Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
kołdry
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:24 pm

Tarc wrote:Well, hell, I like arguing, but it takes many years to refine it into an art form. Someday Mr. Charmlet may be able to snatch the pebble from my hand. But not today.
You don't argue. At least, not that I've seen. You dismiss people, mostly. Mostly in a very funny way - which is why I adore you so. You're like a witty Mallius. I admire and respect both of you, for your ethics and your bull-shit detection. But you're both completely shit arguers.

User avatar
Tarc
Habitué
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Wikipedia User: Tarc

Re: GWickwire

Unread post by Tarc » Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:28 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Tarc wrote:Well, hell, I like arguing, but it takes many years to refine it into an art form. Someday Mr. Charmlet may be able to snatch the pebble from my hand. But not today.
You don't argue. At least, not that I've seen. You dismiss people, mostly. Mostly in a very funny way - which is why I adore you so. You're like a witty Mallius. I admire and respect both of you, for your ethics and your bull-shit detection. But you're both completely shit arguers.
Oh really? Remind me again who thumped who during the ol' Muhammad discussions?
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:24 am

tarc wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
tarc wrote:Well, hell, I like arguing, but it takes many years to refine it into an art form. Someday Mr. Charmlet may be able to snatch the pebble from my hand. But not today.
You don't argue. At least, not that I've seen. You dismiss people, mostly. Mostly in a very funny way - which is why I adore you so. You're like a witty Mallius. I admire and respect both of you, for your ethics and your bull-shit detection. But you're both completely shit arguers.
Oh really? Remind me again who thumped who during the ol' Muhammad discussions?
You and a troop of morons and bullies did the thumping; I, and others did the arguing. You "won". Says everything you need to know about the status of argument vs. thumping on good ol' Wikipedia. You must be so proud.
Last edited by Anthonyhcole on Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:34 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:
tarc wrote:...who thumped who during the ol' Muhammad discussions?
You and a troop of morons and bullies did the thumping; I, and others did the arguing. You "won". Says everything you need to know about the status of argument vs. thumping on good ol' Wikipedia.
Actually the rule of law, reason, and logic triumphed over hysterics, political correctness, and fear mongering.

RfB <------------(both a moron AND a bully!)

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:48 am

Randy from Boise wrote:Actually the rule of law, reason, and logic triumphed over hysterics, political correctness, and fear mongering.
There was no reason or logic allowed there. One side, your side, refused to address the critique of the other. So no argument was possible. Just eyes closed, head back, "lalalala" notcensored. Rule of law? Yes. Like Charmlet and Demiurge use the rule of law against reason. Like the rule of law in 399BC Athens.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:07 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
tarc wrote:...who thumped who during the ol' Muhammad discussions?
You and a troop of morons and bullies did the thumping; I, and others did the arguing. You "won". Says everything you need to know about the status of argument vs. thumping on good ol' Wikipedia.
Actually the rule of law, reason, and logic triumphed over hysterics, political correctness, and fear mongering.

RfB <------------(both a moron AND a bully!)
No, Anthony is right on that one. The debate was the typical thing: not informed by scholarship or intellectual rigour, but by sentiment, like so much else in Wikipedia. The experience of locating the world's leading Muhammad images scholar to have her make an input to the debate, and finding that almost no one was interested in what she had to say, was a very sobering one for me.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:07 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Actually the rule of law, reason, and logic triumphed over hysterics, political correctness, and fear mongering.
There was no reason or logic allowed there. One side, your side, refused to address the critique of the other. So no argument was possible. Just eyes closed, head back, "lalalala" notcensored. Rule of law? Yes. Like Charmlet and Demiurge use the rule of law against reason. Like the rule of law in 399BC Athens.
Your side's critique came from a normative place: "it's not nice to depict religious figures for a religion which deems such depictions blasphemous, and it's a really, really big religion, so that's how we should shape content."

Pure PC.

Using the same logic, every controversial subject should be whitewashed to the lowest common denominator.

tim

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:17 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Actually the rule of law, reason, and logic triumphed over hysterics, political correctness, and fear mongering.
There was no reason or logic allowed there. One side, your side, refused to address the critique of the other. So no argument was possible. Just eyes closed, head back, "lalalala" notcensored. Rule of law? Yes. Like Charmlet and Demiurge use the rule of law against reason. Like the rule of law in 399BC Athens.
Your side's critique came from a normative place: "it's not nice to depict religious figures for a religion which deems such depictions blasphemous, and it's a really, really big religion, so that's how we should shape content."

Pure PC.

Using the same logic, every controversial subject should be whitewashed to the lowest common denominator.

tim
No, no. :ohnoes: That's not what I or anyone else argued. It's telling that you think that's my/our position. But I really can't be bothered; and I'm sure no one else can. I just couldn't let tarc's assertion that he can argue stand, without pointing out that, in my experience, it's a crock of shit.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:44 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Your side's critique came from a normative place: "it's not nice to depict religious figures for a religion which deems such depictions blasphemous, and it's a really, really big religion, so that's how we should shape content."

Pure PC.

Using the same logic, every controversial subject should be whitewashed to the lowest common denominator.

tim
No, no. :ohnoes: That's not what I or anyone else argued. It's telling that you think that's my/our position. But I really can't be bothered; and I'm sure no one else can. I just couldn't let tarc's assertion that he can argue stand, without pointing out that, in my experience, it's a crock of shit.
That was precisely the essence of the No Depictions of Muhammed crowd's argument. And when it was demonstrated that this was a minority perspective, the minority refused to yield and kept braying and braying and braying until, as I recall, the biggest donkey in the barn was shown the door.

I believe at root there is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between biographical subjects and their WP biographies. Many of the leading participants on this message board absolutely loathe the disconnect between subjects and their WP biographies, the fact that there is no "opt out" capability for controversial living people. The Muhammed pictures affair (which was ultimately resolved tastefully and correctly, I note again) is this same philosophical dispute writ large, I believe.

I am a hawk on these matters as opposed to this dovish view. Content should be content, in accordance with established policies — factual accuracy, verifiability, neutrality of tone. The desires and whims of biographical subjects should be completely separated from this; their concerns may be voiced and taken into consideration in debate, but content absolutely needs to be independently derived.

