User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Muhammad images

So the Muhammad images case has concluded, with a fistful of images of Muhammad smeared over Muhammad with Wikipedia's middle finger and locked in there for several years. Tarc offers his enlightened commentary here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's all over but the crying, I suppose... Resolute 16:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And maybe a bit of crowing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. I mostly walked away from the article after the arb case, trusting the community would do the right thing. And it did. I wasn't going to comment on the result at all, but I'm not really sure what your purpose was in posting this thread. Resolute 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I, too, mostly kept my distance from the RfC, as ArbCom had suggested we leave it to previously uninvolved editors. The result was a shame. And shameful. Why would we host images that add nothing of relevance to the article and are profoundly offensive to many of our readers? I understand the free speech point, but would prefer we didn't alienate millions of our readers from an article that matters very much to them by gratuitously including pretty (to non-Muslims) images just to make a point. Of course, I'm not arguing we should remove all images of Muhammad from the article, just those that add little other than decoration (in the eyes of non-Muslims) and offensiveness (to our millions of Muslim readers).

I raised this here to see if Jimbo had any thoughts on the result. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the editors that contributed to the discussion made a consensus and that is that - users need to just accept that moving forwards - (at least for the foreseeable, consensus can and does change) however, as in real life, this consensus can also be wrong, and your opinion that,... I mostly walked away from the article after the arb case, trusting the community would do the right thing "And it did" is just that, your opinion, right or wrong users need to accept it for the foreseeable. Your comment , "It's all over but the crying" was imo , not beneficial to collaborative contributions and was more likely to divide than conquer - Youreallycan 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks goodness, religious censorship has been defeated :) GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What is "censurship"? NickCT (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Everybody, please play nice in the sandbox. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Anythonycole is the only one remaining of the Three Amigos (Ludwigs2 blocked for a year, Hans Adler retiring in a huff) at the Muhammad RfC that tried to see me go down with that ship, and is apparently still a bit bitter that I did not. I have no problems with what I said, though yes, it did begin to veer a bit off-topic from the article discussion. Christianity has been chased off the stage in Western society, particularly in America. I have always found it to be quite hypocritical that we deny respect to one religion in many aspects but bend over backwards to show deference and tolerance to another. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No offense intended, Tarc. I appreciate your candor. For the record, as I've said before, I don't want you to leave the project: you're a valuable asset. I just want you to stop being rude and insulting to others who have the temerity to disagree with you. I think I've noticed a moderation in that lately. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Christianity has been chased off the stage in Western society, particularly in America". ROFL! AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Christmas in the U.S. has been canceled this year, out of respect for Mayan religious views, which end the world 4 days earlier, and so the U.S. plans to End the World on 21 December 2012, in observance of Mayan beliefs, while re-creation of the World will occur on 22 December for other religions (just kidding). -Wikid77 (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think America is one of the most overtly christian countries in the western world. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Is Tarc nipping at the sauce this evening or something? That's a really bizarre thing to say. I can't walk down the street in Hawaii without running into at least six different denominations of Christianity. We've got churches on every street corner here. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

