Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[Wikitaka]

For no reason, Xavexgoem protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.

What else does Xavexgoem have on his record?

[Web Fred]

For no reason, Xavexgoem protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.

What else does Xavexgoem have on his record?

Virgin Killer (T-H-L-K-D)?

[Tarc]

For no reason, Xavexgoem protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.

What else does Xavexgoem have on his record?

It has nothing to do with Xavexgoem.

The WMF controversial content study recommended that the image discussion be limited to registered users, as the subject area has had a history of insipid "REMOVE IMAGES THEY OFFEND MEEEEEEE!" retardation from IPs and single-purpose-accounts over the years.

[Web Fred]

For no reason, Xavexgoem protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.

What else does Xavexgoem have on his record?

It has nothing to do with Xavexgoem.

The WMF controversial content study recommended that the image discussion be limited to registered users, as the subject area has had a history of insipid "REMOVE IMAGES THEY OFFEND MEEEEEEE!" retardation from IPs and single-purpose-accounts over the years.

In any case they can always register and wait the 5 days. The RFC isn't over until April 19th.

One thing I do find surprising, especially with regard to the arguments for hat notes and collapsing what-nots, is that no-one has hit on the fact that the problem isn't with Moslems seeing the images, it's the fact that they are there and they exist, regardless of whether they can see them or not.

[Tarc]

For no reason, Xavexgoem protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.

What else does Xavexgoem have on his record?

It has nothing to do with Xavexgoem.

The WMF controversial content study recommended that the image discussion be limited to registered users, as the subject area has had a history of insipid "REMOVE IMAGES THEY OFFEND MEEEEEEE!" retardation from IPs and single-purpose-accounts over the years.

In any case they can always register and wait the 5 days. The RFC isn't over until April 19th.

I think you have to have 10 edits as well, but those can just be 10 garbage adds and reverts to userspace, even. The bar is low to be allowed to edit semi-prot articles, but it keeps out the bulk of the clueless riff-raff.

One thing I do find surprising, especially with regard to the arguments for hat notes and collapsing what-nots, is that no-one has hit on the fact that the problem isn't with Moslems seeing the images, it's the fact that they are there and they exist, regardless of whether they can see them or not.

True, there will always be protests that the images exist in any for whatsoever. There's also Muslims whose opposition just registers on the scale at "strong dislike", but they won't protest others viewing them.

The RfC is going pretty much as I expected it to go so far, there's at most 6-8 editors calling for image reduction/removal against a boatload of "not censored" stances. Remarkable how the removal of one user smooths out discussion, though.

[Web Fred]

The RfC is going pretty much as I expected it to go so far, there's at most 6-8 editors calling for image reduction/removal against a boatload of "not censored" stances. Remarkable how the removal of one user smooths out discussion, though.

I haven't read through all of it as it's not a subject I find particularly interesting, but I wonder who many moslems are taking part, or is it all overly-politically correct liberals doing what they think moslems would want?

Tarc admonished

4.1) Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.

Passed 9 to 1 with 1 abstention, 06:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Heheheheh (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Web Fred:

[GlassBeadGame]

The RfC is going pretty much as I expected it to go so far, there's at most 6-8 editors calling for image reduction/removal against a boatload of "not censored" stances. Remarkable how the removal of one user smooths out discussion, though.

I won't even bother to look at the RfC. So long as the matter is addressed by Wikipedians, and only Wikipedians, nothing good or even interesting will come from it. Such insular inward-looking and narcissistic "conversations" are like overhearing a couple of valley girls talk about make-up. The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity. Too bad it came to nothing except to illustrate the inability of selfish white nerds to engage with anyone other than their own kind.

[Wikitaka]

What concerns me most is that so many users want Wikipedia to accommodate the needs and beliefs of Muslim readers. Wikipedia is not censored.

[Web Fred]

What concerns me most is that so many users want Wikipedia to accommodate the needs and beliefs of Muslim readers. Wikipedia is not censored.

Welcome to the political correctness epidemic of the 21st Century.

[Tarc]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

[Somey]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

To prove that the WMF's support for "multi-culturalism" isn't just a lot of hot air to disguise their hopelessly Western/Judeo-Christian biases?

Remember, Wikipedia "censors" things all the time. They just don't call it that when it's something they don't like.

[GlassBeadGame]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

For WMF to pursue dialog with Muslims leaders free of the whims you and other pissant Wikipedians.

[Proabivouac]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

For WMF to pursue dialog with Muslims leaders free of the whims you and other pissant Wikipedians.

The bigger opportunity is the one that's been there all along: to engage academic scholars of Islamic history. Wikipedia would be on firmer and more principled ground were it a high-quality academic resource being censored rather than a bathroom wall. If their aims are educational, why not start with the text?

[Tarc]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

For WMF to pursue dialog with Muslims leaders free of the whims you and other pissant Wikipedians.

A dialog about what, appeasing fanatics who are not happy if anyone is looking at images of their dear prophet?

Know what I find most amusing about bleeding-heart retards like you? Even the slightest hint of deference or respect for Christian values and institutions within the Western world brings you screaming to the skies about church-state separation, prattling about centuries of religion-based repression and so on. Yet you bend over backwards to make sure some random Muslim who would lop your infidel head off without blinking an eye is treated with kid gloves.

[GlassBeadGame]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

For WMF to pursue dialog with Muslims leaders free of the whims you and other pissant Wikipedians.

A dialog about what, appeasing fanatics who are not if anyone is looking at images of their dear prophet?

Know what I find most amusing about bleeding-heart retards like you? Even the slightest hint of deference or respect for Christian values and institutions within the Western world brings you screaming to the skies about church-state separation, prattling about centuries of religion-based repression and so on. Yet you bend over backwards to make sure some random Muslim who would lop your infidel head off without blinking an eye is treated with kid gloves.

