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?

[Tarc]

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,"

Perhaps if that person had actually made a logical argument, your point would be sound. All the anti-image proponents argument boils down to is "it offends" and "consider the Muslim sensibilities".

People don't have a right to be free of offense. They are free to remove themselves from situations where things or ideas are present that they may not like. Or they may stay and kindly shut the fuck up.

[Web Fred]

People don't have a right to be free of offense. They are free to remove themselves from situations where things or ideas are present that they may not like. Or they may stay and kindly shut the fuck up.

Whilst I agree with that sentiment totally, unfortunately in the brave new world of ours too many people are deliberately looking to be offended just so that they can complain. I think it's a case of the little, unimportant voice wanting to be heard.

[Somey]

Perhaps if that person had actually made a logical argument, your point would be sound. All the anti-image proponents argument boils down to is "it offends" and "consider the Muslim sensibilities".

People don't have a right to be free of offense. They are free to remove themselves from situations where things or ideas are present that they may not like. Or they may stay and kindly shut the fuck up.

That's some solid binary thinking there, Mr. Tarc! Since people don't have a right to be free of offense, then surely we simply must offend them, as surely no other course of action would be logical or appropriate.

And if they "remove themselves from the situation," that's even better, because then we can offend them even more - this time without even having to listen to them complain!

Allowing people to express their opinions, giving a voice to minority groups, acting as if the term "consensus" is actually meaningful - those inconveniences can now just be swept away like the anachronistic bits of silliness they really are.

It's win-win! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Tarc]

Perhaps if that person had actually made a logical argument, your point would be sound. All the anti-image proponents argument boils down to is "it offends" and "consider the Muslim sensibilities".

People don't have a right to be free of offense. They are free to remove themselves from situations where things or ideas are present that they may not like. Or they may stay and kindly shut the fuck up.

That's some solid binary thinking there, Mr. Tarc! Since people don't have a right to be free of offense, then surely we simply must offend them, as surely no other course of action would be logical or appropriate.

A shame, I thought you were smarter than that.

But no, you presume that people insist on keeping images in the article for the sole purpose that it offends Muslims, as if we were all a bunch of Koran-burning pastors from Florida.

[Fusion]

But no, you presume that people insist on keeping images in the article for the sole purpose that it offends Muslims

If you think that nobody has such a motivation, I venture to suggest that you are perhaps rather naive.

[Somey]

But no, you presume that people insist on keeping images in the article for the sole purpose that it offends Muslims, as if we were all a bunch of Koran-burning pastors from Florida.

I don't presume that Wikipedia users in general insist on it for that reason, though it does seem fairly clear that you insist on it for that reason.

Like I've already said, Wikipedia users in general probably insist on it for the same reason they insist on everything else - "We're anonymous, we're on the internet, we don't care who gets hurt, nobody can tell us what to do, we're not going to let anybody tell us what to do." In the process, they happily ignore the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be a global operation (not just a US/UK operation), it's supposed to operate on the basis of "consensus," it's supposed to be a "charity," and so on. As usual, they're making a hypocritical mockery of their so-called "mission," which as it turns out once again, is simply to do whatever they want, no matter the consequences.

For good or ill, real charities don't start riots and armed revolutions, Mr. Tarc - not even by accident.

I'd ask "how can you not see this," but the fact is, you do see it, and you either don't care either, or you're getting some sort of big erection out of it and you don't want that to go away just yet. And if anything, your reasons for wanting to keep the images there are actually more honest and well-thought-out than the bogus rationale used by most WP users.

[Web Fred]

Perhaps if that person had actually made a logical argument, your point would be sound. All the anti-image proponents argument boils down to is "it offends" and "consider the Muslim sensibilities".

People don't have a right to be free of offense. They are free to remove themselves from situations where things or ideas are present that they may not like. Or they may stay and kindly shut the fuck up.

That's some solid binary thinking there, Mr. Tarc! Since people don't have a right to be free of offense, then surely we simply must offend them, as surely no other course of action would be logical or appropriate.

I can live with that.

And if they "remove themselves from the situation," that's even better, because then we can offend them even more - this time without even having to listen to them complain!

Damn right. How dare they be offended by proxy.

Allowing people to express their opinions, giving a voice to minority groups, acting as if the term "consensus" is actually meaningful - those inconveniences can now just be swept away like the anachronistic bits of silliness they really are.

Why is it automatically assumed that the minority 'voice' should take precedence over the majority voice? And it's not as if the Muslims are that much of a minority, if indeed they are a minority at all!

It's win-win! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Why should letting the other side have a win be a bonus? I never realised, Somey, that you were so uncompetitive.

[Bottled_Spider]

I'd ask "how can you not see this," but the fact is, you do see it, and you either don't care either, or you're getting some sort of big erection out of it and you don't want that to go away just yet. And if anything, your reasons for wanting to keep the images there are actually more honest and well-thought-out than the bogus rationale used by most WP users.

Forget it, Somey. It's Wikipedia.

[Fusion]

Why is it automatically assumed that the minority 'voice' should take precedence over the majority voice?

I am unclear what majority we talk about here. But if say 10% have strong views one way, 1% the other way and 89% have no strong views, why should the 1% prevail? They will, of course, as they are in charge.

And it's not as if the Muslims are that much of a minority, if indeed they are a minority at all!

Absurd! Of course they are a minority. There are far more Christians than Muslims.

[Web Fred]

And it's not as if the Muslims are that much of a minority, if indeed they are a minority at all!

Absurd! Of course they are a minority. There are far more Christians than Muslims.

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

This post has been edited by Web Fred:

[Tarc]

But no, you presume that people insist on keeping images in the article for the sole purpose that it offends Muslims, as if we were all a bunch of Koran-burning pastors from Florida.

I don't presume that Wikipedia users in general insist on it for that reason, though it does seem fairly clear that you insist on it for that reason.

Um, no, I have never been a proponent for that reason. Ever. 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.

By the way, I generally only read the first line of your responses. Save yourself some time and just stop there.

[Proabivouac]

I believe that an encyclopedia is crippled if it defers to any religious or ideological dogma…

Which is why Wikipedianism must be crushed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that asking random Muslims – or even necessarily organized ones, what should be written about Muhammad is the answer – the result would be a ludicrously anti-naturalistic and decidedly uneducational mess. But that's exactly what Wikipedia does now under the dogma of open editing and crowdsourcing. Add asking random non-Muslims to the mix and you have the mess that is. It's not as if Wikipedia is free of Islamic proselytization, any more than it's free of anti-Islamic provocation. Both motives are in much greater supply than scholarly interest – a.k.a. curiosity – and the articles are more or less the result of their interplay. According to Wikipedia dogma, this adversarial system promotes high-quality output. Now we can see with our eyes that this isn't true.

[Somey]

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! Bravo! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

However, the second of those two is not really in dispute, and as for the first... I'm afraid that particular slippery-slope goes in two directions. Who gets to decide what is "religious or ideological dogma" and what is... what, fact? Conventional wisdom? Commonly-held opinion? And if we prohibit religious people from trying to influence WP with their "dogma" today, does it stop there, or do we start prohibiting people who hold other forms of belief, like, say, "all races are equal" or "slavery is bad" from trying to influence it too?

The fact is, Wikipedia deletes and removes stuff all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and to say it's "crippled" if it does this or that is like saying you can't take a quadriplegic's sunglasses away from him because it will inhibit his ability to play golf.



Also, I made an exception for Mr. Proabivouac's post above by approving it myself, rather than waiting for Selina to do it... ehh, mostly because I liked it.

[HRIP7]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that asking random Muslims – or even necessarily organized ones, what should be written about Muhammad is the answer – the result would be a ludicrously anti-naturalistic and decidedly uneducational mess. But that's exactly what Wikipedia does now under the dogma of open editing and crowdsourcing. Add asking random non-Muslims to the mix and you have the mess that is. It's not as if Wikipedia is free of Islamic proselytization, any more than it's free of anti-Islamic provocation. Both motives are in much greater supply than scholarly interest – a.k.a. curiosity – and the articles are more or less the result of their interplay. According to Wikipedia dogma, this adversarial system promotes high-quality output. Now we can see with our eyes that this isn't true.

Well said.

[dtobias]

That's some solid binary thinking there, Mr. Tarc! Since people don't have a right to be free of offense, then surely we simply must offend them, as surely no other course of action would be logical or appropriate.

People could try to follow the principle that was, as I recall, part of the governing rules of the FidoNet BBS network back in the '80s and '90s: "Thou shalt not unnecessarily give offence; and thou shalt not be too easily offended." (Or something like that.) The idea is that it's impolite to go out of your way to try to offend people, and you should avoid this, but it's also bad behavior to go out of your way to find and take offense at things.

[Web Fred]

That's some solid binary thinking there, Mr. Tarc! Since people don't have a right to be free of offense, then surely we simply must offend them, as surely no other course of action would be logical or appropriate.

People could try to follow the principle that was, as I recall, part of the governing rules of the FidoNet BBS network back in the '80s and '90s:

Ooh, a blast from the past.

250/151 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/oldtimer.gif)

[Tarc]

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.

[Emperor]

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

[Tarc]

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

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

[Somey]

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

Late to what game? You hadn't made those arguments here, and I'll be damned if I'm going to go through dozens of talk-page archives to help support a contrary position.

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.

By "do," in italics no less, I assume you mean get on Wikipedia and convince large numbers of people that they're being short-sighted and fighting the wrong battle? Just because I don't want to doesn't mean I lack the ability, though I suppose it's pretty much academic at this point.

What you posted on the-forum-that-must-not-be-named was this (hopefully I'm not breaking any laws by posting this):

That the Western world shouldn't bow to a prehistoric religious precept is such a mind-bogglingly straight-forward notion that "I'm right, you're not" is really all that's needed, chief.

And Mr. Hersch replied the same way I might have, though less diplomatically:

This is just a variation on the familiar "nuke the towel-heads" rant. Muslims are the new Jews.

The fact is, the "Western world," which Wikipedia actually does not represent other than to reflect its worst elements, bows to "prehistoric" religious precepts all the time - at least when it suits people to do so. Christianity predates Islam, after all, and Judaism predates almost everything. But if you'd said "the Western world shouldn't bow to an Islamic religious precept," what you would have gained in accuracy you would have lost in sympathy.

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.

[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:

[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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[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:

[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.

[Zoloft]

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!

I'm really not a mod 'over there' but one of the system admins. Knock yerself out criticizing me. We have a bunch of mods, and an off-topic area as I mentioned above.

I won't be mentioning the other place here again. It would probably piss off my host.

This post has been edited by Zoloft:

[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.

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.

The problem is that Wikipedia is cutting off its nose to spite its face. The argument goes, [some] Muslims don't like it that these images exist so we'll show LOTS OF THEM.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif) That's stupid and childish.