RfB

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by Hersch » Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:45 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: Your side's critique came from a normative place: "it's not nice to depict religious figures for a religion which deems such depictions blasphemous, and it's a really, really big religion, so that's how we should shape content."

Pure PC.
In the 1930s, had Wikipedia existed, it would have been the world's largest uncensored repository of cartoon depictions of money-grubbing, lecherous Jews with big hook noses.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by Mancunium » Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:51 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Actually the rule of law, reason, and logic triumphed over hysterics, political correctness, and fear mongering.
There was no reason or logic allowed there. One side, your side, refused to address the critique of the other. So no argument was possible. Just eyes closed, head back, "lalalala" notcensored. Rule of law? Yes. Like Charmlet and Demiurge use the rule of law against reason. Like the rule of law in 399BC Athens.
Your side's critique came from a normative place: "it's not nice to depict religious figures for a religion which deems such depictions blasphemous, and it's a really, really big religion, so that's how we should shape content."

Pure PC.

Using the same logic, every controversial subject should be whitewashed to the lowest common denominator.

tim
Another normative place for your consideration:

There are no accurate pictures of Muhammad, so there is no particular reason to use such images to "illustrate" his WP article.

At this point, everyone must know that these images are highly offensive to many people.

To avoid giving unnecessary offense is not PC, it is common courtesy.
former Living Person

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by DanMurphy » Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:54 pm

Can someone give me a short, neutral summary of what this was all about? It's a topic that I know more about than the average bear.

The solution to the overall question strikes me as very simple: Allow famous depictions of Mohamed in articles (there are some beautiful ones) but don't be gratuitous about it. The line to be drawn is between bowing to certain interpretations of Islam, on the one hand, and needlessly causing offense, on the other.

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:53 pm

Tim, you begin by telling me what my argument is. I tell you you're mistaken. You tell me you're not mistaken; that I'm mistaken about what my argument is. This is "lalala" not censored. There is no point in engaging you, tarc, Mathsci, Kww, FormerIP, or any of the others, except possibly Resolute, because you don't actually engage. You don't actually hear what your opponent says. That's the first step in debate.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:13 pm

Mancunium wrote:
There are no accurate pictures of Muhammad, so there is no particular reason to use such images to "illustrate" his WP article.

At this point, everyone must know that these images are highly offensive to many people.

To avoid giving unnecessary offense is not PC, it is common courtesy.
There ya go. Perfectly put. That's the argument of that team. It's all about "unnecessary offense," which is, in fact, the core of PC.

Who is the arbiter of what is "necessary" and "unnecessary"? What is the "acceptable" level of "offense"? Or should we strive for absolutely no offense to anyone, whitewashing every controversial matter down to the lowest common denominator (in this case, complete acceptability to the most crazed religious fundamentalist nut)?

Instead this: precedent, policy, rationality, common sense.

RfB

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:15 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
The solution to the overall question strikes me as very simple: Allow famous depictions of Mohamed in articles (there are some beautiful ones) but don't be gratuitous about it. The line to be drawn is between bowing to certain interpretations of Islam, on the one hand, and needlessly causing offense, on the other.
Problem correctly and logically solved by my friend Dan.

RfB

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:27 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
The solution to the overall question strikes me as very simple: Allow famous depictions of Mohamed in articles (there are some beautiful ones) but don't be gratuitous about it. The line to be drawn is between bowing to certain interpretations of Islam, on the one hand, and needlessly causing offense, on the other.
That's pretty much my position. The definition of "gratuitous" was the problem, though.
Last edited by Anthonyhcole on Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by DanMurphy » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:31 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
The solution to the overall question strikes me as very simple: Allow famous depictions of Mohamed in articles (there are some beautiful ones) but don't be gratuitous about it. The line to be drawn is between bowing to certain interpretations of Islam, on the one hand, and needlessly causing offense, on the other.
That's pretty much my position. The definition of "gratuitous" was the problem, though.
It's only a problem in the strange binary wikiworld of children and child-like thinkers. "editorial discretion" is the answer to these kinds of problems. Since that's anathema to the wiki-way, you end up with these situations.

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:03 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
The solution to the overall question strikes me as very simple: Allow famous depictions of Mohamed in articles (there are some beautiful ones) but don't be gratuitous about it. The line to be drawn is between bowing to certain interpretations of Islam, on the one hand, and needlessly causing offense, on the other.
That's pretty much my position. The definition of "gratuitous" was the problem, though.
It's only a problem in the strange binary wikiworld of children and child-like thinkers. "editorial discretion" is the answer to these kinds of problems. Since that's anathema to the wiki-way, you end up with these situations.
Mmm. I proposed including an example of the "flame" representation (where his face is replaced by a flame) and an example of an Ilkhanate naked face illustration (to show that depictions of Muhammad were found in some Islamic cultures) in the section on depictions of Muhammad (a section I added to the article); and a couple of Western depictions (I suggested something uncomplimentary from the 1600s and a respectful image adorning the frieze around the Supreme Court of the United States building) to illustrate the historical shift in attitude (towards tolerance over time) in the section on Western reception.

While I was concerned for the feelings of our Muslim readers, I was not so concerned that I argued against inclusion of figurative depictions where they were of clear didactic value.

I opposed the use of artists impressions, painted in alien cultures, thousands of miles and hundreds of years distant from the events they nominally "illustrate", because, unlike the pictures described in the first paragraph, such images would add nothing to the reader's understanding of the accompanying text, and so be "needlessly offensive" to many readers.

Andreas's proposal (which I'll let him put) was based on an argument quite different from mine, but included a number of figurative depictions of Muhammad, I think.
Last edited by Anthonyhcole on Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tarc
Habitué
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Wikipedia User: Tarc

Re: Et voilà, Charmlet!

Unread post by Tarc » Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:29 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
tarc wrote:...who thumped who during the ol' Muhammad discussions?
You and a troop of morons and bullies did the thumping; I, and others did the arguing. You "won". Says everything you need to know about the status of argument vs. thumping on good ol' Wikipedia.
Actually the rule of law, reason, and logic triumphed over hysterics, political correctness, and fear mongering.

RfB <------------(both a moron AND a bully!)
No, Anthony is right on that one. The debate was the typical thing: not informed by scholarship or intellectual rigour, but by sentiment, like so much else in Wikipedia. The experience of locating the world's leading Muhammad images scholar to have her make an input to the debate, and finding that almost no one was interested in what she had to say, was a very sobering one for me.
I'm afraid some people have a case of the Bitter Bettys, this is just an echo of Ludwigs2's ignoramus "I don't like how you're arguing, therefore you're wrong" caterwauling.