Excuse me but what does all this racist horseshit have to do with 500,000 people politely asking that their views be considered? Your hatred runs deep.

[Selina]

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 96 #After SOPA, Muhammed article's picture is a giant picture of text, and an arbitration case to decide to remove *all* pictures? - Pure and simple, they're hypocrites.

[Tarc]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

For WMF to pursue dialog with Muslims leaders free of the whims you and other pissant Wikipedians.

A dialog about what, appeasing fanatics who are not if anyone is looking at images of their dear prophet?

Know what I find most amusing about bleeding-heart retards like you? Even the slightest hint of deference or respect for Christian values and institutions within the Western world brings you screaming to the skies about church-state separation, prattling about centuries of religion-based repression and so on. Yet you bend over backwards to make sure some random Muslim who would lop your infidel head off without blinking an eye is treated with kid gloves.

Excuse me but what does all this racist horseshit have to do with 500,000 people politely asking that their views be considered? Your hatred runs deep.

Assbeadgame artfully dodges with a non-sequitur! Its super-effective!


BTW, those "500,000" (probably more like 1,000 with a lot of time, throwaway e-maill addresses, and a botnet or two) were heard, and their request was denied.

[GlassBeadGame]

and their request was denied.

Yes, by a couple hundred Wikipedian who happened to show up for a rigged discussion that did not engage the petitioners or any Muslim leadership. Do please spew some more racism. It makes your case so well.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame:

[Selina]

Caling people racist in a discussion without any kind of proof in a discussion about religion is really not helpful, and a little low...

(IMG:http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/5710/appearancecensored.png)

[Selina]

(Mod note: Moved the steadily rolling GBGvTarc train to here -Selina)

[Mister Die]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

[Tarc]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

That is a valid concern, but I believe the current set of images in the article has gone through quite a rigorous debate to justify their inclusion. If someone ever tried to insert say the bomb turban image, that'd never pass.

[HRIP7]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

Quite. That's why you get people who can't tell the difference between sunnis and shiites, and who would interpret a reference to the Quran's light verse to mean that there must be a section with limericks in it, earnestly and passionately contributing to the debate.

[Web Fred]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

Quite. That's why you get people who can't tell the difference between sunnis and shiites, and who would interpret a reference to the Quran's light verse to mean that there must be a section with limericks in it, earnestly and passionately contributing to the debate.

During which time they get educated by those who do know what they're talking about. And there is one reason why Wikipedia can be a good thing â„¢.

[HRIP7]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

Quite. That's why you get people who can't tell the difference between sunnis and shiites, and who would interpret a reference to the Quran's light verse to mean that there must be a section with limericks in it, earnestly and passionately contributing to the debate.

During which time they get educated by those who do know what they're talking about. And there is one reason why Wikipedia can be a good thing â„¢.

That can sometimes happen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Wikitaka]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

[Mister Die]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

"Not censored" doesn't mean "add anything (especially stuff religious adherents would find offensive) in for the hell of it as long as it's sorta related to the subject."

Filling the "War" article with tons of color photos of graphic mutilations, bodies after being destroyed by grenades, dead babies, etc. will demonstrate that Wikipedia isn't censored (at least not for the stuff it doesn't mind being uncensored), but it'll also demonstrate that it's incapable of being a responsible encyclopedia and instead serves as a shock site.

It'd be like adding "Piss Christ" to the Jesus article.

This post has been edited by Mister Die:

[Web Fred]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

Because it's copyrighted?

I'm not sure deliberately causing offence is ideal criteria for Fair Use.

[Wikitaka]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

Because it's copyrighted?

I'm not sure deliberately causing offence is ideal criteria for Fair Use.

Disregard it. It was intended to be sarcastic.

One of the most shocking comments in the debate is the "jewish" Kiefer Wolfowitz's comment that claims that an instructional hatnote would be a "reasonal adaptation" to the 1% or so of Muslim readers...

And I thought Jews hated Muslims. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Web Fred]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

Because it's copyrighted?

I'm not sure deliberately causing offence is ideal criteria for Fair Use.

Disregard it. It was intended to be sarcastic.

One of the most shocking comments in the debate is the "jewish" Kiefer Wolfowitz's comment that claims that an instructional hatnote would be a "reasonal adaptation" to the 1% or so of Muslim readers...

Wouldn't make any difference to that vociferous 1%. The fact that it's there is enough to piss 'em off.

And I thought Jews hated Muslims. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Only the ones with no money! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif)



(Mod note: Edited to remove the "pork" jokes from Text, Eric, Fred etc which are only flame-bait and distract from the _real_ meat of the discussion here -Selina)

(Fred note: How about spending less time censoring and more time posting about the direction you are supposed to be taking us? - Fred)

This post has been edited by Web Fred:

[Fusion]

"Not censored" doesn't mean "add anything (especially stuff religious adherents would find offensive) in for the hell of it as long as it's sorta related to the subject."

I think that in Wikipedia terms that is exactly what it does mean. At least if people object to you doing such, others will come along and shout "Not censored", no?

[Web Fred]

"Not censored" doesn't mean "add anything (especially stuff religious adherents would find offensive) in for the hell of it as long as it's sorta related to the subject."

I think that in Wikipedia terms that is exactly what it does mean. At least if people object to you doing such, others will come along and shout "Not censored", no?

So the concept that we, as human beings, generally like to know what someone physically looks like, especially when being talked about is lost on you then?

I don't know about you, but I'm interested in what he actually looked like. Isn't the point of encyclopaedias to answer questions like that? I do know its purpose isn't to kow tow to religious extremists (I was going to say nutters, but I didn't want Selina going after my nuts for it).

[Tarc]

The "images are included to purposefully offend" comes across as desperate reaching, IMO.