One of the most sensible Wikipedians around, Ken Arromdee (T-C-L-K-R-D) , likened the Muhammad images to depictions of Jesus as a woman in the RfC. It's not a bad comparison, because Muhammad images occupy a similar sort of niche:

http://jesusnotalone.blogspot.co.uk/2009/1...articulate.html

Now, I'm sure there are Christians who consider that image sacrilege, and who think it oughtn't to exist. But that's not a good reason to stick half a dozen such images in the article on Jesus, under a banner that reads "We shall not give in to religious sentiment."

[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:

[Tarc]

One of the most sensible Wikipedians around, Ken Arromdee (T-C-L-K-R-D) , likened the Muhammad images to depictions of Jesus as a woman in the RfC. It's not a bad comparison, because Muhammad images occupy a similar sort of niche:

http://jesusnotalone.blogspot.co.uk/2009/1...articulate.html

Now, I'm sure there are Christians who consider that image sacrilege, and who think it oughtn't to exist. But that's not a good reason to stick half a dozen such images in the article on Jesus, under a banner that reads "We shall not give in to religious sentiment."

I know Arromdee from the Usenet days, he's a fat, video-game neckbeard without a whit of real-world common sense. Editors would protest its inclusion because "Jesus as a woman" is such a fringe concept as to be essentially non-existent within Christianity. With Muhammad, there isn't a debate or question about what he looked like or what gender, the objections don't stem from that, they come from a simple prohibition against depictions in general. Muslims don't question the existence, they just don't want to see them.

[jsalsman]

With Muhammad, there isn't a debate or question about what he looked like

I thought we had established dozens of posts ago that nobody has the slightest clue what Muhammad may have looked like, along with Jesus, Cleopatra, Richard III, and most everyone prior to the fourteenth century except for some Greeks; and, therefore, it's probably not the best idea to include such guesswork depictions in any of their articles.

This post has been edited by jsalsman:

[Tarc]

With Muhammad, there isn't a debate or question about what he looked like

I thought we had established dozens of posts ago that nobody has the slightest clue what Muhammad may have looked like, along with Jesus, Cleopatra, Richard III, and most everyone prior to the fourteenth century except for some Greeks; and, therefore, it's probably not the best idea to include such guesswork depictions in any of their articles.

I was aiming that point in the opposite direction, chief; it'd be pretty retarded to rid the Cleopatra, Richard III, etc...articles of images on this rationale.

Keep up.

[Web Fred]

With Muhammad, there isn't a debate or question about what he looked like

I thought we had established dozens of posts ago that nobody has the slightest clue what Muhammad may have looked like, along with Jesus, Cleopatra, Richard III, and most everyone prior to the fourteenth century except for some Greeks; and, therefore, it's probably not the best idea to include such guesswork depictions in any of their articles.

I was aiming that point in the opposite direction, chief; it'd be pretty retarded to rid the Cleopatra, Richard III, etc...articles of images on this rationale.

Keep up.

Part of the fun of being an agnostic is not having to follow stupid rules thought up by power-hungry controllers of stupid religions, but now it seems that thanks to the politically-correct we still have to follow those rules regardless of our own theological sensibilities.*

Yes I know that's a very, very long unpunctuated sentence, but I'm just back from walking a rather large mastiff puppy who has wiped me out. So I can't be arsed.

[Zoloft]

My admittedly ignorant opinion-Wikipedia should allow users to block on their own PCs any content they find objectionable. You don't wanna see inaccurate depictions of your local prophet? Click here. Want a restricted version for schools? Here is a guide and tools.

Oh and I no longer herd cats. I crate them. It's kinder for both the cat and header.
That previous sentence is of course apropos of absolutely nothing, as is proper for a gnomic type.

[powercorrupts]

My admittedly ignorant opinion-Wikipedia should allow users to block on their own PCs any content they find objectionable. You don't wanna see inaccurate depictions of your local prophet? Click here. Want a restricted version for schools? Here is a guide and tools.

Oh and I no longer herd cats. I crate them. It's kinder for both the cat and header.
That previous sentence is of course apropos of absolutely nothing, as is proper for a gnomic type.

I've never been one for gnomes, especially naked ones with their cock in their hand.

You've never been anything but a complete dong Zoloft, and your recent erection speaks absolute volumes it really does.

Now go and spurt away in the garden of Eden. Or is it a bit boring for you there?

[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.

[Proabivouac]

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

Not to dismiss your main point, but that there should be no figurative images in the article has been overwhelmingly the most common argument, see petition etc., and on WP as well if one counts IPs equally.

Here' an interesting case in that we know exactly what the prophet looked like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'u'lláh

This is partially "censored" in that it's saved for the end of the article. It's my personal opinion that this seriously degrades the article, in that the photo is far and away the most powerful piece of material, as in "wow" – it's just crazy not to lead with it. Its placement reminds me of plot-spoilerism.

We can only hope that no one unearths an authentic portrait of Muhammad.

[Web Fred]

Oh and I no longer herd cats. I crate them. It's kinder for both the cat and header.

Yeah, I've also got to the age where chasing pussy has lost its charm.

My admittedly ignorant opinion-Wikipedia should allow users to block on their own PCs any content they find objectionable. You don't wanna see inaccurate depictions of your local prophet? Click here. Want a restricted version for schools? Here is a guide and tools.

Oh and I no longer herd cats. I crate them. It's kinder for both the cat and header.
That previous sentence is of course apropos of absolutely nothing, as is proper for a gnomic type.

I've never been one for gnomes, especially naked ones with their cock in their hand.

You've never been anything but a complete dong Zoloft, and your recent erection speaks absolute volumes it really does.

Now go and spurt away in the garden of Eden. Or is it a bit boring for you there?

You truly are one miserable fucker aren't you?

[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.

[Text]

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".

==Islam in video games==
==Islam in anime==
==Islam in popular culture==

[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)

[The Joy]

Couldn't the images be "collapsible" like Wikipedia does with text? If anyone wants to look at them, they can un-collapse them. The images stay and those not wanting to look at them have a layer of protection.

Everybody wins! Right?

[powercorrupts]

Couldn't the images be "collapsible" like Wikipedia does with text? If anyone wants to look at them, they can un-collapse them. The images stay and those not wanting to look at them have a layer of protection.

Everybody wins! Right?

You look at Wikipedia for easy solutions?

[Text]

Couldn't the images be "collapsible" like Wikipedia does with text? If anyone wants to look at them, they can un-collapse them. The images stay and those not wanting to look at them have a layer of protection.

Everybody wins! Right?

You look at Wikipedia for easy solutions?

Everybody looks at Wikipedia for lolz now.

[The Joy]

Couldn't the images be "collapsible" like Wikipedia does with text? If anyone wants to look at them, they can un-collapse them. The images stay and those not wanting to look at them have a layer of protection.

Everybody wins! Right?

You look at Wikipedia for easy solutions?

Wikipedia was meant to be flexible. Remember "Ignore All Rules" and "Be Bold!"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

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

[Somey]

The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked.

Where?

I was under the impression that it was the only point they couldn't "debunk," especially when you consider that it's true. Are you now saying they can't? I would think that one look at the article in question would prove that isn't the case.

[Tarc]

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.

Libertarian? No, they are far too simplistic for my tastes. Note that I am generally supportive of the aim to clean up Commons and such, the "if I search for a toothbrush, a woman with a toothbrush up her hoo-ha shouldn't pop up" argument. I love porn personally, but I don't think porn should be where one does not expect it to be.

However, that ideal has a limit, and the limit I draw is at allowances for religious fundamentalism.

[Tarc]

The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked.

Where?

I was under the impression that it was the only point they couldn't "debunk," especially when you consider that it's true. Are you now saying they can't? I would think that one look at the article in question would prove that isn't the case.

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.

When you ask "where?" the obvious question is "the Wikipedia". Perhaps if you a) disclosed your account(s) over there or b) If you still cling to this implausible "I never edited" backstory, perhaps you should, y'know, start.

Caterwauling from a distance when you refuse to participate, openly or otherwise, rates you down with GlassBeadGame as far as I'm concerned.

[Detective]

The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked.

Where?

Somey, I am surprised that you still need a translation service after all this time. Allow me to help.

"I don't like the implications of the "because we can" argument, so I'm going to assert that it has been thoroughly debunked, although of course I know better."

Clearer?

[Proabivouac]

Caterwauling from a distance when you refuse to participate, openly or otherwise, rates you down with GlassBeadGame as far as I'm concerned.

Shouldn't that be up with GlassBeadGame in this context? (Not that I actually believe the premise in either instance.)

[Tarc]

The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked.

Where?

Somey, I am surprised that you still need a translation service after all this time. Allow me to help.

"I don't like the implications of the "because we can" argument, so I'm going to assert that it has been thoroughly debunked, although of course I know better."

Clearer?

(IMG:http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/tarc0917/dawson-crying.jpg)

[dtobias]

Amnesty International is criticizing Egypt for sentencing an actor to prison for "insulting Islam" in his films:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/e...insulting-islam

[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.

[Sololol]

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.

Don't think of it as a quagmire, think of it as a fly trap. Sometimes WP's contradictory rules crash perfectly head on into a social issue like this one. Think of all the obnoxious things these people would be doing if they weren't fighting for or against images of someone no one's seen in over a millennium. If it were up to me your compromise sounds perfectly sensible.

[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.

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm channeling GBG.

I no longer need to enter the fray. The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist. The intent of my posts was to ostracize and isolate the racists. Posting freely on today's WR is about as ostracized and isolated as you can get. So my work is done.

[The Joy]

I'm channeling GBG.

I no longer need to enter the fray. The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist. The intent of my posts was to ostracize and isolate the racists. Posting freely on today's WR is about as ostracized and isolated as you can get. So my work is done.

I'm a racist?

[Emperor]

I'm channeling GBG.

I no longer need to enter the fray. The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist. The intent of my posts was to ostracize and isolate the racists. Posting freely on today's WR is about as ostracized and isolated as you can get. So my work is done.

I'm a racist?

The intent of my posts all along has been for GBG to call The Joy a racist. I also really want a new Ghostbusters movie to be made, but I can't figure out how to get my posts to make that happen.

[Somey]

Caterwauling from a distance when you refuse to participate, openly or otherwise, rates you down with GlassBeadGame as far as I'm concerned.

This is why you've been losing every argument you attempt to engage in, Mr. Tarc. Characterizing basic criticisms as "caterwauling" rates you down with nearly every Jimbo-juicer who ever disgraced wikipedia.org from Day One, as far as I'm concerned. What you're saying essentially amounts to "nyaah, nyaah, nyahh," and nothing more. Just because the images stay in the article doesn't mean you win the argument.

And as for GBG, he clearly has the right idea, and you... well, don't.

One man's "refusal to participate" is another's refusal to feed the monster. I understand that it's a matter of perspective, but if you see it as a monster, then the moral and ethical choices are clear.

This post has been edited by Somey:

[dtobias]

The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist. The intent of my posts was to ostracize and isolate the racists.

What the fuck does any opinion regarding religious-icon imagery have to do with race?

[Somey]

What the fuck does any opinion regarding religious-icon imagery have to do with race?