We simply laid out the better position, that potential (we really don't need to go over the "not all Muslims believe picture-viewing is blasphemous" bit again, do we?) religious-based offense does not warrant an encyclopedia censoring itself.

Those Muslims that are offended by pictures can take steps to limit their own viewing, I have no problem with that. It is when they tell me or other non-Muslims that we can't look at something because it offends them. That's my line in the sand.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:24 pm

tarc wrote:I'm afraid some people have a case of the Bitter Bettys, this is just an echo of Ludwigs2's ignoramus "I don't like how you're arguing, therefore you're wrong" caterwauling.

We simply laid out the better position, that potential (we really don't need to go over the "not all Muslims believe picture-viewing is blasphemous" bit again, do we?) religious-based offense does not warrant an encyclopedia censoring itself.

Those Muslims that are offended by pictures can take steps to limit their own viewing, I have no problem with that. It is when they tell me or other non-Muslims that we can't look at something because it offends them. That's my line in the sand.
Exercising editorial discretion is not censorship, not even self-censorship, tarc. I was arguing for the use of figurative depictions where they were useful. The Muhammad images debate was not, as Tim, tarc and others mischaracterise it, between the "no images crowd" and the defenders of freedom against the inroads of theocracy. It was between the "no gratuitous inclusion of offensive images crowd" and the defenders of the right to include offensive images of no didactic value.

Necessary offense - such as that caused by the inclusion of figurative images in a section called "Depictions of Muhammad" - can be easily understood as justifiable by most of our readers. And inclusion of such images just because they look pretty or vaguely (if inaccurately in many cases) depict what is already adequately described in the text can be easily and rightly understood, by anyone with eyes to see, as unnecessary offense - an insult. A fuck you.

The Muhammad images debate was between those who deliberately insulted our readers by including didactically valueless figurative depictions, and those who, on the whole, acknowledged that some offense would be caused by a thorough treatment of the topic, but who insisted on limiting that offense to necessary offense.

User avatar
Ismail
Contributor
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Ismail
Contact:

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Ismail » Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:38 pm

I think it's interesting that there's more fuss about what images an article has than the actual text of the article. Any "inroads of theocracy" would be contained in how Muhammad's life and religious views are described, not if the article has or does not have a European portrayal of him in Hell or whatever. Clever "theocrats" could even use such an image to reinforce a portrayal of "look how ignorant these Christians were, slandering the Prophet."

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:23 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Exercising editorial discretion is not censorship, not even self-censorship, tarc. I was arguing for the use of figurative depictions where they were useful. The Muhammad images debate was not, as Tim, tarc and others mischaracterise it, between the "no images crowd" and the defenders of freedom against the inroads of theocracy. It was between the "no gratuitous inclusion of offensive images crowd" and the defenders of the right to include offensive images of no didactic value.

Necessary offense - such as that caused by the inclusion of figurative images in a section called "Depictions of Muhammad" - can be easily understood as justifiable by most of our readers. And inclusion of such images just because they look pretty or vaguely (if inaccurately in many cases) depict what is already adequately described in the text can be easily and rightly understood, by anyone with eyes to see, as unnecessary offense - an insult. A fuck you.

The Muhammad images debate was between those who deliberately insulted our readers by including didactically valueless figurative depictions, and those who, on the whole, acknowledged that some offense would be caused by a thorough treatment of the topic, but who insisted on limiting that offense to necessary offense.
You have looked at the article at some point, haven't you?!?

Muhammad (T-H-L)

Objectively speaking, the only way a "fuck you" could be derived from that set of illustrations would be if someone were a fundamentalist nut or a PC nut. And I'm totally fine with that, either way.

RfB

User avatar
Tarc
Habitué
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Wikipedia User: Tarc

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Tarc » Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:54 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:Exercising editorial discretion is not censorship, not even self-censorship, tarc. I was arguing for the use of figurative depictions where they were useful. The Muhammad images debate was not, as Tim, tarc and others mischaracterise it, between the "no images crowd" and the defenders of freedom against the inroads of theocracy. It was between the "no gratuitous inclusion of offensive images crowd" and the defenders of the right to include offensive images of no didactic value.
There were no gratuitous images in the article, though, per the finding of the RfC
Necessary offense - such as that caused by the inclusion of figurative images in a section called "Depictions of Muhammad" - can be easily understood as justifiable by most of our readers. And inclusion of such images just because they look pretty or vaguely (if inaccurately in many cases) depict what is already adequately described in the text can be easily and rightly understood, by anyone with eyes to see, as unnecessary offense - an insult. A fuck you.
No editor that I know of in those discussions ever advocated a "fuck you" position
The Muhammad images debate was between those who deliberately insulted our readers by including didactically valueless figurative depictions, and those who, on the whole, acknowledged that some offense would be caused by a thorough treatment of the topic, but who insisted on limiting that offense to necessary offense.
No editor that I know of in those discussions ever advocated a "I want to offend Muslims deliberately" position.

This is what Ludwigs could never accept; we had two sides of a debate, a debate that became intractable and had to go before Arbcom. Arbcom kicked Ludwigs to the curb and warned some of us, myself included, to chill the fuck out. They also decreed a binding RfC beheld by the community, the outcome...the OVERWHELMING outcome...of which was that the need to present information outweighs the offense it may cause, that the images currently present in the article are not gratuitous/extraneous, that claims of inaccuracy, i.e. "no one knows what Muhammad looks like so they can't be real images of him", were without merit.

I admit that in the Arbcom case and in the RfC, some quite solid arguments were presented by the pro-removal crowd that took some diligence to dismantle, but in the end they were dismantled. Elonka and Jayen in particular, you and Eraserhead to a slight degree. It didn't exactly help your side that Ludwigs was batshit insane or that Adler came across as a rather unhinged when he presented an 80-volume set of "evidence" against me, seemingly reaching back to the time in 3rd grade when I stole the cookies from the cookie jar.

Contrary to what they tend to teach in school these days, not everyone gets to win, or gets a gold star just for trying hard. Not every kid has the potential to be an astronaut or the President either. The liberal mind can be a bit defective at times, as it tends to abhor absolutism; right or wrong, black or white, winners or losers.

