Tarc & the ol' Muhammad Images Imbroglio

[Anroth]

I would love to see Buddy Christ in the Jesus Christ article. Might cheer a lot of people up.

[lilburne]

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.

And if you knew nothing about history or controversy you might think that tastefully drawn 19th century images portraying Africans were OK too.

[Tarc]

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.

Moderate Muslims are the ones that say "I don't like it", and may choose to express this in a variety of ways, such as using the personal image filters or simply avoiding the article altogether; such people are IMO sensible enough to simply "deal with it", as they say. We all have to put up with one thing or another in life that we find disagreeable.

This has never been about moderate Muslims, not even slightly. It has been about people like you citing petition-online.com or the mass of single-purpose-accounts and IPs who post the broken Engrlish "please to remove pictures of prophet (PBUH) they are not allowed" to the talk page. Those are the people you're trying to appease, the people who don't want US to look at the pictures, not just THEM. Those are the people I couldn't give two fucks about.

[lilburne]

Yah well you sound like Wnt who needs a video of rape in order to understand it better and a picture of mutilated corpses in order to understand them better. But instead of a beheading you think you need a stylized image of a guy on a donkey to better understand the Conquest of Mecca, and a stylized image of a guy at the top of a flight of stairs in order to understand "He also upheld the sacredness of four lunar months in each year." Gawd help us all!

[Hersch]

This has never been about moderate Muslims, not even slightly.

It's about nerd-obsessive anti-Muslims. Lilburne pretty much nails it:

Yah well you sound like Wnt who needs a video of rape in order to understand it better and a picture of mutilated corpses in order to understand them better. But instead of a beheading you think you need a stylized image of a guy on a donkey to better understand the Conquest of Mecca, and a stylized image of a guy at the top of a flight of stairs in order to understand "He also upheld the sacredness of four lunar months in each year." Gawd help us all!

[Tarc]

Yah well you sound like Wnt...

Ahh yes, the last refuge of the desperate, argumentum ad assholium; when all else fails, invoke comparisons to a reviled person or argument and try to get off with a "you're as bad as he is!" fallacy. This isn't even about the Wikipedia, it is about the trend in certain liberal circles in the Western world as well. These people quake in fear that something may possibly offend someone at any time.

*Oh noes! The poor atheists feel snubbed during the holidays, so don't say "Merry Christmas".
*Oh noes! The poor Jews have suffered for thousands of years, so don't show the slightest bit of sympathy for the plight of Palestinians.
*Oh noes! The poor Muslims believe pictures of Muhammad to be blasphemy, so you can't look at them or display them either.

Thank god we still have Christians around, the last real group in Western society that it's ok to shut up, call out, pick on, and curb. Well, and fat people, they're still fodder for comedic value. For now.

[lilburne]

Yah well you sound like Wnt...

Ahh yes, the last refuge of the desperate, argumentum ad assholium; when all else fails, invoke comparisons to a reviled person or argument and try to get off with a "you're as bad as he is!" fallacy. This isn't even about the Wikipedia, it is about the trend in certain liberal circles in the Western world as well. These people quake in fear that something may possibly offend someone at any time.

*Oh noes! The poor atheists feel snubbed during the holidays, so don't say "Merry Christmas".
*Oh noes! The poor Jews have suffered for thousands of years, so don't show the slightest bit of sympathy for the plight of Palestinians.
*Oh noes! The poor Muslims believe pictures of Muhammad to be blasphemy, so you can't look at them or display them either.

Thank god we still have Christians around, the last real group in Western society that it's ok to shut up, call out, pick on, and curb. Well, and fat people, they're still fodder for comedic value. For now.

What colour is the sky where you live? After all these months do you really think that I give a shit about offending someone, a group, a nation, a culture, or a religion?

What this is about is how you represent Muslim culture within an encyclopedia. If you get your head out of your arse for more than a few seconds you may realize that one way to do that would be to use Islamic iconography, which might have a better educational value to a western audience than simply grabbing a rag tag of disparate images of "guy on donkey" and "guy on balcony". Of course I realize that doing something like that would require some expertize and is not something that a bunch of ignoramus cunts spouting bizarre notions of NOTCENSORED and YOUR_NOT-THE_BOSS-OF-ME are likely to manage. The images that you have do have a place, but that place is in an article concerning historical context of the books that they were snagged from - again not something that a bunch of dilettantes playing encyclopedias are equipped to do.