[Web Fred]

The "images are included to purposefully offend" comes across as desperate reaching, IMO.

I'd put it closer to being total bollocks.

[Mister Die]

I don't know about you, but I'm interested in what he actually looked like. Isn't the point of encyclopaedias to answer questions like that? I do know its purpose isn't to kow tow to religious extremists (I was going to say nutters, but I didn't want Selina going after my nuts for it).

Some of Muhammad's contemporaries did actually describe what he looked like. A portrait based on one or more of these accounts is fine and indeed encyclopedic. Having more than like 2 photos (a second one should probably be "Islam-friendly," e.g. the ones where his face is veiled, since it'd demonstrate how Islamic culture depicted him) is probably unnecessary.

This post has been edited by Mister Die:

[Fusion]

So the concept that we, as human beings, generally like to know what someone physically looks like, especially when being talked about is lost on you then?

There are two perhaps answers I can think of.

* Yes, it may be nice to know what someone physically looks like (though it is unlikely that the illustrations used in this case are actually much help), but that is not the reason that many of these people want to keep those pictures in, and well you know it.

* By that logic, do you not think it would be helpful to give us a picture of yourself (unless you are indeed a hamster), or would you prefer to be inconsistent?

[Web Fred]

So the concept that we, as human beings, generally like to know what someone physically looks like, especially when being talked about is lost on you then?

There are two perhaps answers I can think of.

* Yes, it may be nice to know what someone physically looks like (though it is unlikely that the illustrations used in this case are actually much help), but that is not the reason that many of these people want to keep those pictures in, and well you know it.

It doesn't really matter what some people's motives are if what they are trying to do also has the effect of elucidating.

* By that logic, do you not think it would be helpful to give us a picture of yourself (unless you are indeed a hamster), or would you prefer to be inconsistent?

I am, in actual fact, a hamster. A very talented and long-lived Abyssinian.

PS: Where has the thread title disappeared to?
Selina? Have you been pressing buttons again?

Moderator's note: A temporary thread title has now been substituted for the original, until the original can be restored.

This post has been edited by Somey:

[Fusion]

It doesn't really matter what some people's motives are if what they are trying to do also has the effect of elucidating.

Is that not "the end justifies the means"? I have always regarded that as somewhat of an immoral sentiment.

[Web Fred]

It doesn't really matter what some people's motives are if what they are trying to do also has the effect of elucidating.

Is that not "the end justifies the means"? I have always regarded that as somewhat of an immoral sentiment.

Very close to it yes, not that I've ever been known for having good morals. I'm far too much of a hedonist for that.

[Ottava]

I think this is similar to Wikipedia hosting a picture of "Amish" on that page - the Amish are morally opposed to being photographed. Wikipedia tends to do quite a lot to piss on other groups, mostly because the average Wikipedian is a white, European who has rich enough parents that they get to do nothing all day. They are spoiled and believe that everyone else is lesser than them. The whole thing about penises, trains, etc. all over Commons is just part of the system catering to the worst kinds of people who have nothing better to spend their time than pointless obsessions.

[jsalsman]

I used to be for including images until I found out that no contemporary depictions of Muhammad even exist. It's not about aniconism vs. NOTCENSORED, it's that there aren't any actual images of Muhammad. They are all made up, cartoons of someone else. So don't put any in the main article. Anyone who sees an image in the main article will be misled into thinking Muhammad may have looked like that when he didn't. That's completely unencyclopedic. Make a separate [[Depictions of Muhammad]] article and put them all there with a clear statement that they are all bogus in the first sentence.

[Proabivouac]

I used to be for including images until I found out that no contemporary depictions of Muhammad even exist. It's not about aniconism vs. NOTCENSORED, it's that there aren't any actual images of Muhammad.

That's true of Jesus as well. I'll admit that I do see a certain virtue in a Jesus article with no images, beginning, "Jesus was a first century Judaic carpenter turned ascetic who claimed to be the son of the creator god of Jewish myth." I mean, nothing made up, right?

[Web Fred]

I used to be for including images until I found out that no contemporary depictions of Muhammad even exist. It's not about aniconism vs. NOTCENSORED, it's that there aren't any actual images of Muhammad. They are all made up, cartoons of someone else. So don't put any in the main article. Anyone who sees an image in the main article will be misled into thinking Muhammad may have looked like that when he didn't. That's completely unencyclopedic. Make a separate [[Depictions of Muhammad]] article and put them all there with a clear statement that they are all bogus in the first sentence.

I'd like to see you put the same response at the Jesus (T-H-L-K-D) and see what the response would be. The image at the top isn't Jesus, it's just the WASP version of him. By all accounts the real Jesus was black.

The thing is, I don't see anyone using your argument for its removal.

But thanks anyway for teaching me a new word: "aniconism (T-H-L-K-D)".

[Bottled_Spider]

I used to be for including images until I found out that no contemporary depictions of Muhammad even exist........ there aren't any actual images of Muhammad.

Seriously?! You mean you actually thought there could be contemporary portraits, done in a presumably realistic style, of someone who was born in 570 ACE? Wow.

The image at the top isn't Jesus, it's just the WASP version of him. By all accounts the real Jesus was black.

I've always thought that too. And if he wasn't, he should have been. I'm sure I read somewhere that modern depictions of Jesus are based on portraits of the mass-murdering son-of-a-pope Cesare Borgia. It's a funny old world.

[Fusion]

By all accounts the real Jesus was black.

That is a historical impossibility I suspect. He would perhaps most likely have been off white. This would be like people in many countries in North Africa and the Middle East today. But black like a Nigerian? Surely not. Or does "black" mean "non-Aryan" in this context?

[Web Fred]

By all accounts the real Jesus was black.

