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?

[Emperor]

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

[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.

[Tarc]

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.

Not just for the sake of being contrary, no. This isn't a Monty Python sketch. I find fault with milquetoast permissiveness, with people who just can't say "no". The Wikipedia people can say "no, we're going to keep the Muhammad article as-is" and life will go on. Negotiation and compromise and endless bickering can only be taken for so long before someone with balls gets up and says "shut the fuck up, this is how we're going to do it".

Its ok to say "no" sometimes; hell my wife says it all the time. ("rimshot")

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[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.

Not just for the sake of being contrary, no. This isn't a Monty Python sketch. I find fault with milquetoast permissiveness, with people who just can't say "no". The Wikipedia people can say "no, we're going to keep the Muhammad article as-is" and life will go on. Negotiation and compromise and endless bickering can only be taken for so long before someone with balls gets up and says "shut the fuck up, this is how we're going to do it".

Its ok to say "no" sometimes; hell my wife says it all the time. ("rimshot")

The problem is with people who come to the article and don't know fuck all, can't tell the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni, nor between the light verse and a limerick, except they know that "muslims don't like figurative images of Muhammad".

So it's simple: stick in lots of them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

Encyclopedia done. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

No one argued that there shouldn't be any figurative images of Muhammad in the article. They're important enough to have a couple. Just that there were so many, it was really quite like having three images of Jesus as a woman in the article on Jesus.

[Tarc]

The problem is with people who come to the article and don't know fuck all, can't tell the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni, nor between the light verse and a limerick, except they know that "muslims don't like figurative images of Muhammad".

That is pretty much the golden definition of a bleeding-heart, the same that wring their hands over nativity scenes in the town square. Those sorts of people can go fuck themselves.

No one argued that there shouldn't be any figurative images of Muhammad in the article.

You missed many sterling arguments made by Hans Adler and Ludwigs2, both of whom wanted none, with an honorable mention for Elonka who expected the article to retain a few images but would've been fine with zero.

They're important enough to have a couple. Just that there were so many, it was really quite like having three images of Jesus as a woman in the article on Jesus.

This ignores the reality that Muslims who are offended are offended by any image inclusion. Retaining 2-3 won't mollify them, it'll only make those (the arguers) feel better in a "well at least we did something" kinda way. If an act of appeasement is going to accomplish nothing, then there's really little point in doing it.

[HRIP7]

They're important enough to have a couple. Just that there were so many, it was really quite like having three images of Jesus as a woman in the article on Jesus.

This ignores the reality that Muslims who are offended are offended by any image inclusion. Retaining 2-3 won't mollify them, it'll only make those (the arguers) feel better in a "well at least we did something" kinda way. If an act of appeasement is going to accomplish nothing, then there's really little point in doing it.

This ignores the reality that I was not trying to prevent offence to Muslims. I was simply trying to get Wikipedia to present the topic in a normal, middle-of-the-road manner; i.e. without shouting:

Oy, we heard you don't like images.

Guess what?

We put LOADS OF THEM in!

Because we can.â„¢

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

[Tarc]

Oy, we heard you don't like images.

Guess what?

We put LOADS OF THEM in!

Because we can.â„¢

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

Did anyone ever put forward my suggestion? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

It would be a form of a disclaimer, which the Wikipedia did away with a long time ago. If something offends you, then fuck off and don't look at it.

Btw, Snape killed Dumbledore.

And Katniss marries Peeta.

[The Joy]

Oy, we heard you don't like images.

Guess what?

We put LOADS OF THEM in!

Because we can.â„¢

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

Did anyone ever put forward my suggestion? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

It would be a form of a disclaimer, which the Wikipedia did away with a long time ago. If something offends you, then fuck off and don't look at it.

Btw, Snape killed Dumbledore.

And Katniss marries Peeta.

That's a very close-minded view. We all make compromises every day. This ultra-libertarian "information must free" view you and other Wikimedians have does not work. It will not work. Wikipedia and its sister projects will suffer in time for this stance. I doubt Wikimedia's major donors will be pleased knowing that Wikipedia is maintained by a community that absolutely refused to reasonably compromise and cooperate. A simple, technical solution can satisfy both sides, yet you and others would fight to the (hopefully proverbial) death to prevent that. Wikipedia relies ultimately on readers, the majority of which do not subscribe to your views.

Are you prepared for an eternal wiki-war of attrition? The arguments for and against these images have gone on for centuries. In the end, this wiki-war and others like them will tear apart Wikipedia. The reading public and the donors will not approve. You will have nothing. All because no one was willing to compromise.

[Web Fred]

That's a very close-minded view. We all make compromises every day.

So why should it be WP making the compromise? Why can't the offended Muslim just switch off images in his/her browser and understand that not everyone shares their beliefs?

[The Joy]

That's a very close-minded view. We all make compromises every day.

So why should it be WP making the compromise? Why can't the offended Muslim just switch off images in his/her browser and understand that not everyone shares their beliefs?

I've become so jaded with the Wikipedia "community" that I always assume the worst with their decisions. Are the images to actually educate or say "screw you!" to Muslims? I would say the latter. On an individual level, I can understand and admire some Wikipedians. But as a group, it is a great beast. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I doubt my compromise would work. Fundamentalists on both sides would hate it. On one side, the images would be under "draconian disclaimers" and, on the other side, the images would still be there. You can't win.

Good gravy, I'm channeling GBG. I made myself sad.

[Tarc]

Are the images to actually educate or say "screw you!" to Muslims? I would say the latter.

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.

[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.

[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.