While Tarc's comment is clearly wrong as stated, it is true that sometimes we fail to put hard-learned lessons about Christianity into practice for other religions. In the USA it is relatively accepted by this point that people have a constitutional right to deface Bibles and crosses for art and politics, yet Koran burning still leads to a remarkable variety of legal and financial censorship actions. I think it is very important, whether we're speaking of a nation or of Wikipedia, for us to hold clear bedrock principles that say we can't censor content, period. Because once people perceive that we have a choice to do this or not to do it, it becomes a personal insult when we refuse to censor something. People are meant to be free and have the flexibility to do what they want - but governments are best kept chained to their oars. Wnt (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, no one is arguing we should do what we're told by Muslims. No one is arguing we are in any way compelled to remove images of Muhammad from this encyclopedia. That is, no one is arguing for censorship here. And I take issue with your claim that we, the community, don't have the right to choose whether a gratuitously offensive image belongs in an article. We do. That's not censorship. That's sentient humans exercising judgement and freedom. Our repudiation of censorship is not also a repudiation of our common sense and sensibility. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not just an American thing, same applies this side of the pond. The reason that Koran burning and so on is so contentious in the West is because it can quite often seem like a racist action. Of course it absolutely doesn't have to be and I certainly think spitting on the Koran (or at least what it represents) is too good for it, like all the Abrahamic holy books that can VERY easily be misinterpreted as an attack probably on Pakistanis here and Arabs on your side of the Atlantic. Knee-jerk offendarati are hardly known for giving the benefit of the doubt in this sort of instance, so that's why we're in this position... It's not "fair" to Christians in a sense but it's hardly as if Christians are discriminated against in the US (you could make a bit more of an argument that they are in the UK, but it wouldn't be much of one... about all you could say is people laugh at them - well, they do... but if you're going to believe that sort of thing you have to be prepared to take the rough with the smooth) Egg Centric 22:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not wrong in the slightest, Wnt. If you do not understand something I have said, I am more than happy to explain further. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your statement about religion in America is so off the mark I thought you were trying to be funny. As others have said, the United States is one of the most religious countries in the world. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The world would be better off, if we were all atheists. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Communists tried that; it didn't turn out so well for the religious and irreligious alike. There's this funny thing about protecting the rights of people you disagree with; in the end, you're really protecting your own freedom. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

People are bastards with or without religion. Religion is just one manifestation of man's propensity to put himself in a group and view with suspicion those outside of the group. If we were all atheists then people would find some other group to join, probably nationalistic, and still do all the stupid things they do now. In other words, you don't need Jesus to be a piece of crap, he's just the Western raison de jure. . SÆdon^talk 01:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that the purpose of the prohibition against depicting Muhammad is to prevent idol worship. Some serious dark-ages doublethink going on there. There is no chance of non-moslems idolizing Muhammad. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 23:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see the problem. It's clear from the RfC outcome, and the article as it stands, that Wikipedia is doing its best not to needlessly offend anybody's religious beliefs, but at the same time will not bow before anyone's self-professed righteous cause. The article, clearly, is avoiding depictions of the prophet. At the same time, it is also clearly not avoiding them entirely. The religious ban on idol worship has deep roots, there is something similar in Judaism as well. But the extreme version, by which violations by unbelievers of an abstract philosophical principle becomes an excuse among a historically marginalized group for channeling their rage and xenophobia, is not something we can reasonably deal with. Just like those in the west who wanted to re-invent the language to be gender-neutral, or something (and if you didn't do exactly what they said, you must be one of the oppressors), we can't jump and do cartwheels every time somebody with a cause wants to control what gets said in public. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I see that. I supported putting a button at the top so readers could hide images easily if they wanted to. I'm sorry that was a step too far for the anti censorship crowd. It looks to me that the only real way round the whole business and yet make Wikipedia available even to people with strong convictions or the children of same is to have a general way for people to do things like that where the editors do not make any explicit selection and where the main encyclopaedia is not affected in any substantial way. I really would like to cater to some extent for people with strong views about sex or killing or religion or taboos or phobias. If some Scientologist is happy to let their child only view pages in Wikipedia which have no relation to Scientology I say let them if it is no great bother to us. rather than we must pry their eyes open with toothpicks attitude. Dmcq (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken on at least one point, Wikidemon. You say that it is clear from the RfC outcome that Wikipedia is doing its best not to needlessly offend anybody's religious beliefs. You, and not only you, have missed the point of the RfC. This RfC found that it is OK to needlessly offend Muslims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, it seems to come down to the basic question of what we're doing here... Editing an encyclopedia? Or trying to score cultural points? —MistyMorn (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, if you are addressing me, I didn't understand that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, sorry... I thought that was clear from the context. More specifically: Are we focused on making good, pertinent articles with the ingredients needed within their scope? Or do we, as a publication, feel the need to inject non-essential material simply because we can, even though we know that a proportion of our readership are going to find it offensive? Judging from the present conversation, there may be a variety of triggers for the latter mechanism, ranging from perceived persecution of Christians in the USA to occupying the moral high ground of atheism and demonstrating our liberation from all forms of censorship. That sort of stuff looks to me like cultural point scoring. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry. You were quite clear, I was being dense. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't say that! —MistyMorn (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But you are valuing a strongly held belief by editors of Wikipedia lower than strongly held beliefs of some religion. I would like to cater for both of them and a lot more besides rather than go on about how bad one crowd or another are. Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Acid test: Do the figurative portrayals substantially contribute to the understanding of the main topic of the page? If they do, then there's a genuine issue. But if they don't, what's the problem? —MistyMorn (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:PERTINENCE is the appropriate guideline. It says things like "Efforts should be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal" and "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." The images are pertinent and and as the guideline says mages are an important part of any article's presentation. Removing them for religious reasons would directly conflict with WP:NOTCENSORED. As I said you are valuing some deeply held religious beliefs over and above the thought out and agreed beliefs of editors of Wikipedia that have been put into the policies and guidelines by consensus. That's why you see no problem.. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the figure/caption in WP:PERTINENCE illustrates why I see no genuine problem. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are only saying remove the images because of their beliefs, you would have no objection otherwise. Therefore your objection comes under WP:CENSOR. That's really all there is to it. Dmcq (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are only saying... That's really all there is to it.
I seem to have heard that sort of argument somewhere before. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