We all made our case. You didn't win. Life isn't fair.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:32 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:And inclusion of such images just because they look pretty or vaguely (if inaccurately in many cases) depict what is already adequately described in the text can be easily and rightly understood, by anyone with eyes to see, as unnecessary offense - an insult. A fuck you.
Objectively speaking, the only way a "fuck you" could be derived from that set of illustrations would be if someone were a fundamentalist nut or a PC nut. And I'm totally fine with that, either way.


So, because they're pretty, they can't be offensive to a reasonable person. Cool. Well, the only way to know for sure whether some (and what proportion) of our reasonable readers are insulted by the gratuitous figurative images, would be to ask them in a survey. My proposition that some reasonable people would be (and that it matters) is a reasonable position.Your proposition, that no reasonable person could be offended by such pretty images is remotely plausible, too. I've put my case for my position; you've put yours. Thanks.

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Hersch » Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:49 am

I don't think a reasonable person can participate in this debate without keeping in mind that we are in an historical period where Muslims and their faith are being demonized and scapegoated -- and killed. If you find yourself possessed by a powerful urge to stick it to those dirty, hairy, smelly Muslims and their violent weirdo religion, you might want to pause for a moment and consider where that urge might be coming from. Wikipedia is, after all, the favorite location for people, under cover of anonymity, to give in to all the wrong sorts of urges.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Tarc
Habitué
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Wikipedia User: Tarc

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Tarc » Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:14 am

Hersch wrote:I don't think a reasonable person can participate in this debate without keeping in mind that we are in an historical period where Muslims and their faith are being demonized and scapegoated -- and killed. If you find yourself possessed by a powerful urge to stick it to those dirty, hairy, smelly Muslims and their violent weirdo religion, you might want to pause for a moment and consider where that urge might be coming from. Wikipedia is, after all, the favorite location for people, under cover of anonymity, to give in to all the wrong sorts of urges.
Well, sorry to say, but the fact that there are tenets of Islam that are straight out of the Middle Ages does play a part in this, albeit a small one. We don't make room in the 21st century for the beliefs of cannibals, polygamists, slave traders, and the more odious parts of the Bible, (i.e. Leviticus and "Why can't I own Canadians?") have long been obsoleted and ignored.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

Wer900
Gregarious
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Wer900

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Wer900 » Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:27 am

Tarc wrote:
Hersch wrote:I don't think a reasonable person can participate in this debate without keeping in mind that we are in an historical period where Muslims and their faith are being demonized and scapegoated -- and killed. If you find yourself possessed by a powerful urge to stick it to those dirty, hairy, smelly Muslims and their violent weirdo religion, you might want to pause for a moment and consider where that urge might be coming from. Wikipedia is, after all, the favorite location for people, under cover of anonymity, to give in to all the wrong sorts of urges.

Well, sorry to say, but the fact that there are tenets of Islam that are straight out of the Middle Ages
does play a part in this, albeit a small one. We don't make room in the 21st century for the beliefs of cannibals, polygamists, slave traders, and the more odious parts of the Bible, (i.e. Leviticus and "Why can't I own Canadians?") have long been obsoleted and ignored.
In the Middle Ages, Islamic civilization was much more tolerant of new ideas and religions than the Western world, leading to the revitalization of old Greek and Roman texts and amazing advances in science, technology, and engineering. There are tenets of every religion, though, that would be repugnant to anyone nowadays, but religions do evolve to keep pace with the times. The scapegoating of Muslims has less to do with the religion itself than the extreme ways in which states such as Saudi Arabia practice and preach it.
Obvious civility robots are obvious

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:29 am

My argument was quite simple: just like the articles on Jesus, Buddha, etc. primarily show Christian, Buddhist etc. iconic art, the article on Muhammad should primarily show Islamic religious art. Now, Islamic religious art is non-figurative, and focused on the word. Calligraphy of Muhammad's words in the Quran and of his name fulfils the exact same function as paintings of Jesus in the Christian tradition, being used to adorn mosques etc. The idea was that just like traditional iconic art is used in the article on Jesus, traditional Islamic art should be used in the article on Muhammad.

The argument Elonka and I made was that this was also the approach taken by high-quality sources on Muhammad, and that Wikipedia diverged markedly from that approach. What Christiane J. Gruber, the Muhammad images scholar I contacted, said was posted here. Excerpt:
Images of Muhammad by far and large are to be found within illustrated manuscripts. These kinds of handwritten texts with images were luxury items-- typically of royal or sub-royal (elite/vizieral) patronage. These were essentially uniquely produced items accessible only to a restricted audience in the highest echelons of a cultured social/political group. Images of Muhammad never formed part of a public iconographic program, as in the case of Christian art, where tempera-painted icons, canvas paintings, stained glass windows, figural textiles, etc. put the prime on the image over the text (for a largely illiterate pre-modern public audience). In Islamic traditions, public art was largely architectural-- centered around mosques and tombs-- and comprised of decorative programs that were calligraphic, vegetal, and geometric. This is one of the key problems with publicly discussing images of Muhammad in Islam: they never comprised a public art, they were never to be seen beyond a small group of viewers. This said, there are some exceptions to this general rule: I have found a number of instances in which images of Muhammad were used in public settings. Such images include large-scale paintings used in public storytelling, and of course during and after the 19th century, there are plenty of printed images as well. Which leads us to the next issue:

Illustrated printed books were a distinct phenomenon in Qajar (19th century) Iran, and these texts and images certainly forwarded a Shii worldview. It is extremely rare to find modern images of Muhammad in Arab-Sunni countries, such as the ones you've listed. However, in Syria and Pakistan, posters were produced, representing Muhammad's calligraphic name, his genealogical tree, his relics, and Buraq. On these posters, see Centlivres-Demont, "Imageries Populaires en Islam." I've attached three sample posters herewith. You'll notice that there are no figural images of Muhammad in these materials; they are either abstract (Muhammad as a calligraphic rose on Buraq) or else metaphorical and/or synecdochal. So there are images produced in Sunni spheres; however, these are very rare and, when they exist, they tend to use the non-figural mode of visual expression.
I was in favour of using a couple of examples of figurative art in the Depictions section (like this), where their context and prevalence could be explained, but to stick to traditional non-figurative art elsewhere, just like Wikipedia sticks to traditional images of Jesus in the Jesus article. That seemed to be way over most people's heads, and/or there seemed to be no desire to reflect the traditional art due to subliminal hostility. The level of discourse in general was pretty appalling.