Because Muslims are overwhelmingly Middle-Eastern, African, Central-Asian, Filipino, and Indonesian/Malaysian?

In any event, "non-white."

Personally I don't think it's racist to point out that the stricture on religious imagery creates a problem that becomes increasingly disproportionate to the stricture's benefit (valid or otherwise) as society becomes more technology-driven, with communications technology in particular becoming more advanced and sophisticated. However, that problem exists on both sides of the issue. If people are going to simply ignore the religious beliefs (and strictures) of huge numbers of people simply because they don't want to, or because technology makes it "harder" for them, then at the very least they shouldn't be surprised to learn that those huge numbers of people still don't like them, despite their saying that it's "nothing personal" or "it is what it is." And that's a reaction to racism, not actual racism.

Needless to say, the mere fact that it can be seen as racism means that a lot of well-meaning (and yes, mostly white) people are being tarred with that particular brush, all because a small group of "free-culture" extremists think that to remove a few images from a Wikipedia article would be seen as "giving in," which would be the "worst thing in the world."

[dtobias]

I think all religion is supertitious nonsense, without regard to whether it's Islam being practiced by Arabs in the Middle East, or Christianity being practiced by white male fundamentalists in the U.S. Bible Belt.

[Text]

The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist. The intent of my posts was to ostracize and isolate the racists.

Glass probably doesn't get that most of this is Internet Racism, mostly harmless stuff made for the lolz, and not because some whites really think it's cool to insult Islam.

[Somey]

I think all religion is supertitious nonsense, without regard to whether it's Islam being practiced by Arabs in the Middle East, or Christianity being practiced by white male fundamentalists in the U.S. Bible Belt.

Glass probably doesn't get that most of this is Internet Racism, mostly harmless stuff made for the lolz, and not because some whites really think it's cool to insult Islam.

I'm afraid both of you are kidding yourselves. Even an atheist can be offended by insults that are based on religion, or the lack thereof - insults are insults, and the fact that it's based on religion doesn't make it a non-insult. Also, the mere fact that racism is expressed on the internet doesn't make it something other than racism.

But as I've said (and I realize it doesn't matter one way or the other what I say), I personally am willing to believe that people who believe that Muslims are being unreasonable about this are not "racists." Maybe that makes me a racist myself, but obviously I'd like to think not. The point is that not everyone believes this, and many of the people who don't are Muslims - especially now that Wikipedia has proven their point so abundantly and consistently.

[dtobias]

GlassBeadGame has a one-note tune he plays over and over again, about how evil "geek libertarians" (like myself) are. That's not a racist view (neither "geek" nor "libertarian" is a race), but it's as shallow and one-dimensional as he claims "geek libertarians" are.

[Somey]

GlassBeadGame has a one-note tune he plays over and over again, about how evil "geek libertarians" (like myself) are. That's not a racist view (neither "geek" nor "libertarian" is a race), but it's as shallow and one-dimensional as he claims "geek libertarians" are.

You're right - it's shallow and one-dimensional.

The real question, to me at least, is whether or not there's moral equivalency here. There's the usual argument over whether or not "geek libertarians" are geeks (or libertarians) by choice, or if they're born that way due to some sort of genetic defect. But it's not just that; have "geek libertarians" been systematically denied economic and social opportunities merely because of their attitude, quasi-ideology, and inability to dress in a way that makes them seem more sexually attractive to others? Are "geek libertarians" targeted for violence and hatred by bigots and extremists merely because of the color of their neck-beards and pocket protectors, or the number of copies of Atlas Shrugged they own? We know they're often unfairly stereotyped in the media, but are those stereotypes genuinely insulting, or do they in fact make it easier for them to "pass" in the larger society for what they want others to think they are - i.e., intellectual, wealthy, totally non-empathic - even if they're actually none of those things?

I guess I would say that "geek libertarian," like "cabal" and "Wikipediot" before it, is a term of art. Mr. Beadgame may believe the people so described are "evil," but I suspect that he thinks of them as victims of a pernicious and, yes, evil quasi-ideology just as much as he thinks of them as having been born evil, and using "geek libertarianism" as a justification for their misdeeds.

[dtobias]

You know, you sound just like homophobes do when they talk about gays. (Are they born that way, or do they choose their lifestyle? Are they evil sinners, or just mentally ill people who need help? Any idea that they're fine just the way they are is out of the question, of course.)

Interestingly, where I'm sitting now a copy of Atlas Shrugged is within touching distance (I just tapped its spine now), but so are a bunch of Isaac Asimov books, a Lord of the Rings box set, a Chronicles of Narnia box set (1970s paperback editions I've had since I was a kid), a complete set of the Harry Potter books, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series in a single deluxe-bound volume, Not Without My Daughter (an American woman flees Iran with her daughter after her Iranian husband refuses to let them leave), a Spanish-English dictionary, and the Official Associated Press Sports Almanac, 1974. Well, that last one might be useful if I happen to need to know who won the 1973 Super Bowl, and it escaped my mind that there was a free encyclopedia I could consult for that.

[The Joy]

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

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

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

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

[Mister Die]

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

I know a guy who has access to Britannica, and he says no. I rather doubt any major encyclopedia would have a portrait (and I would bet my computer that they didn't suddenly take down portraits after 2005 or whenever.)

[Web Fred]

Can anyone tell me WHY the Islamic belief structure should take priority in this matter?

Whilst they are explaining that could they also please tell me if the situation were reversed how likely would the Muslims be to compromise?

[Emperor]

GlassBeadGame has a one-note tune he plays over and over again, about how evil "geek libertarians" (like myself) are. That's not a racist view (neither "geek" nor "libertarian" is a race), but it's as shallow and one-dimensional as he claims "geek libertarians" are.

Actually I think GlassBeadGame is rather racist, as in he's racist to generalize that white male geeks are racists and therefore should be disqualified from making decisions that affect other groups.

[GlassBeadGame]

Overall, your collective responses have been beneath the level to deserve much in the way of reply, which makes my point rather nicely.

Somey's post did make me chuckle.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame:

[GlassBeadGame]

Delete please, if anyone still can. I quoted myself when I just meant to edit a post.


This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame:

[dtobias]

Overall, your collective responses have been beneath the level to deserve much in the way of reply, which makes my point rather nicely.

Feeling smugly superior to everybody else may help your self-esteem, but it hardly constitutes a logical argument in favor of any of your beliefs.

[Web Fred]

Overall, your collective responses have been beneath the level to deserve much in the way of reply, which makes my point rather nicely.

So why reply at all?

We know why, do you?

[Fusion]

Because Muslims are overwhelmingly Middle-Eastern, African, Central-Asian, Filipino, and Indonesian/Malaysian?

In any event, "non-white."

Human beings in general are mostly Middle-Eastern, African, Central-Asian, Filipino, and Indonesian/Malaysian - in any event, "non-white."

But there are white people to be offended by religious images, not only white Muslims, who do exist (especially in Albania) but some Protestants.

If what Tarc says is true and that the images are for education exclusively, then they should stay.

If!

Whilst they are explaining that could they also please tell me if the situation were reversed how likely would the Muslims be to compromise?

No doubt it depends on the Muslims. There are reasonable, sensible ones and fanatical, bigoted ones. The fanatical ones make much noise so you may think they are the majority but they are not. Just like Wikipedians, actually.

[Tarc]

The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist.

GBG, serious question. In your opinion, is this image racist?

(IMG:http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/tarc0917/kwanzaa.jpg)

If what Tarc says is true and that the images are for education exclusively, then they should stay.

If!

It is.

This is why you've been losing every argument you attempt to engage in, Mr. Tarc.

I haven't lost a thing, especially to an ignorant little cunt like you . Your pathetic argument has been nothing more than "we shan't offend", an argument bruised aside with ease.

I pity you bleeding-heart types. Truly.

[dtobias]

I haven't lost a thing, especially to an ignorant little cunt like you .

Namecalling doesn't help in winning arguments, either.

[Fusion]

In your opinion, is this image racist?

If I may give my opinion, it is not racist, just silly.

[Web Fred]

GBG, serious question. In your opinion, is this image racist?

Just ironic, not to mention slightly amusing.

[Tarc]

I haven't lost a thing, especially to an ignorant little cunt like you .

Namecalling doesn't help in winning arguments, either.

Yea, well you know what they say about internet arguments and the Special Olympics... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

As for the image, sure, amusing and silly fit quite well. It is an American pseudo-cultural holiday largely promoted by white people to make themselves feel better about themselves and the history of race relations in this country rather than it having anything to really do with black culture.

It runs along the same lines as whiny twats like Somey and GBG, wringing their hands over something that has nothing to do with them, that they have little actual understanding of, and the presumed recipients of their charitable sympathies likely look upon them with at best indifference, at worst disdain.


This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Somey]

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

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

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

[Emperor]

Ah the classic "you're dumber than cat poop!" argument. This thread just keeps delivering.

[Web Fred]

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

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

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

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

[HRIP7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HRIP7]

Oy, we heard you don't like images.

Guess what?

We put LOADS OF THEM in!

Because we can.â„¢

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

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

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

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

[nableezy]

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

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

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

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

[Tarc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[nableezy]

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

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

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

[Web Fred]

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

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

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

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

Bastards!

[Tarc]

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

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

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

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

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

Its not rocket science, el Che.

[The Joy]

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

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

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

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

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

Its not rocket science, el Che.

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

[nableezy]

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

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

Its not rocket science, el Che.

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

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

This post has been edited by nableezy:

[Tarc]

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

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

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

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

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

That would be a lie

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

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


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

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

[nableezy]

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

That would be a lie

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by nableezy:

[Tarc]

...

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

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

[Somey]

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

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

[Web Fred]

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

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

Good.

Moderators are over-rated anyway.

[Web Fred]

...

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

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

Nigger or nigga?

Enquiring minds wish to know.

Oreo eh? Hmmm?

Does that mean you're green and furry?



Or blue?

[Somey]

Moderators are over-rated anyway.

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

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

[Emperor]

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

[Web Fred]

Moderators are over-rated anyway.

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

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

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

You gotta take the good with the bad.

[Somey]

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

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

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

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

[Web Fred]

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

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

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

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

Racists have every right to be racist if they so wish, and have just as much right to free speech as you do. They are human beings first, racists second. It's neither your place nor mine to say they can't be. The fact they are twats doesn't come into it. I don't know about you but I would far prefer to be able to spot the racist easily rather than having to look hard for the closet racist.

As it happens it's your sort who are risking free speech by demonising particular words and giving them and ever increasing amount of power.

If you weren't listening to what I had to say then how come you managing to reply to it? Or is the forum just like Usenet, in that it's a write-only medium.

This post has been edited by Web Fred:

[dtobias]

Racism being bad doesn't mean that expressing racist ideas isn't free speech.

There are expressions of racism that aren't free speech: silently beating up a neighbor because of what race he is would be one such thing. There are expressions of free speech that can be debated about whether they constitute racism; expressing a critical view of affirmative action policies is one such thing (which some will consider racist to even bring up, while others may find it to be an area of legitimate philosophical disagreement). But some things fall in both the category of "racism" and the category of "free speech".