[Poetlister]

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.

That shows either staggering ignorance of what Muslims might regard as offensive, or deliberate trolling. Since, as we all know, Tarc is incapable of trolling, it seems that we must reluctantly accept the ignorance explanation.

[HRIP7]

A while ago, there was a controversy in Christian circles about female Jesus images. Many such images exist. Yet the Wikipedia article on Jesus (T-H-L) doesn't show a single one. ZOMG CENSORSHIP!

Imagine the following dialogue in a Wikipedia community composed of people who know very little about Christianity. One of them asks:

Q. Why are these images of the female Jesus being suppressed? Is it just to avoid offence to fundamentalist Christians? Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED.

A. It's because they are not very important images.

Q. It seems they're very important. Look at the ruckus these Christians made about them. That Giuliani vowed he would go to the American Supreme Court over them!

A. Well, yes, but in the general scheme of things, female Jesus images are not very important. They're fringe images, and not characteristic of the way Jesus is customarily portrayed. You won't find them in churches for example.

Q. It doesn't matter what is in their churches. You are just giving in to the fundamentalists and their sexist ideas.

A. Look, really, these images are very unimportant ... including them gives a wrong idea of what Christianity is like.

Q. Unimportant? Ha! You seem to be spending a long time arguing about them. Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, and that is why we will have several beautiful, artistically executed images of this type in the article on Jesus. I read that they are not hostile to Jesus at all, by the way, but celebrate him. They were made by Christians, you know.

A. ...

Now, this could not happen in Wikipedia, given that Wikipedia's contributors come overwhelmingly from a Christian background, and would immediately see the spuriousness of the argument. When it comes to Islam though, ignorance is massive, and an argument much like that flies. That's all there is to it.

And people feel proud that they have resisted censorship, and broken a lance for intellectual freedom, when in fact they're blindly following an agenda set by fundamentalist muslims.

The Muhammad article should have a couple of figurative images of Muhammad, in the appropriate section. At the moment though, it's yet another case of the tail wagging the dog, perpetrated by people who can't tell the difference between the light verse and a limerick, or a Sunni and a Shiite, but get really excited about Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.

As for my mate Tarc, judging by his avatar, I reckon he is not too fond of religious traditions in general, so it's probably unfair to accuse him of any specific hostility towards muslims (H/T to Tim U.).

[Hersch]

Tarc seems, in a way, to be the quintessential Wikipedian MMORPGist: he is irresistibly drawn to the thrill of being able to reach out and antagonize a quarter of the world's population, under the protective cover of anonymity. Like Obama with his drones, he feels a tremendous sense of potency in being able to strike at will, without, of course, having a very precise idea of who it is that he is striking -- but they can't strike back. And most glorious of all, Tarc and his allies were challenged by a rival group of contestants at Wikipedia, and they won! They won! Tarc ought to get a barnstar for this.

[IRWolfie-]

A while ago, there was a controversy in Christian circles about female Jesus images. Many such images exist. Yet the Wikipedia article on Jesus (T-H-L) doesn't show a single one. ZOMG CENSORSHIP!

This isn't really comparable at all. One is a painting of a historical event, the other is not. If someone tried to insert a female Jesus into an article it would be rejected because it is incorrect about the gender of Jesus. When someone tries to insert a female Mohammed then the comparison may be warranted. Otherwise you are comparing apples and oranges.

[Tarc]

What this is about is how you represent Muslim culture within an encyclopedia. If you get your head out of your arse for more than a few seconds you may realize that one way to do that would be to use Islamic iconography,

Perhaps you can download your own copy of MediaWiki and launch the Islamopedia, as what you suggest has no place in a general-interest encyclopedia. We're not here to instruct in religious dogma.

That shows either staggering ignorance of what Muslims might regard as offensive, or deliberate trolling. Since, as we all know, Tarc is incapable of trolling, it seems that we must reluctantly accept the ignorance explanation.

I don't think you're really well-equipped for this discussion. The point is really quite simple; non-adherents to a religion should be forced to show deference to that religion.

Tarc seems, in a way, to be the quintessential Wikipedian MMORPGist: he is irresistibly drawn to the thrill of being able to reach out and antagonize a quarter of the world's population, under the protective cover of anonymity. Like Obama with his drones, he feels a tremendous sense of potency in being able to strike at will, without, of course, having a very precise idea of who it is that he is striking -- but they can't strike back. And most glorious of all, Tarc and his allies were challenged by a rival group of contestants at Wikipedia, and they won! They won! Tarc ought to get a barnstar for this.