One last clarification attempt at my comments above. Yes, the US is a Christian-centered nation, I do not argue against that. However, in the past where it was very rigid and very exclusionary of non-Christians is a thing of the past. Prayer in public schools, nativity scenes on the town square and the like have been largely removed as a more multicultural approach becomes ingrained in society. I am supportive of all that...hell, I'd like to get "under God" out of the Pledge, even. My issue with the Muhammad and depictions though is that deferring to their religious beliefs is taking a step backwards into the old days when we were more deferential to Christianity. We (non-Muslims) should not have to censor ourselves just because us looking at images of their prophet makes them uncomfortable, any more that I should have to worry about Catholics and blasphemy if I say "goddamnit" in public. Being unoffended is not a right. And Anthony, the "needlessly offend" argument was thoroughly squashed in the RfC. Please drop it. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Only, it's not censorship we're discussing. Censorship is mandatory, imposed, enforced. Self-censorship is what Soviet journalists did to save time: they would not include copy that they knew would be removed by the state censor. There is no censorship of any kind being contemplated here. What I've been arguing for is our right to exercise discernment. It's very different. It's an act of free will exercised by editors unconstrained by anything but a commitment to the foundation's mission. Gratuitously alienating millions of readers from an article just because we can, and for no educational benefit, works against the foundation's mission.

I don't know any Muslims that particularly care whether you look at images of Muhammad. I know a number that would rather not look at such images themselves, though. And having unnecessary depictions of Muhammad on Muhammad effectively alienates them from the article. It's a bit like images of vaginas. I don't mind you looking at images of vaginas but I'm not going to bother with an article that is plastered with them for no good reason, neither would many people.

You and Wikipedia have the right to offend, but doing so when it could be avoided without diminishing the encyclopedia is puerile. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're begging the question. Others disagree that the images are "gratuitously offensive", provide "no educational benefit" and could be removed "without diminishing the encyclopedia". In fact, it's explicitly noted in the RfC's closing statement that images shouldn't be added "without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so". —David Levy 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I know others disagree with me. They're wrong. Just because there are a number of people who disagree with me doesn't mean they're right. (Argumentum ad populum.) This image adds nothing relevant to the section it's illustrating. It's gratuitous and offensive to many of our readers. Indeed, it gets Muhammad's hair length wrong, according to Ali's description of the prophet. It is pretty and breaks up the text nicely. It may be an aid to memory. But it adds nothing to the reader's understanding, and alienates millions of readers. Great. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even expressing agreement with the prevailing opinion, let alone asserting that its popularity makes it correct. I'm addressing your misrepresentation of the RfC's outcome and the underlying rationales.