[Web Fred]

Racism being bad doesn't mean that expressing racist ideas isn't free speech.

There are expressions of racism that aren't free speech: silently beating up a neighbor because of what race he is would be one such thing. There are expressions of free speech that can be debated about whether they constitute racism; expressing a critical view of affirmative action policies is one such thing (which some will consider racist to even bring up, while others may find it to be an area of legitimate philosophical disagreement). But some things fall in both the category of "racism" and the category of "free speech".

I agree totally.

Racism is a disgusting thing, but not being able to express your thoughts is far worse.

[Tarc]

...

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

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

Nigger or nigga?

I am a nigga. Nableezy is acting like a nigger.

I long ago stopped trying to explain the difference to white people.

And by the way, if I'd said "I long ago stopped trying to explain the difference to crackers", that would be actually racist. My original comment was not. I freely admit that it was trolling though, in the classic Usenet-era definition of that word. It was also a test of sorts, to see if there actually is anyone actively moderating this place.

I think we got our answer on that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[nableezy]

...

So I am, paraphrasing my man, the one hanging from a tree and you are the one with gold chains on? That's nice to know. I guess that all that bluster is necessary when you can't actually respond to the points made.

Also, FYI, an Oreo is white on the inside.

[Web Fred]

Also, FYI, an Oreo is white on the inside.

And tastes like shit too.

Why can't Americans make decent chocolate?

[GlassBeadGame]

So Selina, see why its time to pull the plug? Going dark is better than letting your site degenerate into a forum for racist trolls. This is especial true because your best day ever was when you kicked some neo-nazi ass, giving birth to a long good run for WR.

[Emperor]

WR shouldn't go down. Too much stuff posted here that's useful.

[The Joy]

[The Joy]

WR shouldn't go down. Too much stuff posted here that's useful.

There are backups and it can be archived. No big deal.

[Retrospect]

I am a nigga. Nableezy is acting like a nigger.

You're both a pair of fuckwits and acting like a pair of fuckwits. And that ain't racist because I'd have said the same to whoever.

So Selina, see why its time to pull the plug? Going dark is better than letting your site degenerate into a forum for racist trolls. This is especial true because your best day ever was when you kicked some neo-nazi ass, giving birth to a long good run for WR.

Or just get a finger out and make The Joy a moderator. And anyone else around here who's not batshit crazy.

[Alison]

WR shouldn't go down. Too much stuff posted here that's useful.

Selina needs to pull the plug. It's like watching some wise and venerable politician slip into senility in their old age ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Fusion]

Selina needs to pull the plug. It's like watching some wise and venerable politician slip into senility in their old age ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

We have a saying at home, "If you cannot say something sweet, it is best to say nothing".

[The Joy]

So Selina, see why its time to pull the plug? Going dark is better than letting your site degenerate into a forum for racist trolls. This is especial true because your best day ever was when you kicked some neo-nazi ass, giving birth to a long good run for WR.

Or just get a finger out and make The Joy a moderator. And anyone else around here who's not batshit crazy.

I did ask Selina, but she has not responded to my request. I'm certain I can not save the forum, but I could at least move the more libelous and egregious posts out of public view. Wikipedia's Google juice causes enough problems for people, the Review should not add to it.

[The Joy]

WR shouldn't go down. Too much stuff posted here that's useful.

Selina needs to pull the plug. It's like watching some wise and venerable politician slip into senility in their old age ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Well, I already brought Hitler into the thread. Under Godwin's Law, that should mean this thread is at an end, FWIW. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif)

I guess we'll never solve the issue of the Prophet's image being on Wikimedia sites. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

[RMHED]

So Selina, see why its time to pull the plug? Going dark is better than letting your site degenerate into a forum for racist trolls. This is especial true because your best day ever was when you kicked some neo-nazi ass, giving birth to a long good run for WR.

[Web Fred]

Selina needs to pull the plug. It's like watching some wise and venerable politician slip into senility in their old age ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

We have a saying at home, "If you cannot say something sweet, it is best to say nothing".

Then you'll end up staying at home dying of the stress induced from the frustration of not saying what you really feel.

You should try it. It's very liberating and freeing.

And in my case, compulsory, thanks to my brain's wiring,

[Eppur si muove]

Also, FYI, an Oreo is white on the inside.

And tastes like shit too.

Why can't Americans make decent chocolate?

At least the equivalent British metaphor, the Bounty Bar, is almost edible.

[Eppur si muove]

Racism being bad doesn't mean that expressing racist ideas isn't free speech.

There are expressions of racism that aren't free speech: silently beating up a neighbor because of what race he is would be one such thing. There are expressions of free speech that can be debated about whether they constitute racism; expressing a critical view of affirmative action policies is one such thing (which some will consider racist to even bring up, while others may find it to be an area of legitimate philosophical disagreement). But some things fall in both the category of "racism" and the category of "free speech".

I agree totally.

Racism is a disgusting thing, but not being able to express your thoughts is far worse.

It depends on who's preventing the expression of your thoughts. If it's Tony Blair, the cops, the CPS, and some hypocritical magistrate locking up some fuckwit student from Swansea who tweeted a load of nonsense when drunk then that is bad. The State cannot be trusted when it resticts free speech and the Blairite race laws are just window dressing while the afore mentioned cops, CPS and magistrate continue to be part of the system that locks up a disproportionate number of black people.

On the other hand, when Vidal Sassoon and his mates in the 43 Group beat up Jeffrey Hamm and the other preachers of race hate, that was good suppression of free speech. Hamm, Mosley and co would have set up death camps in the UK if they were given the chance and a quick demonstration that they were no physical specimens of a master race helped prevent far worse nastiness.

[Tarc]

when you can't actually respond to the points made.

Let me know when you actually get around to making one.

There's a simple premise here; an online encyclopedia should not self-censor its coverage on Muslim/Islamic topics because adherents are offended.

I'm generally supportive of efforts to rid the project of nudity and porn in places where one does not expect to find it, e.g. a Commons search for cucumbers or the lead image of the pregnancy articles. Sex in public is frowned upon by virtually every social, ideological, and cultural norm.

But pictures of the dear Prophet? The butthurt total is 1/5th to 1/4th, assuming that every Muslim opposes depictions. A minority that does not get to impose its views upon the majority.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Web Fred]

Also, FYI, an Oreo is white on the inside.

And tastes like shit too.

Why can't Americans make decent chocolate?

At least the equivalent British metaphor, the Bounty Bar, is almost edible.

That's the coconut, and yes I agree, but if you pick off all the chocolate then that's not too bad.

Racism being bad doesn't mean that expressing racist ideas isn't free speech.

There are expressions of racism that aren't free speech: silently beating up a neighbor because of what race he is would be one such thing. There are expressions of free speech that can be debated about whether they constitute racism; expressing a critical view of affirmative action policies is one such thing (which some will consider racist to even bring up, while others may find it to be an area of legitimate philosophical disagreement). But some things fall in both the category of "racism" and the category of "free speech".

I agree totally.

Racism is a disgusting thing, but not being able to express your thoughts is far worse.

It depends on who's preventing the expression of your thoughts. If it's Tony Blair, the cops, the CPS, and some hypocritical magistrate locking up some fuckwit student from Swansea who tweeted a load of nonsense when drunk then that is bad. The State cannot be trusted when it resticts free speech and the Blairite race laws are just window dressing while the afore mentioned cops, CPS and magistrate continue to be part of the system that locks up a disproportionate number of black people.

On the other hand, when Vidal Sassoon and his mates in the 43 Group beat up Jeffrey Hamm and the other preachers of race hate, that was good suppression of free speech. Hamm, Mosley and co would have set up death camps in the UK if they were given the chance and a quick demonstration that they were no physical specimens of a master race helped prevent far worse nastiness.

There's no such thing as "good suppression of free speech".

Free speech is an all or nothing thing. And if you want the "good" then you have to accept the "bad" too.

But who decides what is good and what is bad?

[Web Fred]

I'm generally supportive of efforts to rid the project of nudity and porn in places where one does not expect to find it, e.g. a Commons search for cucumbers or the lead image of the pregnancy articles. Sex in public is frowned upon by virtually every social, ideological, and cultural norm.

I actually prefer, from an aesthetic PoV, the nude pregnancy pic over the current 'covered' one.

Cucumbers shoved up pussies I can take or leave, unless of course I'm the one doing the shoving (and in any case, butternut squashes are so much more impressive).

[Somey]

There's no such thing as "good suppression of free speech".

Then it's a good thing that nobody here is suggesting that your "free speech" be "suppressed," isn't it?

It has been suggested that this website should choose to disallow people from making racist remarks on it, and that it probably would if we had people with moderator rights. In any event, you'd be perfectly welcome to make those remarks on your own website - I'm sure nobody here would lift a finger to stop you, much less actually "suppress" you.

This website was never meant to be a public utility.

[Somey]

Let me know when you actually get around to making one.

Part of the problem is that using terms like "butt-hurt" only proves the points being made by the other side. You're obviously insensitive to concerns based on religion - we get that - but the fact that you can't express that in such a way as to suggest anything beyond simple insensitivity (if not actual racism) allows the opposing side to use your statements as evidence that your insensitivity is the only significant motivating factor. And of course, you're not even denying this.

There's a simple premise here; an online encyclopedia should not self-censor its coverage on Muslim/Islamic topics because adherents are offended.

That's not a "simple premise," that is (as it has been all along) an opinion. As I've already pointed out, online encyclopedias are under no obligation to not "self-censor" for whatever reason might strike their fancy, and in fact Wikipedia "censors itself" all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Just not this time, and not this reason. But like I say, you still haven't stated a reason other than, basically, "we shouldn't have to care about people who are butt-hurt over this particular issue."

Anyway, this is all pointless - you're just not listening, the reason why you're not listening is abundantly clear, and as long as all objections can be casually swept away as "whining," you're not going to change.

[Tarc]

And of course, you're not even denying this.

There's nothing to deny when what you're claiming is relevant (sensitivity) actually isn't.

Anyway, this is all pointless - you're just not listening, the reason why you're not listening is abundantly clear, and as long as all objections can be casually swept away as "whining," you're not going to change.

There's nothing constructive to listen to other than your pussy-whipped handwringing. You don't get to instruct people who are not followers of a particular religion to adhere to that religion's beliefs, that's all there is to it.

[Web Fred]

There's no such thing as "good suppression of free speech".

Then it's a good thing that nobody here is suggesting that your "free speech" be "suppressed," isn't it?

It has been suggested that this website should choose to disallow people from making racist remarks on it, and that it probably would if we had people with moderator rights. In any event, you'd be perfectly welcome to make those remarks on your own website - I'm sure nobody here would lift a finger to stop you, much less actually "suppress" you.

This website was never meant to be a public utility.

Errr, could you point out where I left a racist comment?

Anyway, this is all pointless - you're just not listening,

And you are?

