Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[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: Sat 14th April 2012, 9:03pm

[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.



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: Sun 15th April 2012, 5:56am

[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: Sun 15th April 2012, 6:32am

[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.

Encyclopedia done.

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.™

[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!"?

Did anyone ever put forward my suggestion?

[Tarc]

Oy, we heard you don't like images.

Guess what?

We put LOADS OF THEM in!

Because we can.™

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

Did anyone ever put forward my suggestion?

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.