Don't think of it as a quagmire, think of it as a fly trap. Sometimes WP's contradictory rules crash perfectly head on into a social issue like this one. Think of all the obnoxious things these people would be doing if they weren't fighting for or against images of someone no one's seen in over a millennium. If it were up to me your compromise sounds perfectly sensible.

The only way the "screw you" option would have any credibility would be if there were images in the article that were intentionally derogatory, e.g. the Jyllands-Posten comics or the image from Dante's Inferno. None of the images are like that though, they are simply there to accompany the text of the article itself. Nothing more insidious or devious.

I no longer need to enter the fray. The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist. The intent of my posts was to ostracize and isolate the racists. Posting freely on today's WR is about as ostracized and isolated as you can get. So my work is done.

I'm a racist?

The intent of my posts all along has been for GBG to call The Joy a racist. I also really want a new Ghostbusters movie to be made, but I can't figure out how to get my posts to make that happen.

This is why you've been losing every argument you attempt to engage in, Mr. Tarc. Characterizing basic criticisms as "caterwauling" rates you down with nearly every Jimbo-juicer who ever disgraced wikipedia.org from Day One, as far as I'm concerned. What you're saying essentially amounts to "nyaah, nyaah, nyahh," and nothing more. Just because the images stay in the article doesn't mean you win the argument.

And as for GBG, he clearly has the right idea, and you... well, don't.

One man's "refusal to participate" is another's refusal to feed the monster. I understand that it's a matter of perspective, but if you see it as a monster, then the moral and ethical choices are clear.

What the fuck does any opinion regarding religious-icon imagery have to do with race?

Because Muslims are overwhelmingly Middle-Eastern, African, Central-Asian, Filipino, and Indonesian/Malaysian?

In any event, "non-white."

Personally I don't think it's racist to point out that the stricture on religious imagery creates a problem that becomes increasingly disproportionate to the stricture's benefit (valid or otherwise) as society becomes more technology-driven, with communications technology in particular becoming more advanced and sophisticated. However, that problem exists on both sides of the issue. If people are going to simply ignore the religious beliefs (and strictures) of huge numbers of people simply because they don't want to, or because technology makes it "harder" for them, then at the very least they shouldn't be surprised to learn that those huge numbers of people still don't like them, despite their saying that it's "nothing personal" or "it is what it is." And that's a reaction to racism, not actual racism.

Needless to say, the mere fact that it can be seen as racism means that a lot of well-meaning (and yes, mostly white) people are being tarred with that particular brush, all because a small group of "free-culture" extremists think that to remove a few images from a Wikipedia article would be seen as "giving in," which would be the "worst thing in the world."

I think all religion is supertitious nonsense, without regard to whether it's Islam being practiced by Arabs in the Middle East, or Christianity being practiced by white male fundamentalists in the U.S. Bible Belt.

Glass probably doesn't get that most of this is Internet Racism, mostly harmless stuff made for the lolz, and not because some whites really think it's cool to insult Islam.

I'm afraid both of you are kidding yourselves. Even an atheist can be offended by insults that are based on religion, or the lack thereof - insults are insults, and the fact that it's based on religion doesn't make it a non-insult. Also, the mere fact that racism is expressed on the internet doesn't make it something other than racism.

But as I've said (and I realize it doesn't matter one way or the other what I say), I personally am willing to believe that people who believe that Muslims are being unreasonable about this are not "racists." Maybe that makes me a racist myself, but obviously I'd like to think not. The point is that not everyone believes this, and many of the people who don't are Muslims - especially now that Wikipedia has proven their point so abundantly and consistently.

GlassBeadGame has a one-note tune he plays over and over again, about how evil "geek libertarians" (like myself) are. That's not a racist view (neither "geek" nor "libertarian" is a race), but it's as shallow and one-dimensional as he claims "geek libertarians" are.

You're right - it's shallow and one-dimensional.

