Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?