Nothing I have ever done in all of this has been done with the intent to "antagonize" or "troll". When I troll, someone, he damn well knows it.

Just more of the mental disorder that is prevalent in the leftist and at times the libertarian mind...though yours is further down the ladder than most, given the Lerouchetard nonsense you've been brainwashed by over the years.

To these folk, winning isn't fair, it isn't nice to make someone feel bad because they have to walk away from a decision dissatisfied. All they want to do is talk, and talk, and talk; they don't do. That's where America is now; a generation of man-children who never learned how to accept defeat with dignity.

Someone forgot to give them their gold "just for trying hard" star after the Muhammad RfC closed the way it did, and they just

don't

know

what

to

do.

[Anthonyhcole]

I was going to drop this but can't ignore

This has never been about moderate Muslims, not even slightly.

Ah. Perhaps that's it then. For me, it has only been about the vast majority of our Muslim readers, the moderates. My proposed use of images (including a disrespectful 16th century depiction,* the frieze around the SCOTUS,** a naked-faced Muhammad in the depictions section and a "flame" image) would have pissed off an extremist nut-job even more than the present article does. I don't care about them and I casually defy them at every opportunity. But a reasonable Muslim would not be insulted by the inclusion of the pictures I proposed because all of them were clearly didactically valuable and added something important and directly relevant to the adjacent text.

A reasonable Muslim is insulted by throwing in "illustrations" (artists' impressions) of narrative that add nothing to the readers' understanding of the adjacent text. By using figurative depictions of Muhammad as comic book panels, we offend them to no purpose, which is an insult. Though the average moderate may find a didactically useful figurative image offensive, they will not be insulted by such use because it has a clear educational purpose.

*Either "Wife scolding drunk Muhammad" or "Faith stepping on Muhammad" from link
**In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations asked for the image of Muhammad to be removed from the marble frieze of the façade. While appreciating the fact that Muhammad was included in the court's pantheon of 18 prominent lawgivers of history, CAIR noted that Islam discourages depictions of Muhammad in any artistic representation. CAIR also objected that the prophet was shown with a sword, reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors. [Wikipedia]

[HRIP7]

A while ago, there was a controversy in Christian circles about female Jesus images. Many such images exist. Yet the Wikipedia article on Jesus (T-H-L) doesn't show a single one. ZOMG CENSORSHIP!

This isn't really comparable at all.

It is if you have even the slightest acquaintance with Islamic culture, which I assume you haven't – and don't have to have to make your opinion count in Wikipedia.

[Midsize Jake]

To these folk, winning isn't fair, it isn't nice to make someone feel bad because they have to walk away from a decision dissatisfied. All they want to do is talk, and talk, and talk; they don't do. That's where America is now; a generation of man-children who never learned how to accept defeat with dignity.

And, apparently, who never learned how not to gloat over "victories" that they've arbitrarily defined themselves for the express purpose of feeling like they've "won" something.

Someone forgot to give them their gold "just for trying hard" star after the Muhammad RfC closed the way it did, and they just...

...know not to use hackneyed typographical tricks to score non-existent "points" in an argument?

[EricBarbour]

[Tarc]

A reasonable Muslim is insulted by throwing in "illustrations" (artists' impressions) of narrative that add nothing to the readers' understanding of the adjacent text.

The "add nothing to the readers' understanding" is a meme long-dismissed, Anthony. I know that you're a stubborn soul, but your opinion on that particular matter is in a miniscule minority.

Lern2letgo.

To these folk, winning isn't fair, it isn't nice to make someone feel bad because they have to walk away from a decision dissatisfied. All they want to do is talk, and talk, and talk; they don't do. That's where America is now; a generation of man-children who never learned how to accept defeat with dignity.

And, apparently, who never learned how not to gloat over "victories" that they've arbitrarily defined themselves for the express purpose of feeling like they've "won" something.

Oh, I certainly gloated in your (and Glassbead's) face) face in that WR thread, that was deliberate trolling on my part. You know that.

But in other discourse on this, no. Pointing out that the matter is settled,and not settled in Anthony's, Nableezy's, Jayen's, etc...favor is not gloating. I's just reality.

[Anthonyhcole]

A reasonable Muslim is insulted by throwing in "illustrations" (artists' impressions) of narrative that add nothing to the readers' understanding of the adjacent text.