You're treating the images' superfluousness as a given and asserting that they've been included "just to make a point", because editors have decided that it's "OK to needlessly offend Muslims". That's false. The images' inclusion reflects consensus that they hold significant educational value. It's perfectly reasonable for you to disagree, but it isn't reasonable for you to distort others' motives by pretending that they share your opinion that the images are extraneous and want to use them anyway. —David Levy 19:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of people share my view that most of the images on Muhammad are superfluous. What WP:DUE information does this image add to the reader's understanding of Muhammad? (It's bedtime here.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You've disregarded my comments and responded with something that I'd describe as a "straw man" if it appeared remotely relevant to my argument. —David Levy 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I apologise. It's very late here and I'm not paying due attention. I'll make an effort now, and revisit this once I've had some sleep.

I'm asserting, and I have every right to assert because it is true, that this image adds nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad, and so is unnecessary to the article. Its presence in that article offends many Muslims. Ergo, it needlessly offends Muslims. I am not pretending this is the conclusion of the RfC. It is, however the view of many, though not the majority, of the editors engaged in this debate.

Given the number of times WP:NOTCENSORED is waved about in this debate, and Tarc's comments linked to in my opening comment, it is reasonable to assert that most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. And now you are repeating the same lies and slander from the past discussions, the Arbcom, and the RfC, that those who wished to retain the image did so out of spite or to make a point. That argument was categorically rejected by the hundred-odd participants of the rfC. That you refuse to acknowledge that, that you STILL seek to attack the character of those who feel different about the matter than you to speaks VOLUME of your character, or lack thereof. I wash my hands of this, and you, and am quite happy that this subject matter will not have to be re-opened again in the foreseeable future. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I did feel it was a little unfair singling you out, but your comments were such a clear expression of spite and WP:POINT that I couldn't help myself. Put it down to tiredness. Good night. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm asserting, and I have every right to assert because it is true, that this image adds nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad, and so is unnecessary to the article. Its presence in that article offends many Muslims. Ergo, it needlessly offends Muslims.

I've explicitly acknowledged that it's perfectly reasonable for you to hold and express such an opinion.

What's unreasonable is your claim that the other side believes the same things and is acting out of malice and spite.

I am not pretending this is the conclusion of the RfC.

Your exact words were "This RfC found that it is OK to needlessly offend Muslims."

It is, however the view of many, though not the majority, of the editors engaged in this debate.

...but not the ones supporting the images' inclusion.

Given the number of times WP:NOTCENSORED is waved about in this debate,

That's indicative of an acknowledgment that the images offend people, not that they do so "needlessly".

and Tarc's comments linked to in my opening comment, it is reasonable to assert that most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article.

That's a gross violation of WP:AGF. —David Levy 22:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's morning. I'm refreshed. On the first point, you were right to criticise my fairly vague hyperbole. The RfC found that using figurative images to illustrate important events in the subject’s life is necessary. This is, of course, nonsense. By declaring that images adding nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad are necessary, the RfC is declaring that black is white. Forgive me if I don't play along. The effect of the majority position is to endorse unnecessary offense by declaring unnecessary images necessary. The closing admins have accurately captured the mood of the RfC, and I congratulate them. I'm criticising the majority position, not their summary of it.

I stand by my assertion about the motivations of most of the keep !voters. As for Tarc's good faith, I am certain Tarc is motivated by good intentions, the truth is I have a lot of respect for him. However it is clear from his comments I referred to at the beginning of this thread that he is also motivated by resentment. No assumptions necessary there. It's quite explicit. I have to go out now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The RfC found that using figurative images to illustrate important events in the subject’s life is necessary. This is, of course, nonsense.