User avatar
Tarc
Habitué
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Wikipedia User: Tarc

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Tarc » Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:34 am

Wer900 wrote:
Tarc wrote:
Hersch wrote:I don't think a reasonable person can participate in this debate without keeping in mind that we are in an historical period where Muslims and their faith are being demonized and scapegoated -- and killed. If you find yourself possessed by a powerful urge to stick it to those dirty, hairy, smelly Muslims and their violent weirdo religion, you might want to pause for a moment and consider where that urge might be coming from. Wikipedia is, after all, the favorite location for people, under cover of anonymity, to give in to all the wrong sorts of urges.

Well, sorry to say, but the fact that there are tenets of Islam that are straight out of the Middle Ages
does play a part in this, albeit a small one. We don't make room in the 21st century for the beliefs of cannibals, polygamists, slave traders, and the more odious parts of the Bible, (i.e. Leviticus and "Why can't I own Canadians?") have long been obsoleted and ignored.
In the Middle Ages, Islamic civilization was much more tolerant of new ideas and religions than the Western world, leading to the revitalization of old Greek and Roman texts and amazing advances in science, technology, and engineering. There are tenets of every religion, though, that would be repugnant to anyone nowadays, but religions do evolve to keep pace with the times. The scapegoating of Muslims has less to do with the religion itself than the extreme ways in which states such as Saudi Arabia practice and preach it.
Well, there's one that kinda ain't doing that.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Hersch » Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:36 am

Tarc wrote:
Hersch wrote:I don't think a reasonable person can participate in this debate without keeping in mind that we are in an historical period where Muslims and their faith are being demonized and scapegoated -- and killed. If you find yourself possessed by a powerful urge to stick it to those dirty, hairy, smelly Muslims and their violent weirdo religion, you might want to pause for a moment and consider where that urge might be coming from. Wikipedia is, after all, the favorite location for people, under cover of anonymity, to give in to all the wrong sorts of urges.
Well, sorry to say, but the fact that there are tenets of Islam that are straight out of the Middle Ages does play a part in this, albeit a small one. We don't make room in the 21st century for the beliefs of cannibals, polygamists, slave traders, and the more odious parts of the Bible, (i.e. Leviticus and "Why can't I own Canadians?") have long been obsoleted and ignored.
Can't you just go back to hating Commies? There are so few of them now that you could realistically contemplate killing them all, which I presume would mean that you advance to the next level and gain new powers.
Wer900 wrote:The scapegoating of Muslims has less to do with the religion itself than the extreme ways in which states such as Saudi Arabia practice and preach it.
Scapegoating has to do with the need for a scapegoat. It happens normally during times of economic collapse, and any scapegoat will do in a pinch.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:54 am

Tarc wrote:
Hersch wrote:I don't think a reasonable person can participate in this debate without keeping in mind that we are in an historical period where Muslims and their faith are being demonized and scapegoated -- and killed. If you find yourself possessed by a powerful urge to stick it to those dirty, hairy, smelly Muslims and their violent weirdo religion, you might want to pause for a moment and consider where that urge might be coming from. Wikipedia is, after all, the favorite location for people, under cover of anonymity, to give in to all the wrong sorts of urges.
Well, sorry to say, but the fact that there are tenets of Islam that are straight out of the Middle Ages does play a part in this, albeit a small one. We don't make room in the 21st century for the beliefs of cannibals, polygamists, slave traders, and the more odious parts of the Bible, (i.e. Leviticus and "Why can't I own Canadians?") have long been obsoleted and ignored.
Well, that's a strawman argument, given that we weren't arguing for "no figurative images". Nevertheless, the NOTCENSORED argument was trotted out over and over again. It just never entered most people's heads that there might be other reasons to use figurative images sparingly: namely, to give the reader a correct impression of what Islamic Muhammad art actually looks like in the real world.

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:12 am

Tarc wrote: There were no gratuitous images in the article, though, per the finding of the RfC
Can you summarise the didactic value of the figurative image presently in the section, Life in Mecca? (There are equally gratuitous figurative images at Beginnings of the Quoran, Conquest of Mecca, and Farewell pilgrimage, too.) I asked you that once before and you drove me out of the discussion with insults. Are you ready to actually address the question now, or will it be more dismissive insults?
Tarc wrote:No editor that I know of in those discussions ever advocated a "fuck you" position. ... No editor that I know of in those discussions ever advocated a "I want to offend Muslims deliberately" position.
Not in so many words, no. And it's remotely plausible that none of you consciously held that attitude. But your behaviour says it. Obi-Wan-Kenobi seems to sincerely believe he's not sexist.
Tarc wrote:This is what Ludwigs could never accept; we had two sides of a debate, a debate that became intractable and had to go before Arbcom.
It didn't have to go to ArbCom. It was very close to resolution, thanks largely to the efforts of User:Resolute and some others, when User:FormerIP swept in out of nowhere, regurgitated a few omgs, looked at the toxicity of the (ugh) "rhetoric" and took it to ArbCom.

ArbCom. Heh. Drafting (effective leadership of the case) was assigned to new arbitrator AGK, and the committee gives a lot of leeway to the drafter. This case opened at the same time as the "Malleus keeps saying fuck off" case, and that case saw the active involvement of many arbitrators (and I think from memory it was assigned to two drafters?) AGK seemed to get no support, and the clerks - a can't recall who they nominally were - were looking the other way. Everybody was mesmerised by Malleus. It was a joke. Several comments from arbitrators who wheeled in at the end to pronounce truth made it clear they hadn't a clue what it was about. That you weren't site-banned for this conduct says it all. The problem at that page was behaviour - yours, Mathsci's, Kww's and Johnbod's. All bullies and (with the exception of you I think - though I might have forgotten something) liars. The Arbitration Committee's decision to impose a binding RfC on the page was a lazy cop-out.

I don't agree with your assumption that RfC = truth.
Last edited by Anthonyhcole on Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:28 am

Like I say, the root of this issue has to do with the philosophy of independence of content vs. the forced restraint of content by encyclopedia subjects. If people want to call that "Not Censored" as a shorthand phraseology, that's fine. "Independent Content, Not Subject-Controlled Content" would be more accurate, in my view.