The "add nothing to the readers' understanding" is a meme long-dismissed, Anthony.

Yes, but not addressed. You know, refuted. Dismissed yep. Refuted no. It's what you do. As I said at the beginning. But you're funny. For which I'm very grateful.

[dogbiscuit]

A reasonable Muslim is insulted by throwing in "illustrations" (artists' impressions) of narrative that add nothing to the readers' understanding of the adjacent text.

The "add nothing to the readers' understanding" is a meme long-dismissed, Anthony.

Yes, but not addressed. You know, refuted. Dismissed yep. Refuted no. It's what you do. As I said at the beginning. But you're funny. For which I'm very grateful.

Actually, thanks for highlighting that difference. It brings it to mind that this is a very common Wikipedia tactic for any sort of disagreement with the world in general. Take the less contentious issue (Ha!) of flagged revisions, where Wikipedians dismiss it over and over, without ever addressing the fundamental concerns that led to the system being proposed.

We probably should have a dump somewhere for all the dishonest schemes that Wikipedians use to fend off criticism. Wikipedians come to believe that the fact that Wikipedia has not dealt with an issue means that there is no issue to be dealt with - because Wikipedia is practically perfect in every way.

[Poetlister]

What this is about is how you represent Muslim culture within an encyclopedia. If you get your head out of your arse for more than a few seconds you may realize that one way to do that would be to use Islamic iconography,

Perhaps you can download your own copy of MediaWiki and launch the Islamopedia, as what you suggest has no place in a general-interest encyclopedia. We're not here to instruct in religious dogma.

So you're saying that Wikipedia should ban Islamic iconography? Isn't that censorshio?

That shows either staggering ignorance of what Muslims might regard as offensive, or deliberate trolling. Since, as we all know, Tarc is incapable of trolling, it seems that we must reluctantly accept the ignorance explanation.

I don't think you're really well-equipped for this discussion.

Fortunately for everyone else here, what you think about my qualifications is irrelevant.

The point is really quite simple; non-adherents to a religion should be forced to show deference to that religion.

That's an interesting turnaround!

[Ming]

The point is really quite simple; non-adherents to a religion should be forced to show deference to that religion.

Ming would like to point out that, taken seriously, this would result in the removal of ALL the Christian religious art from the main articles for that religion, given that there are significant iconoclast sects out there.

Ming's impression from reading the sources is that objection to depicting Muhammed at all varies widely according to place, time, and group. As is typical on Wikipedia, there is a struggle between the extreme purists among the Moslems (as well as their supporters) and the faction that wants to make a big deal out of "Not censored", so that the second group always pushes adding and keeping images specifically to spite the first group. It's entirely reasonable, even necessary to include images which show the variation in historic depictions, but the malice of the "not censored" crowd needs to be reined in as well.

[Hersch]

My impression is that one faction which you characterize as "Moslem supporters" is not asking for a ban on all images, just all gratuitous images, for which Lilburne has provided some excellent examples.

[Zoloft]

Some useful compromises that were not considered:

• Caption all Muhammad images as 'some guy'
• Delete article as subject 'not notable'
• Mail packages of Post-it notes to all Muslims to cover images
• Replace images with figurative depictions of Jimbo Wales
• Demand copyright clearances from artists or delete pictures
• Use Sharia law to settle the dispute
• Use Talmudic law to settle the dispute
• Hire Mormons to write the article
• Load all our sins on a goat and drive it into the desert

[Tarc]

Yes, but not addressed. You know, refuted. Dismissed yep. Refuted no.

Refuted quite handily, actually. Did you actually ever read through the RfC? You really should sometime. I largely bowed out of the drafting of that and IIRC only commented minimally. Quite a few editors, previously unconnected in any way to our Arbcom squabble, answered every petty and pedantic question you posed.

That's an interesting turnaround!

Your rambling doesn't even make a lick of sense, so, can you go find something better to do? I will address everyone's comment but yours going forward. My time is valuable.

My impression is that one faction which you characterize as "Moslem supporters" is not asking for a ban on all images, just all gratuitous images, for which Lilburne has provided some excellent examples.

There are no "gratuitous images" in the Muhammad article at present. Every image has been pored over at length, each subject to individual "should we or should we not include?" discussion in the RfC. Liburne's opinion didn't carry the day.

This is what I keep getting at; the complete inability to accept a finding that doesn't go your way. You're like the clods who are still grousing about Bush-Gore 2000.