[Eppur si muove]

It depends on who's preventing the expression of your thoughts. If it's Tony Blair, the cops, the CPS, and some hypocritical magistrate locking up some fuckwit student from Swansea who tweeted a load of nonsense when drunk then that is bad. The State cannot be trusted when it resticts free speech and the Blairite race laws are just window dressing while the afore mentioned cops, CPS and magistrate continue to be part of the system that locks up a disproportionate number of black people.

On the other hand, when Vidal Sassoon and his mates in the 43 Group beat up Jeffrey Hamm and the other preachers of race hate, that was good suppression of free speech. Hamm, Mosley and co would have set up death camps in the UK if they were given the chance and a quick demonstration that they were no physical specimens of a master race helped prevent far worse nastiness.

There's no such thing as "good suppression of free speech".

Free speech is an all or nothing thing. And if you want the "good" then you have to accept the "bad" too.

But who decides what is good and what is bad?

Free speech is a lot easier to defend when you're not the target. 100+ years ago anrachists used to talk about propaganda by the deed. The 43 Group had seen what fascism meant in practice. When Hamm and co preached the superiority of a master race over the Jew and then the supposed inferior people put the master race to flight, that served to disprove the nonsense that the far right preached. And it wasn't just butch Jews who made them run but the likes of the rather camp Vidal Sassoon. There was no more effective way of showing the nonsense behind the Mosleyite thinking.

[EricBarbour]

Tarc, Somey, etc, you're wasting your time. This thread is hosed.

[Web Fred]

Tarc, Somey, etc, you're wasting your time. This thread is hosed.

It is now you've arrived from the depths from which you came!

[The Joy]

Tarc, Somey, etc, you're wasting your time. This thread is hosed.

The only way to end this thread is to say the Forbidden Word:

( Mod note: Spam removed, *don't* re-add (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) )!

That ought to finally get Selina's attention. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Edit: Wha....? Wiki-pediocracy without the hyphen is a spam word? I've heard of spamming links, but not words. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

This post has been edited by The Joy:

[Somey]

Errr, could you point out where I left a racist comment?

Here, but I was using "you" in the general sense, not referring to you specifically (if at all).

And you are?

Of course. In fact, I've already stated, fairly clearly, that I fully understand that Islamic attitudes towards unwanted iconography are highly problematic in a modern technological society, and that it would be better for everyone if they liberalized in that respect. But of course, I'm not the one using someone else's website to flip the bird at those attitudes and claiming I have a "free speech right" to do so, as if Wikipedia (or WR, for that matter) is a public utility. Nor am I the owner of a website on which that particular bird is being flipped.

And unlike the person(s) doing the bird-flipping, I actually understand why they (the Muslims) resist that kind of external pressure - they have longstanding traditions to uphold, and their history is littered with examples of them getting screwed in a huge way when they've given in to Western cultural pressures, not to mention Western military and financial "hegemony." You guys, if you understand that at all, simply don't care. Which is fine, but again, don't tell me you don't care (or don't understand) because you have a "free speech right" to not care and not understand.

You do have a right to be uncaring, ignorant, and stupid; just don't insult the rest of us by thinking we will ever believe that those aren't the rights you're choosing to exercise in this case.

This post has been edited by Somey:

[Web Fred]

Errr, could you point out where I left a racist comment?

Here, but I was using "you" in the general sense, not referring to you specifically (if at all).

Huh? Where in that post was there any racism?

And you are?

Of course. In fact, I've already stated, fairly clearly, that I fully understand that Islamic attitudes towards unwanted iconography are highly problematic in a modern technological society, and that it would be better for everyone if they liberalized in that respect. But of course, I'm not the one using someone else's website to flip the bird at those attitudes and claiming I have a "free speech right" to do so, as if Wikipedia (or WR, for that matter) is a public utility. Nor am I the owner of a website on which that particular bird is being flipped.

And unlike the person(s) doing the bird-flipping, I actually understand why they (the Muslims) resist that kind of external pressure - they have longstanding traditions to uphold, and their history is littered with examples of them getting screwed in a huge way when they've given in to Western cultural pressures, not to mention Western military and financial "hegemony." You guys, if you understand that at all, simply don't care. Which is fine, but again, don't tell me you don't care (or don't understand) because you have a "free speech right" to not care and not understand.

You do have a right to be uncaring, ignorant, and stupid; just don't insult the rest of us by thinking we will ever believe that those aren't the rights you're choosing to exercise in this case.

I think my point is proven simply by the number of words you are using. From what I see, from a virtual PoV, your mouth is moving but your ears don't seem to be.

I've asked several pertinent questions which have gone unanswered by those who wax lyrical on how their understanding outstrips mine.

There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy rearing its ugly little head in this never-ending thread, most of it coming from you sunshine.

[Emperor]

And unlike the person(s) doing the bird-flipping, I actually understand why they (the Muslims) resist that kind of external pressure - they have longstanding traditions to uphold, and their history is littered with examples of them getting screwed in a huge way when they've given in to Western cultural pressures, not to mention Western military and financial "hegemony." You guys, if you understand that at all, simply don't care. Which is fine, but again, don't tell me you don't care (or don't understand) because you have a "free speech right" to not care and not understand.

I'd argue the opposite, that Muslim civilization had pretty much driven itself into the ground until ~200 years ago when Napoleon invaded Egypt. Westerners built the Suez canal, developed ways to feed large populations, how to extract oil from the desert, etc. UAE for example, has been prospering while interacting with the West.

[dtobias]

Edit: Wha....? Wiki-pediocracy without the hyphen is a spam word? I've heard of spamming links, but not words. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

This forum has a BADSITES policy now? WR has officially "jumped the shark" just as WP did when it had its own BADSITES madness a few years ago.

[Tarc]

And unlike the person(s) doing the bird-flipping, I actually understand why they (the Muslims) resist that kind of external pressure - they have longstanding traditions to uphold, and their history is littered with examples of them getting screwed in a huge way when they've given in to Western cultural pressures, not to mention Western military and financial "hegemony."

So since Muslims where shat upon by the West for a century or so, that gives them the proverbial I'MaVictim™ Card to play from here on out?

[Somey]

I'd argue the opposite, that Muslim civilization had pretty much driven itself into the ground until ~200 years ago when Napoleon invaded Egypt. Westerners built the Suez canal, developed ways to feed large populations, how to extract oil from the desert, etc. UAE for example, has been prospering while interacting with the West.

Those are good points, but I believe you have to ask yourself just how popular these developments were, and who really benefited. In other words, if you build a canal or an oil pipeline that does little more than enrich the ruling class and allow them to more effectively oppress the masses, what happens when the masses finally overthrow the rulers? In this context (i.e., religion and online encyclopedias), IMO we have to think in terms of popular sentiment for or against the West (as well as the Russians and Chinese, I might add) and how that might drive policy and diplomacy, not the other way around.

This forum has a BADSITES policy now?

Evidently so. Only it's even more inexplicable, because the criticism of WR that's taken place on the site in question has been restricted almost entirely to a non-public subforum.

So since Muslims where shat upon by the West for a century or so, that gives them the proverbial I'MaVictim™ Card to play from here on out?

That depends on how you define the word "victim" (not to mention the word "shat"). Generally speaking, I would say "no," unless the people playing that card are Palestinians. But whether or not you accept the idea that Muslim insistence on the suppression of iconography is based on a perceived right to feel victimized, they're going to make that part of their argument regardless. My own point has mainly been that Wikipedia is a terrible, if not the worst possible, venue for the argument to take place, because it will actually prevent a resolution of the problem.

I guess if I had to come up with an analogy, it would be that if you're in a situation where the only way to win is for both sides to stop fighting, you should want your battlefield to be cold, wet, muddy, and miserable - because then people might say, "y'know, this really isn't worth all this trouble after all." You don't want the battlefield to be nicely situated in the comfort of your own suburban home, where you're surrounded by milk and cookies and throw-pillows and comfortable footwear, because then it will just go on forever. The conflict is still hurting some people, economically, psychologically, and in some cases even physically - but as long as it remains "fun" (not to mention "free") for a non-negligible minority of people on both sides to participate in it, it literally might never end.

And yet, personally I have no problem with this. It makes Wikipedia look bad, and I'm not a political cartoonist. I wasn't planning to take a trip to the Middle East any time soon either, as I generally don't like traveling much in general. So hey, carry on! Knock yourself out! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[dtobias]

I guess if I had to come up with an analogy, it would be that if you're in a situation where the only way to win is for both sides to stop fighting, you should want your battlefield to be cold, wet, muddy, and miserable - because then people might say, "y'know, this really isn't worth all this trouble after all." You don't want the battlefield to be nicely situated in the comfort of your own suburban home, where you're surrounded by milk and cookies and throw-pillows and comfortable footwear, because then it will just go on forever. The conflict is still hurting some people, economically, psychologically, and in some cases even physically - but as long as it remains "fun" (not to mention "free") for a non-negligible minority of people on both sides to participate in it, it literally might never end.

And how exactly would anybody force the battle into a more appropriate venue by those standards? Battles aren't like Super Bowls or Olympic games, where some officials get to decide their location in advance; they break out where they happen to break out, convenient or not. If a bunch of people decide to start arguing about the issue on Wikipedia, then even a dictum from Jimmy Wales himself wouldn't stop it (attempting to ban everybody in the argument might just make them all angrier and the battle even more vicious and intractable). Do you expect everybody involved in Wikipedia with some sort of opinion on the prophet-image controversy to simply spontaneously shut up and defer to the outcome of a debate conducted in some other place that's cold, wet, muddy, and miserable?

[The Joy]

I feel like people are tip-toeing around this, but what if Islamic terrorists start researching who's adding images of the Prophet to Wikimedia sites, determine who they are, and start killing them? Or worse, going after their families, friends, acquaintances, and other innocent people?

Wikipedians deal with edit wars and online "whining," not live-and-death decisions. They don't take reasonable Muslims seriously, but what if bodies start falling when unreasonable Muslims come into the equation? In all seriousness, are Wikipedians truly prepared to die for "information must be free?" When Anonymous planned a war against the Mexican drug cartels, the cartels responded by hanging the mutilated and tortured bodies of hackers around cities with signs saying "This is what happens to hackers who cross us" or something like that around their necks. Don't think I'm being hyperbolic or overly morbid. People have died for something as "silly" as posting depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and online anonymity cannot always protect you.

It's a dark and morbid hypothetical, but one I think Wikimedians really need to consider when dealing with these kinds of issues. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Emperor]

It's a dark and morbid hypothetical, but one I think Wikimedians really need to consider when dealing with these kinds of issues. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

If anything, that pushes me in the "show the pictures" direction. Terrorists might be able to intimidate a few dozen nerds but if a few thousand stand with them it won't be so easy.

It's a slippery slope if you let threats of violence dictate content on Wikipedia. If a few pixels on a computer screen drives them into a homicidal rage then really it's something wrong with them, not us. It would start with pics of Mohammed and end with all the homosexuality articles, Jewish articles, Christian articles being controlled by Muslim thought police and their lily-livered enablers.

