http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Wiki/Wikipedia:



Let's dub it "TOF".

I'm kind of offended by Piss Christ. How do I get that taken off Wikipedia?

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.

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.



I've been partial to the "Kohsocracy", since the splinter group thing was largely a product of his infantile ego.



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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On the defensive right out of the gate eh?



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.



Alas, it's attitudes like yours that allows religions to exist.



And just what do you think is "going on"?

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?




Who will be more offended by that idea, I wonder? Jews or Muslims?

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!

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.




By all accounts he's not doing a particularly good job over at the other place.

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.

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.

Yeah, I've never come across wikihamster either.

Beg your pardon - 'Web Fred'. Shucks you socks.

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.

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.

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."

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")

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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



You truly are one miserable fucker aren't you?

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.



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.




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.

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

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:

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.

Wikipedia was meant to be flexible. Remember "Ignore All Rules" and "Be Bold!"?

Did anyone ever put forward my suggestion?

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




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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.