The real question, to me at least, is whether or not there's moral equivalency here. There's the usual argument over whether or not "geek libertarians" are geeks (or libertarians) by choice, or if they're born that way due to some sort of genetic defect. But it's not just that; have "geek libertarians" been systematically denied economic and social opportunities merely because of their attitude, quasi-ideology, and inability to dress in a way that makes them seem more sexually attractive to others? Are "geek libertarians" targeted for violence and hatred by bigots and extremists merely because of the color of their neck-beards and pocket protectors, or the number of copies of Atlas Shrugged they own? We know they're often unfairly stereotyped in the media, but are those stereotypes genuinely insulting, or do they in fact make it easier for them to "pass" in the larger society for what they want others to think they are - i.e., intellectual, wealthy, totally non-empathic - even if they're actually none of those things?

I guess I would say that "geek libertarian," like "cabal" and "Wikipediot" before it, is a term of art. Mr. Beadgame may believe the people so described are "evil," but I suspect that he thinks of them as victims of a pernicious and, yes, evil quasi-ideology just as much as he thinks of them as having been born evil, and using "geek libertarianism" as a justification for their misdeeds.

You know, you sound just like homophobes do when they talk about gays. (Are they born that way, or do they choose their lifestyle? Are they evil sinners, or just mentally ill people who need help? Any idea that they're fine just the way they are is out of the question, of course.)

Interestingly, where I'm sitting now a copy of Atlas Shrugged is within touching distance (I just tapped its spine now), but so are a bunch of Isaac Asimov books, a Lord of the Rings box set, a Chronicles of Narnia box set (1970s paperback editions I've had since I was a kid), a complete set of the Harry Potter books, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series in a single deluxe-bound volume, Not Without My Daughter (an American woman flees Iran with her daughter after her Iranian husband refuses to let them leave), a Spanish-English dictionary, and the Official Associated Press Sports Almanac, 1974. Well, that last one might be useful if I happen to need to know who won the 1973 Super Bowl, and it escaped my mind that there was a free encyclopedia I could consult for that.

I've only meet one Muslim and that was while I was in college. I wished him a happy Islamic New Year and he looked confused. "Oh, we don't celebrate that where I come from. We just celebrate the regular New Year." Whenever I meet someone outside of my "cultural comfort zone," I always struggle to connect with them. I always want to say to them "Just tell me everything about you, your culture, your history, your country, etc." Instead, I try to think of something I read on the Internet or saw on TV and ask if that is true. "So, you're from Germany. Did you know that gay marriage was just legalized there?" "Yes, they enacted that in 2000." Then the conversation ended on a strange note. It's awkward and I probably do come across as an ignorant, white, male, Southern American to some people. But I try to connect and relate! Some people asked the poor German guy if he was a Nazi. At least, I had the sense and common decency not to ask that. And I certainly didn't ask the Arab-Israeli student if he was a terrorist (though I'm sure he may have heard that at least once. His drunken roommate once asked him if he was the Prophet. Major facepalm.).

I've read a great deal about Islam, but, since I am not immersed in it nor converse often with Muslims, my perspective and understanding is narrow as is many people. I have empathy and I try not to intentional offend (except in cases of dealing with a complete ignoramus who cares little for decent dialogue and wants to be combative. I'm looking at you, Osama bin Laden). It's difficult to explain to those outside the United States and "the West" about freedom of speech, thought, press, etc. when they have never been exposed to those ideas (Heck, even Westerners/Americans forget about those concepts. I'm looking at you, PATRIOT ACT). I do not believe in putting up pictures of the Prophet for "teh lulz" or to intentional offend. However, free speech means that such things happen. Society can shun and denounce, but not legally stop that sort of thing (at least in the U.S.).

If what Tarc says is true and that the images are for education exclusively, then they should stay. Does a chaotic and mercurial community like the English Wikipedian community (which does have a record of making decisions solely to "screw" with people) have the maturity and ability to make the editorial decision to keep those images? I don't think so.

Does anyone have access to Britannica, World Book, or any professional encyclopedia? What sort of images are displayed on the Prophet Muhammad articles? Any of the Prophet?

I know a guy who has access to Britannica, and he says no. I rather doubt any major encyclopedia would have a portrait (and I would bet my computer that they didn't suddenly take down portraits after 2005 or whenever.)

Can anyone tell me WHY the Islamic belief structure should take priority in this matter?

Whilst they are explaining that could they also please tell me if the situation were reversed how likely would the Muslims be to compromise?

Actually I think GlassBeadGame is rather racist, as in he's racist to generalize that white male geeks are racists and therefore should be disqualified from making decisions that affect other groups.

