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?

[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.

[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: Thu 5th April 2012, 4:40pm

[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.

[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



but then



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: Fri 6th April 2012, 5:21pm

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.