Your position on the issue is abundantly clear. There's no need to reiterate it in each and every reply, particularly given the fact that I'm neither criticising nor contradicting this opinion.

By declaring that images adding nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad are necessary, the RfC is declaring that black is white.

You're still begging the question.

The above statement contributes nothing to the proceedings beyond "I'm right and they're wrong." You're entitled to believe (and assert) that, but even if I assume it to be true, it doesn't address my concerns.

Forgive me if I don't play along.

No one is asking you to agree with the decision.

I stand by my assertion about the motivations of most of the keep !voters.

Do you routinely apply such logic? Is everyone who edits articles in a manner with which you disagree "wrong"? And not merely wrong, mind you, but so blatantly wrong that they can't possibly believe otherwise (and therefore are obviously sabotaging the encyclopedia)? —David Levy 05:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience. If I repeat myself, it is in an effort to outline my logic. Regarding begging the question

1. The example image (like others in the article) adds nothing WP:DUE to the reader's understanding of Muhammad. I base this on the fact that, so far, no one has managed to present anything due and relevant that it conveys. It has been said that the example image conveys something about Islamic depictions of Muhammad. This is true, but that is not the topic of the article in question, or the section in which it appears. Loading the article up with six or more such images gives undue weight to a minor aspect of the subject, art history, just as loading the article with campaign maps would be giving undue weight to the prophet's military strategy.
2. In the face of this inability of anyone to point to anything duly relevant the image adds to the reader's understanding of the topic, I conclude that it has little due relevance; that it is unimportant to the article. That conclusion seems inevitable to me.

I hope I have addressed the question: Do all the depictions of Muhammad in Muhammad add significant relevant value, in proportion to the prominence they enjoy? which I think is the question I left begging.

Regarding the motivations of others: I began my engagement with this topic assuming everybody was here to make the article as good and accessible as possible. My view has evolved over time. When an image conveys little relevant information, but is offensive to those for whom Muhammad is one of our most important articles, I simply fail to imagine any constructive motivation for including that image in that article. I understand this may upset some people, and I readily concede there are probably exceptions but, on the whole, it is my view, based on the statements of many hundreds of editors over the last six months, one that I don't expect you to share, that some combination of bigotry, ideological extremism and a failure of perspective-taking and empathy underlies the encyclopedia's puerile stance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So the people who disagreed with your take on it are bigoted ideologues with a failure of perspective and lacking in empathy. Hmmm, well now you've got that off your chest perhaps we can agree that a lot of the people in the debate got very polarized? Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

:) Not all of them will have each shortcoming, for sure, and there will be exceptions, but enough have demonstrated at least one trait for me to feel comfortable with that generalisation (only in this debate). And yes, that was cathartic. "Polarised" may imply bi-polarity; the debate was more complex than that with many persuasive rationales and many preferred outcomes. Sorry Jimbo. I'd still be interested if you have any thoughts on the issue but fully appreciate you may not want to touch this thing with a barge pole. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Your argument, which you've again reiterated, can be summarized as follows:

"Many editors have opined that the images enhance the article's educational value, but that's nonsense; they clearly don't, as anyone can plainly see. Surely, even they must realize that I'm obviously right, so they can't possibly believe what they're saying. Most of them must be lying about wanting to improve the encyclopedia. They're acting out of spite and malice. It's the only logical explanation for their supposed disagreement with my patently correct assessment."

And I fully expect you to respond to this message by restating the argument yet again. I hope that I'm wrong. (You're the arbiter of that, of course.) —David Levy 10:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly my position. I concede that I was imputing a view to the RfC that the closers of the RfC did not enunciate. I was referring to the effect of the RfC, rather than the closing statement. The effect is that it is OK to gratuitously offend Muslims.