Overall, your collective responses have been beneath the level to deserve much in the way of reply, which makes my point rather nicely.

Somey's post did make me chuckle.

Delete please, if anyone still can. I quoted myself when I just meant to edit a post.

Feeling smugly superior to everybody else may help your self-esteem, but it hardly constitutes a logical argument in favor of any of your beliefs.

So why reply at all?

We know why, do you?

Human beings in general are mostly Middle-Eastern, African, Central-Asian, Filipino, and Indonesian/Malaysian - in any event, "non-white."

But there are white people to be offended by religious images, not only white Muslims, who do exist (especially in Albania) but some Protestants.



If!


No doubt it depends on the Muslims. There are reasonable, sensible ones and fanatical, bigoted ones. The fanatical ones make much noise so you may think they are the majority but they are not. Just like Wikipedians, actually.

GBG, serious question. In your opinion, is this image racist?






It is.




I haven't lost a thing, especially to an ignorant little cunt like you . Your pathetic argument has been nothing more than "we shan't offend", an argument bruised aside with ease.

I pity you bleeding-heart types. Truly.

Namecalling doesn't help in winning arguments, either.

If I may give my opinion, it is not racist, just silly.

Just ironic, not to mention slightly amusing.

Yea, well you know what they say about internet arguments and the Special Olympics...

As for the image, sure, amusing and silly fit quite well. It is an American pseudo-cultural holiday largely promoted by white people to make themselves feel better about themselves and the history of race relations in this country rather than it having anything to really do with black culture.

It runs along the same lines as whiny twats like Somey and GBG, wringing their hands over something that has nothing to do with them, that they have little actual understanding of, and the presumed recipients of their charitable sympathies likely look upon them with at best indifference, at worst disdain.

Oh, I think I have a LOT more understanding of it than you, or most Wikipedians for that matter. Of course, I could say the same for my cat. In fact, I could say the same for what's in the cat box.

However, you might be right about the indifference and disdain. Thankfully, that's not the point, nor do I care either way.

Ah the classic "you're dumber than cat poop!" argument. This thread just keeps delivering.

Please don't confuse "having an understanding" with "having an opinion".

That was the argument by the likes of me and Elonka – that Wikipedia was showing more of these images than the literature generally does. There is certainly not a single such image in all of Encyclopædia Britannica.

I got in touch with one of the world's most prominent scholars on Muhammad images, Christiane J. Gruber, and posted some related comments by her in the RfC.

This is someone who researches and writes about Muhammad images for a living, and who knows them better than probably any other scholar alive today. Her recommendation was to use them "sparingly" in the Wikipedia article on Muhammad, saying that an "anti-censorship stance need not be bombastic; it can be nuanced and respectful, nicht wahr?"

Wikipedia, however, doesn't do nuanced and respectful. It's kind of the antithesis to what Wikipedia is about.

Sorry, I missed a few goes. No it hasn't!



You'd admit that, too, if you knew more about Islam than what can be written on the back of an envelope.

Out of curiosity, why did you pick that image? Because your use of it refutes your point. See, for example, this diff. Where exactly was the passage describing the "significance" of this event in Muhammad's life? It wasn't there, and it hadn't been there for three years. The material was added to the article most recently in a rather obvious, and successful, effort to keep the image regardless of the importance, or even the veracity, of the event it depicts.


I actually think the image from Dante's Inferno is one that should be used. If the point of the images is actually to educate, then the image that provides the most educational value, bar none, is that illustration. Put that in the section on European and Western views, replacing that useless "Muhammad Preaching" image, and remove the other images that serve only to adorn the article, not provide any "education" (Just looking quickly, the one about the last sermon and the one meeting Gabriel would fit that in my opinion, especially the Gabriel one).

Um, no, it doesn't. The image was included without any mention or connection by the article at first, removal was proposed, but instead several editors worked on adding a section to the article to support its rete ntion.

Imagine that; a measured, collaborative effort to solve a sensitive/controversial issue. That's what editing the Muhammad article was like before the butthurt, i.e. Ludwigs and HansAdler, descended.




You have about as much understanding as the poor white girl in my image example above does about black culture, i.e. nothing practical.