The basic problem was that it was clear that there was a majority and a minority -- a substantial majority -- from very early days and it kept going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on because a handful of the minority couldn't accept they were in the minority and that their position had been defeated.

It was a sort of fanaticism, for sure. The most kooky of the kooks wound up getting his head lopped off and it hasn't been much of an issue since.

RfB

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Hersch » Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:35 am

Randy from Boise wrote:Like I say, the root of this issue has to do with the philosophy of independence of content vs. the forced restraint of content by encyclopedia subjects.
Like you say. But after listening to Tarc hold noisily forth on the abiding evil of Muslims and their religion, it's simply not credible to claim that your side is comprised only of chaste and pure defenders of knowledge.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
greyed.out.fields
Gregarious
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 10:59 am
Wikipedia User: I AM your guilty pleasure
Actual Name: Written addiction
Location: Back alley hang-up

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by greyed.out.fields » Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:41 am

Tarc wrote:
Wer900 wrote:
Tarc wrote:
Hersch wrote:I don't think a reasonable person can participate in this debate without keeping in mind that we are in an historical period where Muslims and their faith are being demonized and scapegoated -- and killed. If you find yourself possessed by a powerful urge to stick it to those dirty, hairy, smelly Muslims and their violent weirdo religion, you might want to pause for a moment and consider where that urge might be coming from. Wikipedia is, after all, the favorite location for people, under cover of anonymity, to give in to all the wrong sorts of urges.

Well, sorry to say, but the fact that there are tenets of Islam that are straight out of the Middle Ages
does play a part in this, albeit a small one. We don't make room in the 21st century for the beliefs of cannibals, polygamists, slave traders, and the more odious parts of the Bible, (i.e. Leviticus and "Why can't I own Canadians?") have long been obsoleted and ignored.
In the Middle Ages, Islamic civilization was much more tolerant of new ideas and religions than the Western world, leading to the revitalization of old Greek and Roman texts and amazing advances in science, technology, and engineering. There are tenets of every religion, though, that would be repugnant to anyone nowadays, but religions do evolve to keep pace with the times. The scapegoating of Muslims has less to do with the religion itself than the extreme ways in which states such as Saudi Arabia practice and preach it.
Well, there's one that kinda ain't doing that.
Not just one. When the topic of same-sex marriage comes up, I tell people I stick to the Biblical view: that marriage should be between one man and as many women as he can afford.

:popcorn: Topping debate, by the way. That's what we casual readers are here to see. Carry on with the vituperation, old chaps.
a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad en la tierra

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:10 am

Randy from Boise wrote:Like I say, the root of this issue has to do with the philosophy of independence of content vs. the forced restraint of content by encyclopedia subjects. If people want to call that "Not Censored" as a shorthand phraseology, that's fine. "Independent Content, Not Subject-Controlled Content" would be more accurate, in my view.

The basic problem was that it was clear that there was a majority and a minority -- a substantial majority -- from very early days and it kept going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on because a handful of the minority couldn't accept they were in the minority and that their position had been defeated.

It was a sort of fanaticism, for sure. The most kooky of the kooks wound up getting his head lopped off and it hasn't been much of an issue since.

RfB
"Subject-controlled"? How, exactly, would Muhammad be controlling the content here? How would Muslims, even, be controlling the article? You're conflating "control" with (all - I think at the time) non-Muslim editors discussing content and exercising editorial discretion. Don't you mean some other word than "control"? Same with "force". No one is ''forcing'' anybody here (obviously). We're talking about the free exercise of discretion. Invoking "force" and "control" is erecting a straw man. Of course we're all opposed to that. You're actually arguing that we don't have the discretion to leave out valueless offensive images, if we wish. You're opposing our freedom of expression. You're imposing some rule along the lines of, "editors aren't allowed to take into account the offense we may cause our readers" which is, well ... autistic? psychopathic? What's the word I'm looking for?

I disagree with your assumption that (a) majority view = truth and (b) it is illegitimate for those who hold a minority view to argue for their view. I'll repeat here that anyone who has the time to look over the images talk page will see that no actual argument took place there because of the lalala that is on display in this discussion. Do you at least recognise now that both Andreas and I were proposing the inclusion of figurative depictions of Muhammad, Tim? Or are you going to be claiming again here and later that you were defending the wiki against the "no images crowd".

The only reason it "hasn't been much of an issue since" is the imposition of censorship with regard to discussing Muhammad images on Wikipedia.

As an aside, you, Tarc, et al. on the one hand invoke anti-censorship when it helps you rub gratuitous figurative depictions of Muhammad in the face of every Muslim who goes to that article, but on the other think it's really cool that no one is allowed to raise the issue on-wiki.

Is that hypocritical, or am I missing something?

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by lilburne » Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:01 am

From what I recall I stayed out of the Mohammed images debacle, though I may have made some comments on WR about it.
Tarc wrote:
Wer900 wrote: In the Middle Ages, Islamic civilization was much more tolerant of new ideas and religions than the Western world, leading to the revitalization of old Greek and Roman texts and amazing advances in science, technology, and engineering. There are tenets of every religion, though, that would be repugnant to anyone nowadays, but religions do evolve to keep pace with the times. The scapegoating of Muslims has less to do with the religion itself than the extreme ways in which states such as Saudi Arabia practice and preach it.
Well, there's one that kinda ain't doing that.
As far as I can see all religions are just a thin veneer away from all the religious excesses of the past, and I think that the religious right in America have more in common with the Saudis than they do with someone from secular London. It appears that the society is far more censorious, revengeful, and unforgiving than any European one. Note I don't just mean anti-porn advocates but their anti-anti-porn advocates too. The attitude that says this NOT be displayed and the attitude this MUST be displayed are one and the same. Both are fundamentalist positions.

I have loads of photographs of medieval tomb monuments in the UK where the heads of saints and angels have been disfigured in the 16th and 17th century. Churches with just fragments of 13th and 14th century stained glass, because it was smashed in the 16th century. Others with 14th century murals that were whitewashed over. The stained glass at Chartres only survives because the town people fought off the revolutionaries in the 1790s, a small church in Leicestershire has a large number of panels from Saint-Denis because it was sold off in the early 19th century. The glass from the churches in Rouen was removed and placed in storage quite a bit got broken and later when they decided to put it back again windows from one church were placed in another church etc. The defacement of the Egyptian monuments to the pharaohs and hieroglyphs was carried out by Christians from the 4th - 6th centuries and only stopped when the place was overrun by the Muslims.

