've always used on this site when encountering people like you. I've not crossed your path before though, at least not as 'wikihamster'. Once a socker always a socker perhaps (J. Worthington Foulfellow?).

I've PM'd Selina now about WR, I should have done that instead of going here really. I wasn't here for at least a month, and all the missing threads don't exactly help.

PS. "Alas, it's attitudes like yours that allows religions to exist."?? You seem very keen on things being "allowed" to exist or not. It's the Rambo philosophy I guess.

[Emperor]

zoloft tar-pitted (or whatever their equivalent is) our Muhammad discussion over at the other forum.

Oh ok. In defense of those guys, it's not like they just horned in on some place and accumulated enough game points to start hassling the regulars. This is a forum they started themselves, and they did warn everyone that they were going to ruthlessly moderate it from the beginning.

[Web Fred]

I've not crossed your path before though, at least not as 'wikihamster'.

Yeah, I've never come across wikihamster either.

[powercorrupts]

I've not crossed your path before though, at least not as 'wikihamster'.

Yeah, I've never come across wikihamster either.

Beg your pardon - 'Web Fred'. Shucks you socks.

[Bottled_Spider]

And just what do you think is "going on"?

You seem to be the one with the 'prior knowledge' here!

I've PM'd Selina now about WR, I should have done that instead of going here really. I wasn't here for at least a month, and all the missing threads don't exactly help.

As the "Selina" person seems to be in hibernation at the moment, would you consider giving us a few clues about what's going on? Just a taster will do. I'm not trying to be a bastard, or anything; I could simply use a laugh about now. Cheers, mate.