That is a historical impossibility I suspect. He would perhaps most likely have been off white. This would be like people in many countries in North Africa and the Middle East today. But black like a Nigerian? Surely not. Or does "black" mean "non-Aryan" in this context?

I can't remember the specifics other than he was a prince from a royal family. I definitely remember the description as being "black". Personally I would have thought mid-brown per Arabic, meddle-eastern appearance.

[Mister Die]

Jesus is given the "WASP" treatment because that's the image of him in Western society and culture since at least the 1800's (probably two centuries older.) I mean if you go back enough you can find heroic warrior Jesus and other depictions, but no one uses them anymore.

With Muhammad there's no consistent portrayal of him, so it's a different issue.

[Web Fred]

Jesus is given the "WASP" treatment because that's the image of him in Western society and culture since at least the 1800's (probably two centuries older.) I mean if you go back enough you can find heroic warrior Jesus and other depictions, but no one uses them anymore.

With Muhammad there's no consistent portrayal of him, so it's a different issue.

Consistency is irrelevant, they're all incorrect and some artist's impression; most probably with a cardinal stood behind him giving him their version of a photofit description.

And no it isn't a different issue, it's a legitimate response to jsalsman's assertion.

Personally I think it's all bollocks, especially the moslem argument. If the guy was alive today he'd have the paparazzi crawling up his ass. And I's like to see the no portrayals of the Prophet arguments then, every time he appears on the OK or Hello magazine's cover after attending some Jewish celebrities wedding.

Those moslems, and the christians, and all the other Abrahamic faiths, need a reality check. Living their lives according to a work of fiction? What a bunch of schmucks.

[Tarc]

I used to be for including images until I found out that no contemporary depictions of Muhammad even exist. It's not about aniconism vs. NOTCENSORED, it's that there aren't any actual images of Muhammad. They are all made up, cartoons of someone else. So don't put any in the main article. Anyone who sees an image in the main article will be misled into thinking Muhammad may have looked like that when he didn't. That's completely unencyclopedic. Make a separate [[Depictions of Muhammad]] article and put them all there with a clear statement that they are all bogus in the first sentence.

So you used to be enlightened, but then became corrupted by someone's ignorant argument. Are you on the administrator fast track yet?

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Detective]

['m sure I read somewhere that modern depictions of Jesus are based on portraits of the mass-murdering son-of-a-pope Cesare Borgia.

So it's been said.

http://www.thehalsreport.com/2010/07/is-th...-cesare-borgia/

I can't remember the specifics other than he was a prince from a royal family. I definitely remember the description as being "black". Personally I would have thought mid-brown per Arabic, meddle-eastern appearance.

He wasn't a prince. His father (or at least his mother's husband) was a carpenter, although allegedly descended from King David. Of course there weren't any Arabs in that part of the world until the 7th century. Still, he would no doubt be described as "very swarthy" rather than black or even brown.

The "images are included to purposefully offend" comes across as desperate reaching, IMO.

Probably not "to purposefully offend" (which would be a split infinitive, anyway), just "to show them who's boss: WP:NOTCENSORED!"

Jesus is given the "WASP" treatment because that's the image of him in Western society and culture since at least the 1800's (probably two centuries older.)

No doubt in Western culture he was always imagined to be white. People weren't aware of non-white people for the most part.

[Somey]

So you used to be enlightened, but then became corrupted by someone's ignorant argument.

I realize you're just trying to show your anti-Muslim credentials here, but why would anyone think that argument was "ignorant"? And obviously it's someone else's argument - it's a common-enough position to take on the issue, since it is, in fact, true. Or are you saying that if he doesn't have a brand-spanking-new reason to oppose inclusion of these images, he should just shut up? If so, then I'd have to say that's not very nice.

Speaking of which, the only reason anyone even bothers to bring up additional arguments in the first place is because Wikipedians have already rejected the sanest, most rational, and most logical argument there is, which is that including the images is inherently insulting to vast numbers of people, and insulting people is not nice. If you're a legitimate "encyclopedia," you take key cultural sensitivities into account when and if you can. Since there's no requirement that Wikipedia include these images in order to properly cover the subjects of Islam and Mohammed's life, they most certainly can in this case.

Of course, they're not a legitimate encyclopedia, so they don't take those sensitivities into account, and people end up having to make these otherwise-unnecessary (but hardly "ignorant") arguments. And that's just how they like it, because hey, moar drama! More attention for us! Wheeeeee! It's the very definition of "internet trolling," and Wikipedia does it routinely.

[Web Fred]

If you're a legitimate "encyclopedia," you take key cultural sensitivities into account when and if you can.

No you don't, because sooner or later what was once 'an inch thick' soon becomes a pamphlet.

To avoid this you put in what is encyclopaedic and show an even hand across the board. Pictures of Jesus goi in? Then pics of Mo go in too.

After all people are notoriously fickle about what they deem to be sensitive.

If moslems want to dictate terms then they should start their own Wiki, Qu'raniWiki perhaps?

[Somey]

If moslems want to dictate terms then they should start their own Wiki, Qu'raniWiki perhaps?

That's a bit short-sighted, isn't it? Why alienate a billion people when you don't have to? (Unless you're running the Wikipedia Review, in which case I guess you want to alienate as many people as possible.)

Obviously there's no danger of Wikipedia turning into a "pamphlet," though it would probably be an improvement if it did, and as for images of Jesus or of any other religious figure whose adherents don't mind their existence (putting aside the whole "graven images" thing), what is it they say about "a foolish consistency" again...?

Mind you, I'm not a Muslim, in fact I don't even know any Muslims near where I live these days. I'd just like to know why so many people seem hell-bent on pissing them off for no good reason.

[Web Fred]

Mind you, I'm not a Muslim, in fact I don't even know any Muslims near where I live these days. I'd just like to know why so many people seem hell-bent on pissing them off for no good reason.