[Michaeldsuarez]

...

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=71080866

Fae is apparently using this comment to claim that the Wikipedia Review is calling people "niggers". Selina (are you still around here somewhere?) needs to look into restoring the moderation abilities of moderators.

[Fusion]

This does not resolve the problem when off-site discussion threads being linked to not only discuss the behaviour of Commons contributors but also make claims about their sex lives, call them niggers, faggots, nazis, frauds, paedophile supporters and out them including contact details for employers, home addresses, phone numbers, medical history and so forth.

Oh, has all of this taken place here? It seems that I have missed many exciting discussions. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Web Fred]

...

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=71080866

Fae is apparently using this comment to claim that the Wikipedia Review is calling people "niggers". Selina (are you still around here somewhere?) needs to look into restoring the moderation abilities of moderators.

Does it matter what a tosser like Fae thinks?

[The Joy]

...

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=71080866

Fae is apparently using this comment to claim that the Wikipedia Review is calling people "niggers". Selina (are you still around here somewhere?) needs to look into restoring the moderation abilities of moderators.

Have you explained to Fae that, in March 2012, the forum was purged of its mods and staff by the site owner (who, it should be noted, has largely abandoned the site) who, in all seriousness, believes we are all agents or sympathizers of U.S. politician and former Vice-Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche who made a comment in the 1970s about whether the exact number of Holocaust victims was inaccurate, and thus, according to the site owner, means that those people in 2012 who participate in the current LaRouche political movement ((of which one of our former staff members was a member) must be a Holocaust Denier and therefore he and those who said "Hey, he is a nice guy and a good staff member!" thus must be a part of a vast LaRouche conspiracy to seize Wikipedia Review and turn it into a platform for LaRouche's political ambitions? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

That's why this forum has fallen apart with libel and cursing strewn about and become a Wild West environment (the British equivalent being Yorkshire, I believe). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

If Fae does have a legal problem with this forum, contacting its host, Hostgator, may speed the process along. They like to overreact to legal threats without investigation.

[Ottava]

The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist.

GBG, serious question. In your opinion, is this image racist?

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/tarc0917/kwanzaa.jpg

It is not "racist" but "racial". It is actually pointing out how white people adopt traditional "black" things mostly to try and make themselves not feel racist. In essence, the picture is showing that the white people are racist or are suffering from bad judgment. It is an attempt to develop "black street cred", which itself is patronizing and thus racist.

[Emperor]

Have you explained to Fae that, in March 2012, the forum was purged of its mods and staff by the site owner (who, it should be noted, has largely abandoned the site) who, in all seriousness, believes we are all agents or sympathizers of U.S. politician and former Vice-Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche who made a comment in the 1970s about whether the exact number of Holocaust victims was inaccurate, and thus, according to the site owner, means that those people in 2012 who participate in the current LaRouche political movement ((of which one of our former staff members was a member) must be a Holocaust Denier and therefore he and those who said "Hey, he is a nice guy and a good staff member!" thus must be a part of a vast LaRouche conspiracy to seize Wikipedia Review and turn it into a platform for LaRouche's political ambitions? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

That's why this forum has fallen apart with libel and cursing strewn about and become a Wild West environment (the British equivalent being Yorkshire, I believe). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

If Fae does have a legal problem with this forum, contacting its host, Hostgator, may speed the process along. They like to overreact to legal threats without investigation.

The reason why the forum has fallen apart is that yes, there was indeed a representative here from the Lyndon LaRouche organization who became a staff member and used Wikipedia Review for LaRouche-related business (i.e. controlling Wikipedia and disseminating propaganda). He was also a Holocaust denier. The rest of the mods and staff rather than distancing themselves from him, instead circled the wagons.

I'm pretty sure Selina doesn't think you're all LaRouche supporters, but at some point you have to judge people by how they act, not by how you think they should be acting.

[Web Fred]

I'm pretty sure Selina doesn't think you're all LaRouche supporters, but at some point you have to judge people by how they act, not by how you think they should be acting.

I don't even know who the hell he is, much less support him.

[Retrospect]

I'm pretty sure Selina doesn't think you're all LaRouche supporters, but at some point you have to judge people by how they act, not by how you think they should be acting.

I don't even know who the hell he is, much less support him.

He's such a tosser he makes other Yank politicos look good. You'd think they'd be nice to him in gratitude except which Yank politico ever was grateful? Anyway he's someone of no importance whatever and never was, so why all the aeration about him?

[Tarc]

...

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=71080866

Fae is apparently using this comment to claim that the Wikipedia Review is calling people "niggers". Selina (are you still around here somewhere?) needs to look into restoring the moderation abilities of moderators.

Islam (Also known as 'Pisslam', 'Jizzlam', 'Shitlam', 'Muhammed Is Lam-E', 'iSlam-my-head-on-the-ground', 'fucking bullshit' and 'Durka durka Muhammed Jihad') is the religion of butthurt dirty, smelly, sand niggers who have absolutely no fucking idea of how to fit into the 21st century. Islam is Arabic for "submission to the will of God", which means that they have to stand towards Mecca, kneel their head into the earth and point their arse to the sky. Then they must screem "Allahu ahbar!" Allah can fuck you in any orifice at a whim, all the while demanding you to say you like it. Islam was created by the "prophet" Muhammad (may he writhe in hell) (born April 20, 571), yet another guy who heard voices in his head.

* http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Islam

Nigger is a term of endearment for the half-ape, sub-human invasive species devolved from chimpanzees who eat fried chicken, watermelons and collard greens, make noise about raping white women and stealing welfare checks from invalid grandmothers so they can pretend they bought those plastic spinning hubcaps they stole from other niggers to pimp out their stolen 1974 Cadillacs. Break dancing was invented by niggers stealing hubcaps from moving cars. Niggers are lazy, dumb, and most of all, they smell even after taking a shower. They pretend to act civilized, but quickly give up the ghost when offended and resort to their monkey instincts by getting drunk on Colt 45, Olde English, or any other cheap ass Malt Liquor, smoke menthol cigarettes, weed, and crack cocaine, followed by raping white women and throwing their own feces as their tree-dwelling monkey predecessors. Nigger women, when challenged, will take off their earrings, shoes and bling as their brains are not big enough to know this has no fucking effect whatsoever. Niggers speak an abomination of a language they call ebonics - which is nothing more than gibberish filtered through thick, rubbery lips. Because of the prevelance of violence in black society, 9 out of 10 blacks will be gunned down before the age of three.

* http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Nigger

Aboriginals are the niggers of Australia. They are the most primitive animals on the planet.

They are typically called coons, boongs, abos or black cunts by every Australian. The proper name for a young aboriginal is Lake Angel.

* http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Aboriginal

I'm not calling these out to condemn ED, I have always found such entries quite funny. I'm calling them out to show Suarez in an extremely hypocritical light, as he has no standing to call on this forum to remove such language (especially when it was not used in a specifically racist manner) when he is an admin on a forum where the intent and aim is to be as racist as humanly possible For the Lulz.


As for Ashley/Fae, he is an asshole. He is not an asshole because he is gay, he is simply a gay person who acts in an assholish manner every waking moment of his day. He is the ultimate VictimCard™ player who will deflect any criticism of himself and onto his sexuality.

Nothing done here or at the Kohsocracy matters, he will still find some crutch or some excuse.



This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Tarc]

I feel like people are tip-toeing around this, but what if Islamic terrorists start researching who's adding images of the Prophet to Wikimedia sites, determine who they are, and start killing them? Or worse, going after their families, friends, acquaintances, and other innocent people?

An interesting question that would probably draw howls of protest from both sides of the aisle if this were posed over to the Wikipedia. The image removers would cry that you're painting all opposition as terrorists, the keepers would harden into an extreme "fuck them all" bunker.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[TungstenCarbide]

... a Wild West environment (the British equivalent being Yorkshire, I believe).

Cool, I never knew that about Yorkshire. What about the cuisine?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Web Fred]

... a Wild West environment (the British equivalent being Yorkshire, I believe).

Cool, I never knew that about Yorkshire. What about the cuisine?

Down South would be more accurate. The Southerners are all a bunch of cowboys.

I feel like people are tip-toeing around this, but what if Islamic terrorists start researching who's adding images of the Prophet to Wikimedia sites, determine who they are, and start killing them? Or worse, going after their families, friends, acquaintances, and other innocent people?

An interesting question that would probably draw howls of protest from both sides of the aisle if this were posed over to the Wikipedia. The image removers would cry that you're painting all opposition as terrorists, the keepers would harden into an extreme "fuck them all" bunker.

"Fuck 'em all" works for me far better than previous eloquent equivalents.

[Fusion]

... a Wild West environment (the British equivalent being Yorkshire, I believe).

Cool, I never knew that about Yorkshire. What about the cuisine?

Indeed, I have always found such parts of Yorkshire as I have visited to be most civilised.

The native traditional dish is roast beef, boiled carrots and Yorkshire pudding. However, there is a high concentration in some areas of Indians and Bangladeshis so if you like their food you can find it done well.

[Web Fred]

... a Wild West environment (the British equivalent being Yorkshire, I believe).

Cool, I never knew that about Yorkshire. What about the cuisine?

Indeed, I have always found such parts of Yorkshire as I have visited to be most civilised.

The native traditional dish is roast beef, boiled carrots and Yorkshire pudding. However, there is a high concentration in some areas of Indians and Bangladeshis so if you like their food you can find it done well.

Sod the beef, yorkshire pud with roast lamb and mint sauce nom, nom, nom. <drool>

Great. It's bedtime and I'm Jonesing for a Sunday dinner! Just great.

[The Joy]

... a Wild West environment (the British equivalent being Yorkshire, I believe).

Cool, I never knew that about Yorkshire. What about the cuisine?

Indeed, I have always found such parts of Yorkshire as I have visited to be most civilised.

The native traditional dish is roast beef, boiled carrots and Yorkshire pudding. However, there is a high concentration in some areas of Indians and Bangladeshis so if you like their food you can find it done well.

I was watching an episode of Wallace and Gromit and, when Gromit had to dispose of a bomb, he chose Yorkshire as the place to throw it rather than at the nuns carrying kittens. I see a lot of poking at Yorkshire on British shows and I figured Yorkshire was like the Detroit, East St. Louis, or New Jersey of Great Britain? I did have a college classmate from Manchester (in fact, most British students at my college were from Manchester) and he seemed to describe it as a fairly rough place. Web Fred and Malleus would disagree, though the BBC News website likes to point out the gun violence and stabbings that go on there.