...so that the second group always pushes adding and keeping images specifically to spite the first group.

No image currently in the article in question is there out of spite. If Ming is going to bleat boilerplate anthonycole-esque lies like a blind, ignorant sheep, then Ming and his 3rd-person reference shtick can go sit in the corner with Mr. Outsider.

[Mancunium]

I've never looked at the Wikipedia article on Muhammad, because I wouldn't have thought that WP has much to offer, but I did just Google "Muhammad cartoons": "About 7,040,000 results (0.21 seconds)", and was surprised to see that there is apparently no WP article on the topic, or at least none on the first couple of pages of search results.

A while back I came across a French "Muhammad cartoon" website, and it hosts thousands of the most vile, disgusting, pornographic, hate-filled pictures you can imagine, neatly organized into categories and subcategories. I looked at all the pictures because I felt they were giving me some further understanding of the irrational sick minds of French "nationalists", "traditionalists", "pretend-Catholics", &c.

I've even mentioned that website to practicing Muslims, and had some educational discussions as a result. I've never met a Muslim who objected to "our" looking a such things. I think that "they" are more likely to object to "our" killer drones, &c., but most of "them" are too polite to mention it.

The cartoons are almost certainly not protected by copyright, as people just upload their own cartoons to freely share them with others who might enjoy them. Wikimedia Commons could probably upload all of them, and then WP could use maybe the best 1000 -2000 of them to illustrate an educational article on "Muhammad Cartoons", and try to make it such a good article that it's actually good enough to keep it on WP's front page forever.

Of course these images could, and therefore should, also be used to illustrate the WP articles on cartoons in general, French modern art, racism, religion, bigotry, French politics, ignorance, Danish history, stupidity, bullshit (I assume there has to be an illustrated WP article on "Bullshit"). In fact, you could probably find some angle to use these great pix in hundreds of thousands of articles.

[Hersch]

My time is valuable.

And yet, you spend it at Wikipedia.

[Tarc]

My time is valuable.

And yet, you spend it at Wikipedia.

[lilburne]

There are no "gratuitous images" in the Muhammad article at present. Every image has been pored over at length, each subject to individual "should we or should we not include?" discussion in the RfC. Liburne's opinion didn't carry the day.

I didn't express any opinion in any RfC. That Y'all have stuck a figurative image such as this in every subsection turning the article into Janet and John go Islaming is sort of pathetic, given that you had an opportunity to do something special there. That Y'all did on the bases "we won't be dictated to by nutzoids" is extremely funny.

[Tarc]

There are no "gratuitous images" in the Muhammad article at present. Every image has been pored over at length, each subject to individual "should we or should we not include?" discussion in the RfC. Liburne's opinion didn't carry the day.

I didn't express any opinion in any RfC.

Then perhaps you should consider a colorful little acronym called "STFU" ? It's like people who bitch about politics yet don't get around to voting, your opinion is rather worthless.

That Y'all have stuck a figurative image such as this...

That image's inclusion has been addressed many, many times. Refer to Question 4: Narrative Images, where the count ran 53-10 in favor, if my skimming is correct. Review at your leisure.

[Anthonyhcole]

That Y'all have stuck a figurative image such as this...

That image's inclusion has been addressed many, many times. Refer to Question 4: Narrative Images, where the count ran 53-10 in favor, if my skimming is correct. Review at your leisure.

I recommend following that link to assess the quality of the arguments for including narrative (comic-strip panel) figurative depictions. Tarc, this thread began with me claiming you can't argue for shit. You brought up the Muhammad images "debate." So I challenged you to justify putting narrative images into the article, and your response has been to say more people voted for your side than mine in a Wikipedia RfC. I rest my case.

You ridicule, insult and dismiss, but you can't argue for shit.

[Anthonyhcole]

...And people feel proud that they have resisted censorship, and broken a lance for intellectual freedom, when in fact they're blindly following an agenda set by fundamentalist muslims. ...

Yep.

[lilburne]

Then perhaps you should consider a colorful little acronym called "STFU" ? It's like people who bitch about politics yet don't get around to voting, your opinion is rather worthless.

Some of us don't vote in elections for the same reason we don't comment on RfCs: It only encourages the dimwits to think they have a mandate.

That Y'all have stuck a figurative image such as this...

That image's inclusion has been addressed many, many times. Refer to Question 4: Narrative Images, where the count ran 53-10 in favor, if my skimming is correct. Review at your leisure.