But apparently it's fine for them to piss us off ad infinitum?

But no, it isn't my intention to piss them off, merely to demonstrate that they don't dictate their cultural ideals to us.

For example should they start their own wiki then I wouldn't dream of dictating anything to them, so why should they dictate their POV on a western-centric (please don't quote NPOV, there's no way in hell it'll ever be NPOV) encyclopaedia.

How about, for example, a team of moslem writers come to the 9/11 article and started entering information from the Islamic side of things? Other than MONGO having a meltdown of course, what do you think would happen to NPOV then. What if they demand that certain Islamic beliefs should be upheld in the article?

And no, I'm not anti-moslem, at least no more than I am anti-christian. What I am against is stupidity. And to demand that archival imagery shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article is, in my personal view, stupidity personified.

[Bottled_Spider]

Why don't they just dig up Muhammed's skull and get one of those reconstructive scientists to do their magic on it with their pegs and clay and resurrect the guy in all his glory? Then take a picture of it and pop it into the public domain and stuff so Wikipedia can use it. Result: something that's both informative and respectful to the religionists and their culture, and all that. Or maybe not, but the idea still stands, probably.

[Mister Die]

And no, I'm not anti-moslem, at least no more than I am anti-christian. What I am against is stupidity. And to demand that archival imagery shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article is, in my personal view, stupidity personified.

You're an internet atheist with Aspergers who rants against religion. I don't recall any book encyclopedias having portraits of Muhammad, because there's simply no strong reason to have it. Again, you either wind up with "here's a medieval portrayal by Christians of Muhammad burning in hell" or something, or "here's an Islamic depiction of Muhammad with his face veiled." Since there's apparently no portrayal of Muhammad based on what his contemporaries actually described his facial features and such as (although there would probably be people willing to make half-assed svg images to get around that), the best bet you could go for would be the aforementioned veiled images. But then that isn't supposed to happen because that means we give in to the dreaded Islamofascists or whatever (most of whom at any rate would prefer no portrayals whatsoever), so instead the article has random portrayals of Muhammad which tend to exist solely for the benefit of showing how "not censored" (read: "TAKE THAT TOTALITARIAN MOSLEM SWINE") Wikipedia is.

With Jesus there's an overwhelming portrayal in the world of him as a "WASP" character (to the extent that modern derivative portrayals outside of Europe tend to just be "him" with a slightly darker skin color), no matter the portrait.

This post has been edited by Mister Die:

[Web Fred]

And no, I'm not anti-moslem, at least no more than I am anti-christian. What I am against is stupidity. And to demand that archival imagery shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article is, in my personal view, stupidity personified.

You're an internet atheist with Aspergers who rants against religion. I don't recall any book encyclopedias having portraits of Muhammad, because there's simply no strong reason to have it. Again, you either wind up with "here's a medieval portrayal by Christians of Muhammad burning in hell" or something, or "here's an Islamic depiction of Muhammad with his face veiled." Since there's apparently no portrayal of Muhammad based on what his contemporaries actually described his facial features and such as (although there would probably be people willing to make half-assed svg images to get around that), the best bet you could go for would be the aforementioned veiled images. But then that isn't supposed to happen because that means we give in to the dreaded Islamofascists or whatever (most of whom at any rate would prefer no portrayals whatsoever), so instead the article has random portrayals of Muhammad which tend to exist solely for the benefit of showing how "not censored" (read: "TAKE THAT TOTALITARIAN MOSLEM SWINE") Wikipedia is.

With Jesus there's an overwhelming portrayal in the world of him as a "WASP" character (to the extent that modern derivative portrayals outside of Europe tend to just be "him" with a slightly darker skin color), no matter the portrait.

I'm not sure what my Asperger's has to do with it, and I certainly wasn't ranting, merely stating an opinion. Your diatribe appeared to be much more a rant than mine.

You were right about me being anti-religion (but not anti-personal-belief). And living one's life to the dictates from a work of fiction, whether it be the Qu'ran or the bible, is simply something I can't get my head around. It's akin to being lead by the beliefs and values of JK Rowling.

The other thing I can't get my head around is the argument that none of these pictures are a true likeness of Mo. If that's the case, then why is the argument there that they don't won't pics of Mo appearing, when everyone says they aren't actually Mo.

You'll be telling me next that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.

[Mister Die]

The other thing I can't get my head around is the argument that none of these pictures are a true likeness of Mo. If that's the case, then why is the argument there that they don't won't pics of Mo appearing, when everyone says they aren't actually Mo.

Because they're in an article about "Mo" and they're listed as portrayals of Muhammad?

[Web Fred]

The other thing I can't get my head around is the argument that none of these pictures are a true likeness of Mo. If that's the case, then why is the argument there that they don't won't pics of Mo appearing, when everyone says they aren't actually Mo.

Because they're in an article about "Mo" and they're listed as portrayals of Muhammad?

I am currently shaking my head from side to side.

[Tarc]

So you used to be enlightened, but then became corrupted by someone's ignorant argument.

I realize you're just trying to show your anti-Muslim credentials here,

At first I was like

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

but then

(IMG:http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/tarc0917/anim/rotfl.gif)

Somey, you ignorant prat. I was targeted by the Jayjg Cabal and held up as one of the "anti-Jew" editors for years because I dared to protest various Muslim and Palestine-related articles form becoming mouthpieces for Zionist propaganda. And now I have you who think I'm "anti-Muslim" because I do not want the Wikipedia to bend to their religious sensibilities? What lulz.

I think they're all a bunch of prehistoric knuckle-draggers, honestly. "Oh no, no one can work on Sunday!", "oh no, I can't stand anyone to look at my prophet!"