So, Southern England is the land of gun nuts and right-wingers? I never thought of places like Eastbourne, Portsmouth, Ventnor, Southampton, and the Channel Islands as the British Wild West. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

(and, yes, this still has nothing to do with Islam, and that's probably for the best. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif) )

[The Joy]

Have you explained to Fae that, in March 2012, the forum was purged of its mods and staff by the site owner (who, it should be noted, has largely abandoned the site) who, in all seriousness, believes we are all agents or sympathizers of U.S. politician and former Vice-Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche who made a comment in the 1970s about whether the exact number of Holocaust victims was inaccurate, and thus, according to the site owner, means that those people in 2012 who participate in the current LaRouche political movement ((of which one of our former staff members was a member) must be a Holocaust Denier and therefore he and those who said "Hey, he is a nice guy and a good staff member!" thus must be a part of a vast LaRouche conspiracy to seize Wikipedia Review and turn it into a platform for LaRouche's political ambitions? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

That's why this forum has fallen apart with libel and cursing strewn about and become a Wild West environment (the British equivalent being Yorkshire, I believe). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

If Fae does have a legal problem with this forum, contacting its host, Hostgator, may speed the process along. They like to overreact to legal threats without investigation.

The reason why the forum has fallen apart is that yes, there was indeed a representative here from the Lyndon LaRouche organization who became a staff member and used Wikipedia Review for LaRouche-related business (i.e. controlling Wikipedia and disseminating propaganda). He was also a Holocaust denier. The rest of the mods and staff rather than distancing themselves from him, instead circled the wagons.

I'm pretty sure Selina doesn't think you're all LaRouche supporters, but at some point you have to judge people by how they act, not by how you think they should be acting.

I know we had this argument in March when the poo hit the fan, so revisiting it probably wouldn't change anything. What's happened has happened.

Still, I never saw any instance of Holocaust Denial by the staff member here. Can you point to any instance?

[Fusion]

I was watching an episode of Wallace and Gromit and, when Gromit had to dispose of a bomb, he chose Yorkshire as the place to throw it rather than at the nuns carrying kittens. I see a lot of poking at Yorkshire on British shows and I figured Yorkshire was like the Detroit, East St. Louis, or New Jersey of Great Britain? I did have a college classmate from Manchester (in fact, most British students at my college were from Manchester) and he seemed to describe it as a fairly rough place. Web Fred and Malleus would disagree, though the BBC News website likes to point out the gun violence and stabbings that go on there.

So, Southern England is the land of gun nuts and right-wingers? I never thought of places like Eastbourne, Portsmouth, Ventnor, Southampton, and the Channel Islands as the British Wild West. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

(and, yes, this still has nothing to do with Islam, and that's probably for the best. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif) )

As I uinderstand it, Manchester is not in Yorkshire but to its west. There is long a historical rivalry between Yorkshire and the areas to the west of it. Maybe someone better versed in English history knows more? The standard phrase for a right-wing but civilised person is "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells". This is a town to the south-east of London but I have never yet been there. Still, I doubt that even there will you find so many guns as in America.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=71080866

Fae is apparently using this comment to claim that the Wikipedia Review is calling people "niggers". Selina (are you still around here somewhere?) needs to look into restoring the moderation abilities of moderators.

[...]

I'm not calling these out to condemn ED, I have always found such entries quite funny. I'm calling them out to show Suarez in an extremely hypocritical light, as he has no standing to call on this forum to remove such language (especially when it was not used in a specifically racist manner) when he is an admin on a forum where the intent and aim is to be as racist as humanly possible For the Lulz.

[...]

I don't have any desire to censor your comment. All I wanted was for Selina to read my post (and The Joy's post), realize that this forum needs active moderators, restore Somey's moderation abilities, and save this forum.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Eppur si muove]

I was watching an episode of Wallace and Gromit and, when Gromit had to dispose of a bomb, he chose Yorkshire as the place to throw it rather than at the nuns carrying kittens. I see a lot of poking at Yorkshire on British shows and I figured Yorkshire was like the Detroit, East St. Louis, or New Jersey of Great Britain? I did have a college classmate from Manchester (in fact, most British students at my college were from Manchester) and he seemed to describe it as a fairly rough place. Web Fred and Malleus would disagree, though the BBC News website likes to point out the gun violence and stabbings that go on there.

So, Southern England is the land of gun nuts and right-wingers? I never thought of places like Eastbourne, Portsmouth, Ventnor, Southampton, and the Channel Islands as the British Wild West. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

(and, yes, this still has nothing to do with Islam, and that's probably for the best. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif) )

Do be aware of the traditional roses rivalry across the Pennines. So a Mancunian, as someone from historic Lancashire, might be prejudiced against Yorkshire.

When research was done on people's attitudes to regional accents, the Yorkshire accent, was one of those most favourably received when considering someone's suitable to get a business position. This contrasts with the Brummie, Geordie and West Country accents which would be negatively received in that context. Leeds is Englands's second biggest financial centre after London.

Yorkshire as rough would strike me more as part of a generic North-South contrast. A traditionally parochial Southern middle class view is that civilisation ends at the Watford Gap. The M1 motorway goes through the Watford Gap on the way from London to Yorkshire.

A specific Yorkshire characterisation is for blunt-speaking.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove:

[Web Fred]

I was watching an episode of Wallace and Gromit and, when Gromit had to dispose of a bomb, he chose Yorkshire as the place to throw it rather than at the nuns carrying kittens. I see a lot of poking at Yorkshire on British shows and I figured Yorkshire was like the Detroit, East St. Louis, or New Jersey of Great Britain? I did have a college classmate from Manchester (in fact, most British students at my college were from Manchester) and he seemed to describe it as a fairly rough place. Web Fred and Malleus would disagree, though the BBC News website likes to point out the gun violence and stabbings that go on there.

So, Southern England is the land of gun nuts and right-wingers? I never thought of places like Eastbourne, Portsmouth, Ventnor, Southampton, and the Channel Islands as the British Wild West. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

(and, yes, this still has nothing to do with Islam, and that's probably for the best. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif) )

Do be aware of the traditional roses rivalry across the Pennines. So a Mancunian, as someone from historic Lancashire, might be prejudiced against Yorkshire.

When research was done on people's attitudes to regional accents, the Yorkshire accent, was one of those most favourably received when considering someone's suitable to get a business position. This contrasts with the Brummie, Geordie and West Country accents which would be negatively received in that context. Leeds is Englands's second biggest financial centre after London.

Yorkshire as rough would strike me more as part of a generic North-South contrast. A traditionally parochial Southern middle class view is that civilisation ends at the Watford Gap. The M1 motorway goes through the Watford Gap on the way from London to Yorkshire.

A specific Yorkshire characterisation is for blunt-speaking.

As a Mancunian it may be surprising to hear that I like the Yorkshire accent, but detest the typical Manchester "Manc-lad" accent.

Aye lad, south of t'Watford Gap they're all southern Nancies.

[Web Fred]

I don't have any desire to censor your comment. All I wanted was for Selina to read my post (and The Joy's post), realize that this forum needs active moderators, restore Somey's moderation abilities, and save this forum.

Considering the provenance of this website and the fact there is no current moderation I'm pleasantly surprised that things aren't that bad.

Everything that is the slightest bit controversial is being voluntarily kept to one thread and there seems to be a lot less animosity towards each other...or that could just be the consequence of all the wankers disappearing off to the Other Placeâ„¢.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Considering the provenance of this website and the fact there is no current moderation I'm pleasantly surprised that things aren't that bad.

Everything that is the slightest bit controversial is being voluntarily kept to one thread and there seems to be a lot less animosity towards each other...or that could just be the consequence of all the wankers disappearing off to the Other Placeâ„¢.

Things aren't that bad because new accounts aren't being approved, so troublemakers, spammers, sockpuppeteers, and trolls can't take advantage of the situation. Nevertheless, the lack of new blood, in addition to our utter failure to retain our older users, will cause the Wikipedia Review to continue on with its slow death. The level of activity on the this forum isn't what it used to be, and unless Selina restores the moderators' ability to actually moderate and approve new accounts, the declining activity issue is bound to become worse.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Emperor]

Still, I never saw any instance of Holocaust Denial by the staff member here. Can you point to any instance?

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

[Zoloft]

Still, I never saw any instance of Holocaust Denial by the staff member here. Can you point to any instance?

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

Beware people who will bring up a topic without linking it, then tell you what to think about it.

[Emperor]

Beware people who will bring up a topic without linking it, then tell you what to think about it.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[The Joy]

Beware people who will bring up a topic without linking it, then tell you what to think about it.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37051

I'm still not seeing it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Fusion]

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

I have read something of Hersch and his organisation. They seem to blame the Queen of Britain for everything bad in the world. Not the British government, which has the power, but the Queen who is but an almost powerless ceremonial figurehead like the president of the USSR under Stalin. So no doubt the previous king must have been responsible for what the Nazis did during the War despite Britain fighting against the Nazis.

[GlassBeadGame]

Still, I never saw any instance of Holocaust Denial by the staff member here. Can you point to any instance?

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

Can you imagine what it must be like to look back on your life as the henchman of of fruitcake? As for Dogbiscuit, he turned into such a sniveling ass-lick toward the end of WR that it was kind of sad.

But enough nostalgia. Let's say we have a wake and bury this bitch before it starts to smell.

[Tarc]

Still, I never saw any instance of Holocaust Denial by the staff member here. Can you point to any instance?

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

Can you imagine what it must be like to look back on your life as the henchman of of fruitcake? As for Dogbiscuit, he turned into such a sniveling ass-lick toward the end of WR that it was kind of sad.

But enough nostalgia. Let's say we have a wake and bury this bitch before it starts to smell.

Per your own alleged moral standards, I expect you to post sporadic, 1 to 2-line harangues against yourself for being a misogynistic asshole who uses the b-word in a derogatory manner.

[Emperor]

Can you imagine what it must be like to look back on your life as the henchman of of fruitcake? As for Dogbiscuit, he turned into such a sniveling ass-lick toward the end of WR that it was kind of sad.

But enough nostalgia. Let's say we have a wake and bury this bitch before it starts to smell.

Agreed they must feel pretty silly at this point. I can't imagine why Dogbiscuit isn't still exclusively on Wikipedia. He'd fit right in there. Their whole thing was a frightening example of groupthink.

WR should stay open because there are new people out there who need to read this stuff. It wouldn't be too hard once everyone's cooled off to get things going again.

[GlassBeadGame]

WR should stay open because there are new people out there who need to read this stuff. It wouldn't be too hard once everyone's cooled off to get things going again.

Not really. Even when it was good WR was more of a conversation than a reference work. Think river, not fishbowl. It doesn't, and shouldn't, mean much to people who were not part of the conversation.

[Emperor]

WR should stay open because there are new people out there who need to read this stuff. It wouldn't be too hard once everyone's cooled off to get things going again.

Not really. Even when it was good WR was more of a conversation than a reference work. Think river, not fishbowl. It doesn't, and shouldn't, mean much to people who were not part of the conversation.

If it's a river then why take it so seriously? Myspace staggers on, why not Wikipedia Review?

[Detective]

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

It looks to me as if Hersch is saying what LaRouche thinks, without actually saying he agrees with it. We might assume that he does, but he's being clever and not nailing his colours to the mast.

[Web Fred]

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

It looks to me as if Hersch is saying what LaRouche thinks, without actually saying he agrees with it. We might assume that he does, but he's being clever and not nailing his colours to the mast.