These depictions of Muhammad are confections out of different cultures hundreds of years and thousands of miles away from the events they depict. They add no historical or cultural information regarding the man Muhammad. Their value lies in what they tell us about the later depiction of Muhammad, and as narrative images they aid in conceptualisation and memory.

Does their relative educational value and pertinence justify any negative effect these images will have on our readership?

When I arrived at the article, there wasn't even a mention of the depiction of Muhammad. There had been a section, but an editor had removed it a couple of years earlier. I added a section with an image. That tells you something about the relative value Tarc, Johnbod and others assigned to the topic, depictions of Muhammad, in Muhammad. Alongside his career, Islam, the succession and other topics, depiction of Muhammad is a relatively minor sub-topic of a biography of Muhammad.

The section Muhammad#Islamic depictions of Muhammad and the text dealing with Western reception may be best illustrated with figurative depictions of Muhammad, but the remainder of the article doesn't need to be illustrated with figurative depictions of Muhammad. And doing so disaffects, probably repels millions of readers for whom this is a most important article.

When I weigh up the benefit and cost of including more than a couple of figurative depictions of Muhammad in the current version, I conclude that doing so harms the foundation's mission more than it helps. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly my position.

Which parts are inaccurate?

I concede that I was imputing a view to the RfC that the closers of the RfC did not enunciate. I was referring to the effect of the RfC, rather than the closing statement.

You've done far more than that. You've asserted that "most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article."

The effect is that it is OK to gratuitously offend Muslims.

That's an inaccurate statement. It's reasonable for you to opine that Muslims are being offended gratuitously, but no one asserts that such a thing is "OK".

The remainder of your reply again restates your argument as to why the images' inclusion is inappropriate. For convenience, I'll copy and paste an earlier response:

Your position on the issue is abundantly clear. There's no need to reiterate it in each and every reply, particularly given the fact that I'm neither criticising nor contradicting this opinion. —David Levy 15:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've fully grasped the meaning of the term, "begging the question" (assuming the conclusion as a given in one's argument), David. My conclusion is that "the RfC is an imprimatur for needlessly offending our Muslim readers." The proposition I had taken as a given was "narrative images are unnecessary." I have taken the trouble to elaborate the argument behind the latter, and I believe my argument for the conclusion is now fairly complete and sound. I'm sorry if you found it tedious but I've been struggling with your idiosyncratic use of "begging the question."

This is all obfuscation, though. My argument against the majority at the RfC has been clear from early in this discussion. You have been picking at the threads of it but not addressing the point. That's OK. No one does. Because there is no answer to the question, "What do narrative images add to the reader's understanding that is sufficiently necessary to the topic to justify alienating millions of our readers?"

I have nothing to add to what I've already said about the character of the a person who would argue in favour of including such images. --Anthonyhcole (talk)

"...alienating millions of our readers" [cite needed] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've fully grasped the meaning of the term, "begging the question" (assuming the conclusion as a given in one's argument), David.

You contend that images have been inappropriately included in the article. As evidence, you state as fact that the images don't belong in the article.

You deem editors' rationales invalid and cite this as proof that no one has provided a valid rationale.

Your argument boils down to "I'm right because I'm right and they're wrong because they're wrong."

I have taken the trouble to elaborate the argument behind the latter, and I believe my argument for the conclusion is now fairly complete and sound.

Indeed, you've stated it over and over and over, ignoring my continual explanations that I'm not challenging that position.

My argument against the majority at the RfC has been clear from early in this discussion.

...as I've noted several times. That's why there's no need for the continual reiteration.

You have been picking at the threads of it but not addressing the point.

I'm addressing different points. As I said, if I assume that you're right about the images' (in)appropriateness, it has no bearing on my concerns. —David Levy 04:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"You contend that images have been inappropriately included in the article. As evidence, you state as fact that the images don't belong in the article."