Fuck em all.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Emperor]

Having images of some dude hanging all over every church, school, and hospital is lame. I'll bet Muhammed made the rule just to avoid that.

[Somey]

Somey, you ignorant prat. I was targeted by the Jayjg Cabal and held up as one of the "anti-Jew" editors for years because I dared to protest various Muslim and Palestine-related articles form becoming mouthpieces for Zionist propaganda. And now I have you who think I'm "anti-Muslim" because I do not want the Wikipedia to bend to their religious sensibilities? What lulz.

Well, that's one way of defining "anti-Muslim," I suppose, and nobody is saying you can't be both anti-Zionist and anti-Muslim, or anti-whatever-you-want, all at the same time. (I personally lost count of all the things I'm against, years ago!)

All I am saying is, the argument that "these images aren't actually likenesses of Muhammad" is perfectly valid in this context, and far from "ignorant" in any case - and if anything, someone who reflexively supports the idea that people should just do whatever the hell they want no matter who gets offended, or no matter how inappropriate and/or wrong a particular set of images is, is more likely to be "ignorant."

I will say, however, that if it were totally up to me, nobody would be allowed to effectively quash free expression solely on the basis of a religious dictat that, given the technological era we now live in, has become nearly impossible for anyone to deal with. But Wikipedia isn't really a bastion of "free expression," it's a bastion of we're-gonna-do-whatever-the-hell-we-want - and while some people might (reflexively) believe otherwise, that just isn't the same thing.

Having images of some dude hanging all over every church, school, and hospital is lame. I'll bet Muhammed made the rule just to avoid that.

Well, he was a smart guy - he fully understood that the beards, robes and turbans would someday go out of fashion, in favor of 6-inch platform shoes, metallic-brocade jackets, and Lady Gaga fright-wigs.

[Tarc]

Well, that's one way of defining "anti-Muslim," I suppose, and nobody is saying you can't be both anti-Zionist and anti-Muslim, or anti-whatever-you-want, all at the same time. (I personally lost count of all the things I'm against, years ago!)

I'm anti-asshole, mainly, especially those who seek to ram their beliefs down the throats of non-believers. I don't think they're assholes because they are Muslim or Jewish, that is the difference that seems to be eluding you.

All I am saying is, the argument that "these images aren't actually likenesses of Muhammad" is perfectly valid in this context, and far from "ignorant" in any case - and if anything, someone who reflexively supports the idea that people should just do whatever the hell they want no matter who gets offended, or no matter how inappropriate and/or wrong a particular set of images is, is more likely to be "ignorant."

It is a shit argument borne of desperation. Is there a drive to rid the project of depictions of, say, Cleopatra, Ghengis Khan, or King Richard the III? No, no one is going on a fucking crusade to remove those on a "how do we know he/she really looked like that?" throughout the project. They are trying (and failing, miserably) to do it for the Muhammad article solely because of the religious reasons regarding imagery.

[Mister Die]

Well the portrait for King Richard III (at least the one that greets you upon looking at the article) was only painted around 35 years after he died and was, presumably, based on how he actually looked like.

Why is it wrong to not have portrayals in an article directly about Muhammad when his actually adherents would find said portrayals offensive? "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't apply, no one is getting arrested for putting them up, the FBI isn't calling on Wikipedia to take them down.

[Bottled_Spider]

After giving this most difficult of subjects considerable thought, I've decided that perhaps South Park worked out the best system for handling Muhammed after all.
(1) Blocking his person completely, or
(2) Make him wear a big bear suit.

I like the big bear suit.

[jsalsman]

You mean you actually thought there could be contemporary portraits, done in a presumably realistic style, of someone who was born in 570 ACE? Wow.

There are several 5th century BCE Greek philosophers with multiple extant 2-D and 3-D depictions which are similar enough that it's safe to say most people would agree they look like the same person. Not Anaxagoras, though. For some reason he looks different in every depiction.

I agree that the Jesus article shouldn't have depictions either. At least Jesus gets a series of very lengthy articles contemplating every possible aspect of his historicity, historical reliability, mythology, and comparative mythology. Muhammad, Moses, Noah, Abraham, Buddha, et al. don't have anything like that.

[Somey]

It is a shit argument borne of desperation.

So, you're basically here just to defend Wikipedia's worst excesses from those who would dare suggest ways of ameliorating those excesses, then.

Is there a drive to rid the project of depictions of, say, Cleopatra, Ghengis Khan, or King Richard the III? No, no one is going on a fucking crusade to remove those on a "how do we know he/she really looked like that?" throughout the project.

So, the whole idea of iconoclasm (and the historical reasons for it) must be meaningless to you... at least in that case, you're not alone - most people don't really understand the underlying historical rationale.

Y'see, back in ancient times, Imperial Roman oppressors used to build huge temples, shrines, and statues to pagan gods, along with elaborate icons and other imagery - and they competed to see who could build the most impressive stuff for centuries, continuing to do it in the Eastern Empire long after the Western Empire crumbled. All of this required a great deal of wealth which they ruthlessly took from the people they conquered, impoverished, and often enslaved. In effect, wealth that should have been used to improve the lives of actual human beings was taken from them and used on religious art, which in turn became a symbol of oppression in itself. That became the root cause of Islam's rejection of idolatry, which continues to this day - and is also found among several other iconoclastic sects throughout that region's history, and even among some heretical Catholic groups that formed in Eastern Europe (and elsewhere) in opposition to the often financially-rapacious central authorities in Rome and Constantinople.

In fact, it's also the reason you'll usually see far less artwork in general (not just fewer images of Jesus) in Protestant churches than in Catholic ones - the Reformation rejected excessive Church decor because it embodied Catholic excesses in general, and those excesses were mostly financial, perpetrated at the expense of the people. But I digress...

