Three-to-one-on that this argument results in (1) someone being blocked, (2) someone saying "do you know who I am?", (3) someone whining on Jimmy Wales's talkpage and/or (4) a mention in the Register. You heard it here first.

For laughs, I hope people merely take older (PD) images (hopefully very famous) and merely claim them as a depiction of Mohammad. The less likely the better. By technicality, the Muslims who get angry over it should still be angry as merely labeling someone as the prophet would be enough since we don't actually know what he looks like (and could look like Henry VIII in full royal gown).

By the way, Gatoclass would probably only whine and is not likely to go to Jimbo.

Uh - we know exactly what he looked like, since his son-in-law helpfully left a description:

* [Muhammad] is neither too short nor too tall. - Rather vague.
* His hair is neither curly nor straight, but a mixture of the two. - Also vague and veriable
* He is a man of black hair and large skull. His complexion has a tinge of redness. -Any black and white image should accommodate this (and large skull? whatever that means)
* His shoulder bones are broad and his palms and feet are fleshy. - He has some weight to him, perfect for Henry VIII
* He has long hair growing from neck to navel. - Why would his nephew describe his bare chest? Creeepppyyy.
* He has long eye-lashes, close eye-brows, smooth and shining fore-head and a long space between his shoulders. - Whatever this means.
* When he walks he walks inclining as if coming down from a height. I never saw a man like him before him or after him - I doubt we'd depict him walking.


See, not too hard to apply to others.

Well, at least he doesn't look like a sheeple, a salmon, a centaur, or a killer pooch.

Sheeples are adorable!

You're probably right. There is also a fair chance the word "wiki-hounding" might be used at some point in the future, in reference to anyone that disagrees more than once with Cirt.

That aside, is it a good hook/article for the main page?

For laughs you want to use Free Kulture to give offense, spread ill will and intolerance. Sounds about right both for you and Free Kulture.

No; quite aside from the recentism problem—in six weeks time, nobody will care about this event—it's just plain boring. A "did you know" section ought to at least pay lip service to the idea of "wow, I didn't know that!", not "of course I didn't know that because nobody except those directly involved gives two fucks".

Sounds to me that in reality the big M is in a witness protection program.

Ah, the obsequious thanks. I guess that's how you make friends and allies in Wikiland.

Let's see if this will develop into full-fledged persecution of Gatoclass.

That sounds just like this guy:

OMG! Infidel!

Bingo.

Muhammad, at age 12, naked:



Oh shit. Now Larry Sanger's going to report me to the FBI!

Oh! Two for the price of one. Nice. : D Quick, upload it to Commons!

Not as adorable as peepshi.

OMG. That needs to have an article page.

All religion is superstitious nonsense.

If an individual wants to believe it, it's his/her own business; however, when people try to censor or restrict others on the grounds of their particular brand of superstition, they become oppressors.

I would go farther than Dan, to point out that religions are not the only variety of belief systems that people adopt on faith, without regard for the diligent epistemology that would confirm or refute the scientific accuracy of the beliefs in question.

It is often noted, for example, that Wikipedia is a cult which is not exactly a religion, but neither is it a well-grounded system of beliefs (or philosophical principles) and associated derivative practices.

The anachronistic and dysfunctional governance model of Wikipedia is a notable example of a failed system of beliefs and derivative practices.

{{fact}}

You obviously have not acquainted yourself with scholars such as Nicholas of Kues.

I think that I am fairly familiar with Wikipedia and its problems, but the point of this discussion is lost on me. Could someone explain what it is that makes Cirt any worse than any other administrator (Gatoclass for example), or why Pieter Kuiper is any better than any other user who is involved on one side in Wikipedia's I/P disputes?

I understand your perspective, Dan. But I, for one, subscribe to the values of learning, understanding, and applying the wisdom of religious teachings to our daily lives.

When it comes to Wikipediots, I really suck at it. But... in other areas, it is a help to me.

Indeed I am not. But could you say more about his role in promoting diligent epistemology of arbitrary beliefs systems (including scientific beliefs, religious beliefs, secular political beliefs, and popular cultural beliefs)?

OK here it comes...

Obviously the point of this "protest" (imagine rich white people protesting the beliefs of a hard pressed and often maligned minority in the heart of the rich white peoples very own society) is to mock Muslim sensitivities about depicting Mohammad. The use of images that could not possibly be Mohammad is suppose to disarm Muslim concerns. Maybe it does. But what remains is the insensitivity that motivated the campaign. Muslims don't deserve yet another slap in the face.