As the quote given by Andreas shows the Muslim religion does not have a culture of figurative depictions of Mohammed. There is little figurative art except where the culture brushed up against other cultures and the rulers incorporated alien elements such is in certain parts of Mughal empire. Otherwise it was a rare phenomenon. The WP articles do not accurately reflect that. What you have is imagery shoved here and there, that gives a totally false impression. All it appears to be in pursuit of the fundamentalist NOTCENSORED bollocks.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Poetlister » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:15 am

Tarc wrote:There were no gratuitous images in the article, though, per the finding of the RfC
Oh well, that settles it once and for all. If a Wikipedia RfC came to that conclusion, it must be correct and only a demented lunatic could disagree. :irony:
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Tarc
Habitué
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Wikipedia User: Tarc

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Tarc » Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:15 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:Can you summarise the didactic value of the figurative image presently in the section, Life in Mecca? (There are equally gratuitous figurative images at Beginnings of the Quoran, Conquest of Mecca, and Farewell pilgrimage, too.) I asked you that once before and you drove me out of the discussion with insults. Are you ready to actually address the question now, or will it be more dismissive insults?
It appears in that link discussion that FormerIP and Johnbd answered you quite succinctly. No need for me to pile on. I do still chuckle at the "DON'T CALL ME SLY OR DISINGENUOUS OR ELSE I'LL TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME" stances, though.
Not in so many words, no. And it's remotely plausible that none of you consciously held that attitude. But your behaviour says it.
Well, as you're likely not a mind-reader, your assessment of my motivations means precisely fuck-all. Based on your behavior, I could just as easily characterize you as a basement-dwelling, bleeding-heart liberal sop who goes out of his way to make sure no Muslim anywhere in the world could possibly be offended by us evil Westerners. Yet at the same time scream bloody murder if a kid wants to pray in a public school.

Do you know what the mayor of Providence, RI reportedly once said about people like you, Anthony? Years ago, the ACLU had a shitfit over a nativity scene on the public square at Christmas time. Commenting on the lawsuit, he said "they're jealous because they don't have three wise men and a virgin in the entire organization."
That you weren't site-banned for this conduct says it all.
Again; you made you case, I made mine. You didn't win.
I don't agree with your assumption that RfC = truth.
I didn't agree with the the Iraq invasion, but it happened anyway. You exemplify pretty much everything that is wrong in current American polics, Anthony. Not everything in life goes your way, that doesn't mean your opponents somehow cheated you or deceived you or tricked the voters, or that the deciders were lazy/incompetent, etc... You just...lost.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:36 pm

Tarc wrote:Well, as you're likely not a mind-reader, your assessment of my motivations means precisely fuck-all.
Just as User:Obi-Wan-Kenobi is clearly being sexist in his dealings with women subjects without seeming to realise it, you and the others arguing for your position are clearly insulting Muslims, loudly saying "fuck you" to them, but you don't hear yourselves. I don't need to read your mind. I'm presuming nothing about your intentions or even thoughts.
Tarc wrote:It appears in that link discussion that FormerIP and Johnbd answered you quite succinctly.
Johnbod's and FormerIP's position is: an image that has nothing important to say about the subject and is offensive to many readers can be included in the article if it's pretty or has some other entirely dispensable benefit, because in our editorial decision-making we don't take into account any offense we may cause our readers. Which is Tim's position outlined above. So that's your view too? If so, I have another question.
Last edited by Anthonyhcole on Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:58 pm

Hersch wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Like I say, the root of this issue has to do with the philosophy of independence of content vs. the forced restraint of content by encyclopedia subjects.
Like you say. But after listening to Tarc hold noisily forth on the abiding evil of Muslims and their religion, it's simply not credible to claim that your side is comprised only of chaste and pure defenders of knowledge.
I don't recall having said "only."

The graphics appearing now in the article are proof of where the majority was coming from. We're not talking about using Muhammad drawings from South Park...

RfB

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:07 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Tarc wrote:Well, as you're likely not a mind-reader, your assessment of my motivations means precisely fuck-all.
Just as User:Obi-Wan-Kenobi is clearly being sexist in his dealings with women subjects without seeming to realise it, you and the others arguing for your position are clearly insulting Muslims, loudly saying "fuck you" to them, but you don't hear yourselves. I don't need to read your mind. I'm presuming nothing about your intentions or even thoughts.
Tarc wrote:It appears in that link discussion that FormerIP and Johnbd answered you quite succinctly.
Johnbod's and FormerIP's position is: an image that has nothing important to say about the subject and is offensive to many readers can be included in the article if it's pretty or has some other entirely dispensable benefit, because in our editorial decision-making we don't take into account any offense we may cause our readers. Which is Tim's position outlined above. So that's your view too? If so, I have another question.
Actually, there is plenty of "taking into account" that is done, as demonstrated by the tasteful, non-inflammatory, and rational use of graphics in the actual article itself.

What we DON'T want to do is start taking direction from article subjects (or their self-appointed advocates) about what must or must not be included or excluded. Not just for this topic, for any topic.

It wasn't Muslim editors who droned on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about what a horrific slap in the face this all was, etc., it was a handful of self-righteous PC kooks. It was fanatical. It was disruptive. It was resolved.

RfB

P.S. Rather than mischaracterizing my views to make a strawman, you might try actually quoting me and getting it right:
I actually wrote: Content should be content, in accordance with established policies — factual accuracy, verifiability, neutrality of tone. The desires and whims of biographical subjects should be completely separated from this; their concerns may be voiced and taken into consideration in debate, but content absolutely needs to be independently derived.