Meanwhile, nobody ever really competed to see who could spend the most ill-gotten wealth on depictions of Cleopatra, Genghis Khan, or Richard III. In their cases, imagery was simply a matter of propaganda - depictions of Cleopatra, for example, have always been more suggestive of a European rather than a North African woman, because European historians wanted to "claim" her in such a way as to deny the idea that an African could be a powerful or even an attractive figure. In other words, institutional racism. Genghis Khan, like Attila the Hun, has been demonized by those same historians as a "barbarian" and a "savage" when, in fact, he was personally nothing of the sort (other than his tendency to show no mercy whatsoever to enemies). And Richard III was depicted as a deformed black-clad hunchback by artists of the Tudor dynasty that overthrew him, when in fact he was almost certainly quite normal-looking.

Anyway, long story short, the argument may be "borne of desperation," but it's hardly "shit." Imagery has always been an important means of manipulating popular sentiment, in varying degrees of subtlety. So it's no wonder that Wikipedia is 100-percent on board with using it in the same fashion. That doesn't make it right, however.

[Bottled_Spider]

You mean you actually thought there could be contemporary portraits, done in a presumably realistic style, of someone who was born in 570 ACE? Wow.

There are several 5th century BCE Greek philosophers with multiple extant 2-D and 3-D depictions which are similar enough that it's safe to say most people would agree they look like the same person.

Yes. Classical Greece was well into realistic depictions of the human form in general, and famous philosophers in particular. Sixth-century (and, indeed, most of the following centuries too) Arabia wasn't. Thus there aren't any contemporary portraits of Muhammed. Or of anyone, really. I think a "duh" is in order.

[Detective]

I was targeted by the Jayjg Cabal and held up as one of the "anti-Jew" editors for years ... And now I have you who think I'm "anti-Muslim"

As Somey says, no contradiction at all.

I think they're all a bunch of prehistoric knuckle-draggers, honestly. "Oh no, no one can work on Sunday!"

Who's saying that? The Jews or the Muslims? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Emperor]

So, the whole idea of iconoclasm (and the historical reasons for it) must be meaningless to you... at least in that case, you're not alone - most people don't really understand the underlying historical rationale.

Y'see, back in ancient times, Imperial Roman oppressors used to build huge temples, shrines, and statues to pagan gods, along with elaborate icons and other imagery - and they competed to see who could build the most impressive stuff for centuries, continuing to do it in the Eastern Empire long after the Western Empire crumbled. All of this required a great deal of wealth which they ruthlessly took from the people they conquered, impoverished, and often enslaved. In effect, wealth that should have been used to improve the lives of actual human beings was taken from them and used on religious art, which in turn became a symbol of oppression in itself.

Hey hey hey don't blame the Romans. They picked that stuff up from the Egyptians and other Middle Eastern crazies. If anything the Romans should be given credit for often constructing useful stuff like roads and aqueducts. They always admired Sparta which had the right idea regarding monuments.

You're making sense though, and it is one thing to like about Islam, even if they often take it too far.

[jsalsman]

Is there a drive to rid the project of depictions of, say, Cleopatra, Ghengis Khan, or King Richard the III? No, no one is going on a fucking crusade to remove those on a "how do we know he/she really looked like that?" throughout the project.

... nobody ever really competed to see who could spend the most ill-gotten wealth on depictions of Cleopatra, Genghis Khan, or Richard III. In their cases, imagery was simply a matter of propaganda - depictions of Cleopatra, for example, have always been more suggestive of a European rather than a North African woman, because European historians wanted to "claim" her in such a way as to deny the idea that an African could be a powerful or even an attractive figure. In other words, institutional racism. Genghis Khan, like Attila the Hun, has been demonized by those same historians as a "barbarian" and a "savage" when, in fact, he was personally nothing of the sort (other than his tendency to show no mercy whatsoever to enemies). And Richard III was depicted as a deformed black-clad hunchback by artists of the Tudor dynasty that overthrew him, when in fact he was almost certainly quite normal-looking.

Such a fucking crusade seems quite reasonable in light of these facts. I'm sure I would just get banned again if I put any effort into it, though.

[Proabivouac]

So, the whole idea of iconoclasm (and the historical reasons for it) must be meaningless to you... at least in that case, you're not alone - most people don't really understand the underlying historical rationale.

Y'see, back in ancient times, Imperial Roman oppressors used to build huge temples, shrines, and statues to pagan gods, along with elaborate icons and other imagery - and they competed to see who could build the most impressive stuff for centuries, continuing to do it in the Eastern Empire long after the Western Empire crumbled. All of this required a great deal of wealth which they ruthlessly took from the people they conquered, impoverished, and often enslaved. In effect, wealth that should have been used to improve the lives of actual human beings was taken from them and used on religious art, which in turn became a symbol of oppression in itself.

You're making sense though, and it is one thing to like about Islam, even if they often take it too far.

Except it's all basically made-up. Meaningful ideological reasons for the prohibition are all backdated. No one is depicted from this period. Nothing. They just didn't do this in the Hejaz. What they did do was poetry.

[Tarc]

Anyway, long story short...

Rule 11, Somey. Rule 11.

The way you want this situation to resolve simply isn't going to happen. No amount of bleeding-heart, butthurt faggotry will change that. The images will remain.

[Somey]

The way you want this situation to resolve simply isn't going to happen. No amount of bleeding-heart, butthurt faggotry will change that. The images will remain.

You misunderstand - I don't want this situation to "resolve" at all; I want for Wikipedia to continue to make stupid, idiotic, and yes, "faggoty" decisions like this until they collapse under the weight of their own insufferable arrogance, stupidity, and short-sightedness. I'm well aware that the images will remain, and putting aside the feelings of a million Muslims, I couldn't really care less.