One wouldn't spread stuff one didn't like.

What I don't get, unless it's some sort of irony I'm not au fait with, is why he would use a Jewish pseudonym whilst at the same time pushing the rhetoric of an anti-semite.

[GlassBeadGame]

Now stop being a cunt and deliberately trolling for a reaction.

What you are doing isn't wanted, needed or necessary.

If you want a bigger and more reactive audience why don't you practise your hi-jinx over at the OTHER PLACE.

The cracy place?

They're repeating what was largely done here and they're getting the same results. In fact, Peter didn't get too far, as predicted by Glass Boy.

We therefore do not consider you to be person ‘affected’ by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd and therefore entitled to request a review of our decision to register the charity or to request its removal.

I just look over there. I did nail it. Not just right, but exactly right. The commission found Petey-Bee has no standing in the matter. Exactly as I said. He is a busybody and an inter-meddler. Of course over there they spin it as the charity commission made fools of themselves. Ass-licker par excellence, Dogbiscuit, goes so far as claiming it a victory because WMF had to waste money on an attorney because of Petey-Bees frivolous claim. I'll take my victory dance here because I don't post there and they don't seem to "recall" that I predicted this outcome.

[Tarc]

I'll take my victory dance here because I don't post there and they don't seem to "recall" that I predicted this outcome.

That's generally how douchebags are treated, yes.

[GlassBeadGame]

I'll take my victory dance here because I don't post there and they don't seem to "recall" that I predicted this outcome.

That's generally how douchebags are treated, yes.

Given that criticizing Gomi and H for supporting Petey-Bee in his intramural dispute with his fellow Wikipedians at WMF-UK was the immediate cause of their banishing me to the "whine cellar" I feel justified in acting like a dick in pointing out I was right.

That along with pointing out that nobody in their right mind would publish the drivel that was composed in the quasi-secret "book" forum. Seems I was two for two.

[Detective]

We therefore do not consider you to be person ‘affected’ by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd and therefore entitled to request a review of our decision to register the charity or to request its removal.

Who exactly would be a person ‘affected’ by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd? Suppose you went to them with proof that you had nasty things in a BLP about you, or your child had been disturbed by pornography? Would you be affected by Wikipedia? I'd have thought so. Would you be affected by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd? No, because they didn't cause it and it was of course beyond their power to do anything about it.

This post has been edited by Detective:

[GlassBeadGame]

We therefore do not consider you to be person ‘affected’ by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd and therefore entitled to request a review of our decision to register the charity or to request its removal.

Who exactly would be a person ‘affected’ by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd? Suppose you went to them with proof that you had nasty things in a BLP about you, or your child had been disturbed by pornography? Would you be affected by Wikipedia? I'd have thought so. Would you be affected by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd? No, because they didn't cause it and it was of course beyond their power to do anything about it.

Such a person would have better and more direct remedies than going after the charitable status of the group. I think the harm would need to be something like having property appropriated by the charity in its formation or someone promised membership rights/services that never came though. It is not a good thing to allow broad challenges to charitable status. In both US and UK civil society is very pluralistic and many activities of nonprofits might give offense to someone out there somewhere. But a diverse non-profit sector is still a good thing.

[Tarc]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images (T-H-L-K-D)

After closely examining the arguments put forth in each section, we have concluded that the status quo of the Muhammad article should largely be retained. For proposal 1, we found there to be no consensus to put any type of hatnote in the article. In the discussion of question 2, we found that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox. With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support. This was accompanied by a general sentiment that figurative images were not necessary before the “Life” section, but would certainly be necessary after that point. However, editors should remember that calligraphic representations are the most common, and should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so. Furthermore, there was a clear consensus to avoid any quota of figurative or calligraphic image, and to let the text of the article dictate the images used. There was no consensus for how the principle of least astonishment should apply to Muhammad.

Just as I called it quite awhile ago, the status quo is upheld.

A nice, shiny

(IMG:http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/tarc0917/anim/double-finger.gif)

to Somey and AssBeadGame. Better luck next time, fuckwits. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Fusion]

Just as I called it quite awhile ago, the status quo is upheld.

I think that never was there any doubt as to the outcome. Indeed given those who were likely to take part it was easy to foretell. What has been discussed in this thread is what ought to happen in a sensible world. That they are different says much about WP, no?

[Tarc]

Just as I called it quite awhile ago, the status quo is upheld.

I think that never was there any doubt as to the outcome. Indeed given those who were likely to take part it was easy to foretell. What has been discussed in this thread is what ought to happen in a sensible world. That they are different says much about WP, no?

They aren't different at all, no. The "real world" of the West here doesn't defer to prehistoric religions either.

[Web Fred]

Just as I called it quite awhile ago, the status quo is upheld.

The 3 chords will have to suffice then.

Just as I called it quite awhile ago, the status quo is upheld.

I think that never was there any doubt as to the outcome. Indeed given those who were likely to take part it was easy to foretell. What has been discussed in this thread is what ought to happen in a sensible world. That they are different says much about WP, no?

They aren't different at all, no. The "real world" of the West here doesn't defer to prehistoric religions either.

The "real world" of the West here doesn't defer to different prehistoric religions either.

There, sorted it for you.

[GlassBeadGame]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images (T-H-L-K-D)

After closely examining the arguments put forth in each section, we have concluded that the status quo of the Muhammad article should largely be retained. For proposal 1, we found there to be no consensus to put any type of hatnote in the article. In the discussion of question 2, we found that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox. With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support. This was accompanied by a general sentiment that figurative images were not necessary before the “Life” section, but would certainly be necessary after that point. However, editors should remember that calligraphic representations are the most common, and should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so. Furthermore, there was a clear consensus to avoid any quota of figurative or calligraphic image, and to let the text of the article dictate the images used. There was no consensus for how the principle of least astonishment should apply to Muhammad.

Just as I called it quite awhile ago, the status quo is upheld.

A nice, shiny

(IMG:http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/tarc0917/anim/double-finger.gif)

to Somey and AssBeadGame. Better luck next time, fuckwits. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I'm crushed. I was certain that enlightened Wikipedians, who always represent the best in all human endeavors, would do the right thing. How could this happen? It is enough to shake my faith in Wikipedia and goodness of nerds.

[Web Fred]

I was certain that enlightened Wikipedians, who always represent the best in all human endeavors, would do the right thing.

Poor, poor deluded GBG. Don't you understand? They did do the right thing.

Now toddle off, to whatever it is non-nerds do..

[Selina]

(Moderrration [should we really have to?])

Ok, a tonne of complaints received over this stuff, and it's really hard to work out where to break it off, since some comments that are nothing but insults are mixed in with actual comments over the issues, but yeah. Train of tit-for-tat insults moved to here, try keep at least vaguely on topic!

[Text]

Ok, a tonne of complaints received over this stuff, and it's really hard to work out where to break it off, since some comments that are nothing but insults are mixed in with actual comments over the issues, but yeah. Train of tit-for-tat insults moved to here, try keep at least vaguely on topic!

What we are seeing on the web on a general level is that ZuckerBorg's creation is effectively contributing to the closure of small independent forums, resulting in the creation of a big ocean, many thousands of kilometres wide but only one millimeter deep, and with many problems with data security.

[Tarc]

I declare myself the thread-winner.

/pats self on back

[Fusion]

I declare myself the thread-winner.

/pats self on back

If that makes you feel smug and clever, then no doubt you now feel smug and clever.

(Moderrration [should we really have to?])

Ok, a tonne of complaints received over this stuff, and it's really hard to work out where to break it off, since some comments that are nothing but insults are mixed in with actual comments over the issues, but yeah. Train of tit-for-tat insults moved to here, try keep at least vaguely on topic!

The sooner we have more moderators the better.

This post has been edited by Fusion:

[Tarc]

I declare myself the thread-winner.

/pats self on back

If that makes you feel smug and lcever, then no doubt you now feel smug and clever.

Nah, I was feeling smug and clever way before then.

[GlassBeadGame]

I declare myself the thread-winner.

/pats self on back

If that makes you feel smug and lcever, then no doubt you now feel smug and clever.

Nah, I was feeling smug and clever way before then.

If it wears off drink some more and pick on some poor immigrant. You'll be your old self in no time.

[Fusion]

If that makes you feel smug and clever, then no doubt you now feel smug and clever.

Nah, I was feeling smug and clever way before then.

I doubt it not. But to say that you now feel smug is surely not to deny that you have felt thus for many years.

[Tarc]

I declare myself the thread-winner.

/pats self on back

If that makes you feel smug and lcever, then no doubt you now feel smug and clever.

Nah, I was feeling smug and clever way before then.

If it wears off drink some more and pick on some poor immigrant. You'll be your old self in no time.

GBG, I love immigrants. As long as they come in the front door. You're not one of those limp-wristed amnesty-for-illegals types, are you?

If that makes you feel smug and clever, then no doubt you now feel smug and clever.

Nah, I was feeling smug and clever way before then.

I doubt it not. But to say that you now feel smug is surely not to deny that you have felt thus for many years.

Isn't that what I just said?

[SB_Johnny]

GBG, I love immigrants. As long as they come in the front door. You're not one of those limp-wristed amnesty-for-illegals types, are you?

I dunno about GBG, but I support amnesty. I'm also a "son of the revolution", so presumably my opinion matters much more than yours does.

[GlassBeadGame]

GBG, I love immigrants. As long as they come in the front door. You're not one of those limp-wristed amnesty-for-illegals types, are you?

I dunno about GBG, but I support amnesty. I'm also a "son of the revolution", so presumably my opinion matters much more than yours does.

You're a low-life scab last time I checked.

[SB_Johnny]

GBG, I love immigrants. As long as they come in the front door. You're not one of those limp-wristed amnesty-for-illegals types, are you?

I dunno about GBG, but I support amnesty. I'm also a "son of the revolution", so presumably my opinion matters much more than yours does.

You're a low-life scab last time I checked.

I can't be both? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Jay]

Is this an attempt to be the stupidest thread in WR's history?

[-DS-]

Is this an attempt to be the stupidest thread in WR's history?

I question the 'an attempt' part.

[Fusion]

Is this an attempt to be the stupidest thread in WR's history?

I question the 'an attempt' part.

So you say that Jay should say "Is this to be the stupidest thread in WR's history?" As I understand it that would be a future construction. Yet surely it is already the stupidest!

[-DS-]

Is this an attempt to be the stupidest thread in WR's history?

I question the 'an attempt' part.

So you say that Jay should say "Is this to be the stupidest thread in WR's history?" As I understand it that would be a future construction. Yet surely it is already the stupidest!

I'm sure you're enjoying this, but my meaning was clear.

[Web Fred]

Is this an attempt to be the stupidest thread in WR's history?

I question the 'an attempt' part.

So you say that Jay should say "Is this to be the stupidest thread in WR's history?" As I understand it that would be a future construction. Yet surely it is already the stupidest!

In fact, shouldn't it be "most stupid"?