Once again Wikipedia, the Wikipedians on WR and even some WRers who cannot fairly be called Wikipedians join in the mockery. Once again the most import value is our own self expression. Once again someone else has to bare the burden of our entitlement.

Speak Truth to Power.
Speak Trash to the Powerless.

I don't really think a group of over 1 billion people are a "minority" or that people who have the ability to wage war all over the Middle East and fly three planes into US buildings are powerless.

But thanks for trolling.

Well if your so brave go into the slums of Cairo with your "protest."

Well, yeah, obviously.

But is it trolling?

And now you just proved that they do have power across the world and would seek violence against me, verifying that your previous comments were trolling.

What an asshole you are to invoke 9/11.

I've always thought that projecting the actions of an Al Qaeda extremist group onto the lot of a billion believers would be similar to saying that a Ku Klux Klan rally represents the beliefs of all Christians.

Way to go, Ottava.

Islam may be the world's largest religion, and is certainly one of the largest. Apparently1.3-1.5 billion according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world
Some of Islamic countries are very wealthy also. Why do you think that is "Speaking Trash to the Powerless"?

I live in America. More than 99% of the users of this site and en.WP are from the the English speaking world and Europe. Muslims are a small and hard pressed minority in our society. They are easy to pick on and vilify. Almost no one will speak up if you do. I'm speaking up for my neighbors and countrymen who are Muslims.

And by extension, that is like saying that Arbcom is representative of the Wikipedia community -- puerile, hypocritical, self-important, ill-equipped to handle editorial duties, unfit for managerial...

Oh, wait...that wasn't a good example. Hmmm....

And if you weren't so ignorant you would realize that the world is more than America. Stop trolling already. People are tired of it.

Weak. I know you have a whole world of Muslims to hate.

Me too. I like to live in America, okay by me in America...

The Muslim population in the USA is rather well educated, many very well educated. The ones that have citizenship vote, and most are politically active. It is a small population, but probably already bigger than the USA Jewish population.

Muslims need to develop an ability to deal with stuff they may not like. Of course hate speech is forbiden, but otherwise mild humor and criticism is protected freedom of speech. I would like to see Muslims develop enough humor about themselves so they could make an ad like this one made by Israeli Jews about their own religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQQkopQSOlA

We really do need to unpack the expansion of the scope of "trolling" to encompass anything and everything which one is taking exception to.

As is saying "You're being a dick to Muslims for no good reason."



Paul Simon has a much better ear than Bernstein for appropriating the music of other cultures, but not alway for commercial success.

There is a very good reason. They kill people over it in order to try and dominate and spread fear. This is to show that they cannot intimidate us.

Christ has been covered in shit in artwork and that was glorified. This is only the mere drawing of a cartoon. Get over yourself.

Wow.

Since the Age of Reason most religions have learned to live with the criticism that comes their way. Why do you think Muslims can not take the same criticisms that other religions are subject to? "Dicks"? It would be, in fact, more rational to call "dicks" those who become threatening, or violent, when criticized.

While we're talking religion, does anyone have any good Zoroastrianism jokes?

The wild, broad-brush strokes on this thread make me more thankful that one of the largest initiatives at our church is to expand our inter-faith (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist, primarily) outreach, education, and celebration efforts.

Are people really so dense as to think that caricatures of extreme and fundamentalist elements of religions do in fact represent the vast majority of practitioners of those religions?!

A new low, Wikipedia Review.

What is your point?

You are certainly more reasonable than Ottava. But Muslims do have to deal with many, many Ottavas. I also think you over estimate the economic status of Muslims in America. There is great diversity, with a large and affluent exile Iranian community in LA and a even larger working class and recent immigrant community in East Dearborn. Guess who takes the brunt of the anti-Muslim hate?

Oh yes, I am unreasonable because I said that people should draw a simple cartoon to show that they are not afraid -after- they are threatened to be killed for making the drawing.

The death threats came first. Get a clue. You are a hate mongerer and a troll. You hide behind anonymity and take contradictory points simply so you can cause as much disruption and harm as possible. If it was possible to ignore you, most people would and you would vanish.

Unfortunately for you things are written down around here and once quoted you can't change the quote.