However, you're right in that my butt does hurt at the moment, but that's only because I just dropped a deuce after a big meal last night. I should be OK in about 20 minutes or so, though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nuke.gif)

[HRIP7]

So you used to be enlightened, but then became corrupted by someone's ignorant argument.

I realize you're just trying to show your anti-Muslim credentials here, but why would anyone think that argument was "ignorant"? And obviously it's someone else's argument - it's a common-enough position to take on the issue, since it is, in fact, true. Or are you saying that if he doesn't have a brand-spanking-new reason to oppose inclusion of these images, he should just shut up? If so, then I'd have to say that's not very nice.

Speaking of which, the only reason anyone even bothers to bring up additional arguments in the first place is because Wikipedians have already rejected the sanest, most rational, and most logical argument there is, which is that including the images is inherently insulting to vast numbers of people, and insulting people is not nice. If you're a legitimate "encyclopedia," you take key cultural sensitivities into account when and if you can. Since there's no requirement that Wikipedia include these images in order to properly cover the subjects of Islam and Mohammed's life, they most certainly can in this case.

Of course, they're not a legitimate encyclopedia, so they don't take those sensitivities into account, and people end up having to make these otherwise-unnecessary (but hardly "ignorant") arguments. And that's just how they like it, because hey, moar drama! More attention for us! Wheeeeee! It's the very definition of "internet trolling," and Wikipedia does it routinely.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[HRIP7]

Mind you, I'm not a Muslim, in fact I don't even know any Muslims near where I live these days. I'd just like to know why so many people seem hell-bent on pissing them off for no good reason.

But apparently it's fine for them to piss us off ad infinitum?

But no, it isn't my intention to piss them off, merely to demonstrate that they don't dictate their cultural ideals to us.

For example should they start their own wiki then I wouldn't dream of dictating anything to them, so why should they dictate their POV on a western-centric (please don't quote NPOV, there's no way in hell it'll ever be NPOV) encyclopaedia.

How about, for example, a team of moslem writers come to the 9/11 article and started entering information from the Islamic side of things? Other than MONGO having a meltdown of course, what do you think would happen to NPOV then. What if they demand that certain Islamic beliefs should be upheld in the article?

And no, I'm not anti-moslem, at least no more than I am anti-christian. What I am against is stupidity. And to demand that archival imagery shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article is, in my personal view, stupidity personified.

The reason is because they are fringe images and there is lots of other more typical Muhammad imagery that should be used in preference.

I picked Gruber's brain about this --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...from_Christiane

but really nobody gives a shit what an actual world-renowned scholar of Muhammad images says about this. Why would a Wikipedian, when they can spout off their own ignorant claptrap, which is after all what half of them are there for.

[Tarc]

You misunderstand - I don't want this situation to "resolve" at all;

Yes, you do. Don't word-parse m'boy, it isn't your forté.

I want for Wikipedia to continue to make stupid, idiotic, and yes, "faggoty" decisions like this until they collapse under the weight of their own insufferable arrogance, stupidity, and short-sightedness.

Unfortunately, it isn't any of those things.

I'm well aware that the images will remain, and putting aside the feelings of a million Muslims, I couldn't really care less.

Moar butthurt. The Western world is not obligated to be subservient to a religion's prehistoric beliefs. As I have noted elsewhere, I find it peculiar that those progressive folk who seek to drive Christianity form the place it has long held in the public consciousness (i.e. separation of church and state) on the one hand seem so eager to be ingratiating to Islam on the other. Why is that?

but really nobody gives a shit what an actual world-renowned scholar of Muhammad images says about this. Why would a Wikipedian, when they can spout off their own ignorant claptrap, which is after all what half of them are there for.

Sometimes us Randys in Boise do have it right, y'know, rather than the ivory tower dwellers.

[Somey]

Don't word-parse m'boy, it isn't your forté.

Is this the Monty Python Argument Clinic, now? One person tries to make a series of logical points and the other person just continually says "no it isn't," i.e., the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes? That appears to be your "forté."

I'm aware of the arguments in favor of having religiously inflammatory images on Wikimedia sites, and many of them are valid arguments. I agree that Muslims should be less sensitive to things like this, and that in the modern era it's counterproductive to try to impose censorship on other societies by boycotts and threats of violence and the like. It would be nice if religions and their adherents could better adapt to changing times. I don't say the arguments themselves are non-valid; I merely say they're outweighed by the opposing arguments in this case. Wikipedia is not "art" or "science" or even an "encyclopedia." The needs of Wikipedia are not the needs of humanity in general. It's just a website, and the sooner you yourself stop being butthurt about that, the better for you, no?

[Somey]

Meaningful ideological reasons for the prohibition are all backdated. No one is depicted from this period. Nothing. They just didn't do this in the Hejaz.

Backdated how...? Just because there was relatively little excessive temple-building and expensive religious art produced in Western Arabia during the Roman Imperial period doesn't mean they didn't know anything about it - they might not have had the internet back then, but they weren't living in a bubble, either.

And as for depictions, it doesn't matter if it represents a real person, a god-figure, a giant serpent, or a banana... does it? The point is that pagan idol-worshipers, and to some extent their Christian successors, spent money on religious art and architecture (including tombs) that could, and no doubt should, have been spent feeding people, curing the sick, educating children, etc. (Though it's true that the Romans should be credited for building so many roads and aqueducts - sorry I didn't note that earlier.)

Generally speaking, the early Muslims rejected many forms of ostentation and adornment too, not just religious idolatry. I'll grant that it's not as ascetic now as it was, but it's still more so than a lot of other religions.

[Web Fred]

Generally speaking, the early Muslims rejected many forms of ostentation and adornment too, not just religious idolatry. I'll grant that it's not as ascetic now as it was, but it's still more so than a lot of other religions.

Perhaps they should take some PR advice from the American Evangelists?