If I were to ask a bus load of pilgrims on their way to Mecca whether they believed in the existence of Allah I'd get a better than 5:1 and it wouldn't mean that Allah exists any more than your 5:1 means that using stylized out-of-context images wasn't a dumb thing to do. After all it was wikipedia editors doing the voting.

[Bielle]

Then perhaps you should consider a colorful little acronym called "STFU" ? It's like people who bitch about politics yet don't get around to voting, your opinion is rather worthless.

Some of us don't vote in elections for the same reason we don't comment on RfCs: It only encourages the dimwits to think they have a mandate.

That Y'all have stuck a figurative image such as this...

That image's inclusion has been addressed many, many times. Refer to Question 4: Narrative Images, where the count ran 53-10 in favor, if my skimming is correct. Review at your leisure.

If I were to ask a bus load of pilgrims on their way to Mecca whether they believed in the existence of Allah I'd get a better than 5:1 and it wouldn't mean that Allah exists any more than your 5:1 means that using stylized out-of-context images wasn't a dumb thing to do. After all it was wikipedia editors doing the voting.

This made me laugh. (Full, true and plain: I did comment on the support side of keeping the images.)

[dogbiscuit]

Some of us don't vote in elections for the same reason we don't comment on RfCs: It only encourages the dimwits to think they have a mandate.

Probably worth noting that again Wikipedia steals a concept from somewhere (Internet RFCs) then totally fails to grasp the process that makes the original robust (i.e. controlling committees of responsible people) and Wikipedia's efforts pointless (random waffling by irrelevant people).

[Tarc]

You ridicule, insult and dismiss, but you can't argue for shit.

Anthony, the thing I wonder about you is whether you're consciously lying or if you're just so deluded that you actually think this oft-repeated meme is the truth. I spent months and months picking apart your arguments with ease, all everything boiled down to was what is weighted more; offense to some viewers or the availability of information to all? Not only myself but also many, many many others....Resolute, Formerip, Johnbod, a host of others I can't recall off the top of my head. You and your crew argued yours, we argued ours, ours was judged the better argument, while also having significantly more numbers

You sill can't accept this, so you resort to character assassination and browbeating many months after the fact. Anthony, I know in your heart of hearts you like to imagine yourself as some sort of latter-day "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", the ceaseless voice of sanity in a room of corruption and chicanery. The real world must be a harsh reality check for you, though.

[Hersch]

For you, Tarc.

[lilburne]

If I were to ask a bus load of pilgrims on their way to Mecca whether they believed in the existence of Allah I'd get a better than 5:1 and it wouldn't mean that Allah exists any more than your 5:1 means that using stylized out-of-context images wasn't a dumb thing to do. After all it was wikipedia editors doing the voting.

This made me laugh. (Full, true and plain: I did comment on the support side of keeping the images.)

I think we can all agree that Tarc is indeed crap at arguing.

I think my initial reaction would have been keep the images, but would have come around to keeping many of them out if it resulted in a better understanding of the culture. As it is the image choice is clichéd, and doesn't really expand on one's understanding. They appear to be adornments within the article's context.

[Tarc]

Doesn't fit me in the slightest, Hersch. Shall I whip up a barnstar that combines elements of paranoia, tinfoil conspiracies and a pinch of antisemitism to sum up your Larouche antics?

I think we can all agree that Tarc is indeed crap at arguing.

I think this is just another sad cry from the losing team. You were beaten handily and have nothing else to fall back on other than "I DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU SAID, WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

Sadly emblematic of why the American political process is horribly broken these days, neither side can accept defeat. It's always attack attack attack, long after the end.

[Midsize Jake]

I think this is just another sad cry from the losing team. ... neither side can accept defeat. It's always attack attack attack, long after the end.

Poor baby. Always having to defend his position while gleefully participating in a system that's deliberately designed to prevent conflicts from ever having a definitive conclusion.

[Tarc]

I think this is just another sad cry from the losing team. ... neither side can accept defeat. It's always attack attack attack, long after the end.

Poor baby

So...next up is the "I know you are but what am I" retort? How many tired tropes do y'all have to utilize before we're done here?

This conflict did have a definitive conclusion. That's kinda the point of the current discussion here, that the anti-image crowd are very, very sore losers.

[Zoloft]

I never engaged the topic on Wikipedia.

I think we're probably done here now we're just tossing names back and forth.

Locking.