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Hersch » Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:32 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
I actually wrote: The desires and whims of biographical subjects should be completely separated from this; their concerns may be voiced and taken into consideration in debate, but content absolutely needs to be independently derived.
Referring to "the desires and whims of biographical subjects" trivializes the matter. We're not talking about the vanity of some semi-obscure BLP subject here -- we're talking about roughly 25% of the world's population, a group that is presently subject to demonization and vilification, and whose nations have suffered through a century of manipulated conflicts and outright invasions by the Anglo-Saxon world that controls Wikipedia. To gloatingly post images that are calculated to offend is the worst sort of gravedancing.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:33 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:What we DON'T want to do is start taking direction from article subjects (or their self-appointed advocates) about what must or must not be included or excluded. Not just for this topic, for any topic.
I agree. Yep. 100%. We are as one on that. However. Standing on that principle does not prevent us from also believing that gratuitously offending our readers is a bad thing. You keep arguing things that we're not in disagreement on. Rather than argue, "I won't be told what I must or must not include in articles by Muslims or any other involved parties," which no one here disagrees with; how about defending the proposition that is the real difference between us which can probably be best summarised as, "I will add images that offend lots of Muslims and add nothing remotely indispensable to the article."

Most Muslims are very moderate, by the way. You seem to be arguing that we must ignore the sensibilities of the majority to spite the nut-jobs that shout "I kill you, blasphemer!" I'm not responding to the threats and outrages of the latter. Of course would I oppose that. My position is in response to the simple uncomplicated offense that the ''average'' moderate Muslim experiences when faced with impiety of this kind (akin to the offense pious Christians would feel if you gratuitously put Piss Christ in our Jesus article.) You are attributing my (and others') position to cowering before extremists. I'm not. Can you consider the discomfort your actions cause majority of moderate Muslims, please? (Bedtime here.)
Last edited by Anthonyhcole on Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:57 pm

Hersch wrote: To gloatingly post images that are calculated to offend is the worst sort of gravedancing.
This is wild rhetoric not reflective of the actual illustrations used in the piece.

Here's what I will gloat about: Wikipedia was not cowed by the not-so-veiled threat of religious fundamentalist terrorism or months of fanatical braying by PC wackydoodles and produced a nice, modest, balanced set of illustrations for that piece.

RfB

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:52 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Here's what I will gloat about: Wikipedia was not cowed by the not-so-veiled threat of religious fundamentalist terrorism or months of fanatical braying by PC wackydoodles and produced a nice, modest, balanced set of illustrations for that piece.
Meanwhile, OLED (T-H-L) is still being written by industry people and paid editors.

User avatar
Tarc
Habitué
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Wikipedia User: Tarc

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Tarc » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:18 pm

Hersch wrote:Referring to "the desires and whims of biographical subjects" trivializes the matter. We're not talking about the vanity of some semi-obscure BLP subject here -- we're talking about roughly 25% of the world's population, a group that is presently subject to demonization and vilification, and whose nations have suffered through a century of manipulated conflicts and outright invasions by the Anglo-Saxon world that controls Wikipedia.
Wow, you nailed it; it is all a big conspiracy among David Icke, the Illuminati, the Stonecuters Club and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. SO much for those plans.
To gloatingly post images that are calculated to offend is the worst sort of gravedancing.
Except that no one has done any such thing. It's not like someone wants to adorn the main article with images from "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" or the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Those images do belong in their respective articles though, a fact which these same nutters protest just as they do the regular images.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

User avatar
Tarc
Habitué
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Wikipedia User: Tarc

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Tarc » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:21 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:My position is in response to the simple uncomplicated offense that the ''average'' moderate Muslim experiences when faced with impiety of this kind (akin to the offense pious Christians would feel if you gratuitously put Piss Christ in our Jesus article.) You are attributing my (and others') position to cowering before extremists. I'm not. Can you consider the discomfort your actions cause majority of moderate Muslims, please? (Bedtime here.)
Apples and oranges; Piss Christ is to the Jesus article as a bomb-turban cartoon would be to the Muhammad article. You can't compare the inclusion of Piss Christ to the inclusion of the images that are in the current Muhammad article.

Their discomfort is irrelevant. Touchy-feely, bleeding-heart uselessness, that is.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

IRWolfie-
Contributor
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:08 pm
Wikipedia User: IRWolfie-

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by IRWolfie- » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:07 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Tarc wrote: There were no gratuitous images in the article, though, per the finding of the RfC
Can you summarise the didactic value of the figurative image presently in the section, Life in Mecca? (There are equally gratuitous figurative images at Beginnings of the Quoran, Conquest of Mecca, and Farewell pilgrimage, too.) I asked you that once before and you drove me out of the discussion with insults. Are you ready to actually address the question now, or will it be more dismissive insults?
There is nothing gratuitous about the images you have linked to. If this were any other historical article, or where people did not know about the controversy, they would finding nothing wrong with the images. The only reason this is in any way controversial is that people are getting offended on behalf of others about something so utterly trivial and mundane. On wikipedia we add images to articles showing depictions of relevant events.

Good luck with trying to appease the Aniconists and their other censorious friends. You will always find that no matter what reasonable step you take, someone will be offended. These people are not merely content to have the images out of their site, they won't be happy until they don't exist. I have no doubt that they would willingly destroy these paintings, and you are pandering to these people. Content is sometimes going to be offensive to some groups, but there is a big difference between the content being appropriate, and the content not. You can not judge whether it is appropriate or not based on people being offended. In fact this argument is so old, it's also in policy.

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:29 am

Hersch wrote:To gloatingly post images that are calculated to offend is the worst sort of gravedancing
It's legitimate to suspect their oafish behaviour is calculated but, from the comments posted here and on-wiki by these and other editors it's not clear at all. I think it's far more likely (a) some of them really are incapable of conceiving the degree of insult they're causing, and (b) others actually believe it would be ethically/philosophically wrong for us to take account of offense to our readers (at least while they're discussing Muslims).

For a demonstration of (a), their inability to take another's perspective, see their apparent genuine belief that because the images are pretty and weren't originally created in order to deliberately offend, a reasonable Muslim can't be insulted by us putting them in the article for decoration.

On how we should treat such relevant but offensive and didactically unimportant images: though a beautifully executed anatomical drawing of a vagina with hymen has some relevance to her article, most of these editors would agree including such an image in our article on the Virgin Mary would be inappropriate, due to the inevitable offense caused, but when considering Muslims they say we cannot take into account any offense we may cause our readers. It is inconsistency but it may well be happening without calculation.

Some may be genuinely incapable of imagining moderate Muslims could feel insulted by their behaviour, and others genuinely don't see their double standard when they chant "we don't take offense into account." Both of which conditions make arguing with them somewhat pointless, so that's my last word on this.

Locked