Bullshit. A number of editors decided that an image on a topic that receives little weight in real biographies of Muhammad (see for example Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad") must be kept, and that anybody who wanted to remove a trivial image on a trivial, and perhaps bogus, event was a BadMan who wanted to OMG CENSOR OMG!!! So they added text to support the image. Not the other way around. That other way around being the one that would make sense if the "fuck you, I'll do what I want because I can" reason was not a, and likely the, driving reason for a number of your compatriots passionate support for what is a useless image.

Bollocks. The ones who should be buttfucked are those vandals who removed any reference to Cassius Clay.

Bastards!

Can I have an English translation for this fuckwit's blathering?

An image was added. Someone suggested removal because it had little connection to the text. Text was added. Image was kept.

Its not rocket science, el Che.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse, though?

That's the point, though it may be difficult to understand from a fuckwit, so I'll try in smaller words and less blathering. Tarc insists that each image is there not because of the personal prejudices of those who insist on keeping them, but because there is some educational value when an image augments the text. That is clearly untrue, as text is added to support the image. People insist on using images regardless of the images connection to the text, and the fact that an image was in the article for 3 years with not one word related to it in the text makes the point obvious, at least to those who arent, willfully or because they are really just that stupid, sticking their heads in the sand.

Not really important if the end result is an improvement to the article.




Given your trolling of the I-P topic area for years now, that'd be no small miracle.



That would be a lie



That's the beauty of the "anyone can edit" encyclopedia, right? The "So Fix It" mentality. The article is now fixed, so you can proceed to shut the fuck up about it.


The funny thing is, I've generally been on the same side as this clown over the years in the I-P battles. But touch his prehistoric religious tenets in the slightest?! Oooo, the gloves come off.

This is why I would gleefully nuke the whole fucking region into glass if my finger were near the shiny red button.

Then why exactly was there an image retained in the article for 3 years with absolutely no connection to the article? And when it is removed for that reason, it is restored, again with no connection to anything anywhere in the article?
I assume by "fixed" you mean giving an excessive amount of weight to an unimportant and possibly bogus episode just so that you and your pals can say "look at me, I can do what I want!"
Dumbass, have you not noticed that I said use the image from Dante's Inferno? Do you know anything of what I have written on the topic on-wiki? You are drawn to controversial topics because you think taking some tough guy stance on the internet actually means you are a tough guy. You act like you were Obama's protection, and that you spoke for the oppressed in Palestine in the face of overwhelming opposition, or that you are the dyke that stops the Muslim fanatics, of which I am apparently one, from overwhelming Wikipedia with Wahhabi tenets. Youre not. I dont give a fuck about that article, I dont care how many pictures you put up. I think you are stupid for taking many of the positions you take, but I aint exactly what you would call rigid in my practice of religion, so if you think that posting some image or saying some nonsense will offend me then, well, I guess we can add one more bit of stupidity to your tally. If there is an image that actually is educational, serves some purpose beyond fulfilling your desire to act like the hardest man on the internet, then use it. Thats why I said use the Dante's Inferno image. The others serve no purpose, they are there with the aim of offending others or due to some misguided bunker mentality of "we must protect the wiki!!!". Or because some wannabe tough guy decided that this was the next fight for him to take on the internet. Where you fall in that list should be fairly obvious.

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

(And as my racial makeup is best described as "Oreo", I get to say that.)

You wouldn't if we had people with moderation privileges.

Good.

Moderators are over-rated anyway.

Nigger or nigga?

Enquiring minds wish to know.

Oreo eh? Hmmm?

Does that mean you're green and furry?



Or blue?

You'd rather have racists than moderators? (Other than in-name-only moderators, that is...)

This says a lot about you as a person, does it not?

I'm uncomfortable with anyone using that word, no matter what they say they are.

The sort of person I am is one who supports free speech.

You gotta take the good with the bad.

Jeez, how many times have we heard that before...

Racism is not "free speech," Mr. Fred. It's simply racism. Those who support racism under the false banner of "free speech" are actually harming free speech, by giving the ever-growing numbers of media-savvy extremist demagogues yet another excuse to try to curtail it. Luckily, nobody is listening to you or Mr. Tarc, or anyone else who posts here these days, including myself... but that isn't really an excuse.

Normally this thread would be closed around now, but I'm guessing that such nuanced approaches to maintaining topicality are just another thing we'll have to live without for a while.