I do more than that. I assert that

1. figurative depictions of Muhammad functioning purely as narrative illustrations adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad don't belong in the article, because inclusion would needlessly disaffect millions of our readers; and that
2. most of the figurative depictions of Muhammad in Muhammad function purely as such narrative illustrations, adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad. But I support the latter assertion by
3. adducing as evidence the absence of any demonstration that images such as this add anything necessary to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad. I can't prove the absence of such value, it is up to my opponents to demonstrate its presence, and none has. But I can point to their consistent failure to demonstrate such value, as evidence for the absence of such value.

So, this is more than a "contention" or "statement of fact". It is an argument, supported by evidence (the failure of my opponents to establish relevant value); one with which none of my opponents, including yourself, is able to engage. You can destroy my argument simply by demonstrating what necessary information such an image adds to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad. Please do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardly anyone shares your point of view, that is why the RfC closed when it did. I find it rather pathetic that first Veritycheck at Talk:Muhammad and now you both there and here see fit to piddle (figuratively) upon the outcome of the discussions because you disagree with it. Do you not see how shockingly immature that is? Tarc (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I came here, to another editor's talk page, in the hope of engaging him in a discussion about the outcome of a debate that I lost. He hasn't edited for a few days, so I may have to wait a bit for a response, if he chooses to respond at all. I'm happy to wait, and I'll fully understand if he doesn't want to discuss it. I don't see any harm in that. Calling me rather pathetic and immature is the kind of behaviour I was hoping you'd left behind. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Anthony, read this part of the RfC close; "With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support." It has been determined by the Wikipedia community that there is nothing "unnecessary" about the images in the article, that they are there for a good reason, and that the removal would diminish the encyclopedia. Let me make this crystal-clear; your argument to the contrary has lost. That is why I said earlier to please drop it, as it is a failed argument. I have nothing else to say on the matter. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Good. I just came here to get Jimbo's view on the outcome. And you're right, the majority disagreed with my view. You seem to think that means I'm wrong. I don't follow your logic there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The public voted. Your side didn't get enough votes. "I'm right!" doesn't carry much weight when it comes from so few people. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess kids who like to oppose religion like to think they're the Che guevara Sussimen ballenota (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 22:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This has dragged on for a long time, and actually I think that this RfC won't put an end to it. Udoubtedly Muslims will continue to protest and there will be a flare up from those that take the "no censorship doesn't mean right to offend" point of view. On the other side of the argument the "not censored" enthusiasts and the "we're not going to let muslims tell us what to do" brigade (together, the WP majority) will hold firm. Meanwhile, the real issues of relevance, encyclopedic benefit etc only get either a cursory look in or are only taken up in any depth to advance the aforementioned pre-existing POVs of either side. At least that's how the debate has gone in the last three years I've been following it. Pretty unedifying and no one involved on either side, IMHO, comes out of it with much credit. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm insulted by that comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make it inaccurate.DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no one's arguing against our asserted right to offend. I'm arguing that it is stupid, and inimical to the foundation's mission, to do so for no good reason. WP:NOTCENSORED does assert the right to offend. It does not endorse gratuitous offense, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an insult to everyone involved in the debate, DeCausa. Think about it. "No one involved ... comes out of it with much credit." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I know what I wrote and I've thought it fairly consistently true for about 18 months. ...actually, you're right: I'm talking about the main protagonists. I can't possibly make that judgement about every single contributor. DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

DeCausa appears to have been giving a summation of the discussion, and in this case he saw little of substance or eloquence which stood out, from either side. Perhaps Anthony you could offer a different summation of the discussion? -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

DeCausa is entitled to his view. I will think about your suggestion (a summary of the discussion) and if you'd like me to contrive something, ask me on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lots of people have strong feelings about he issue. No way has been found yet to satisfy an appreciable amount of the concerns of one side whilst also satisfying the concerns of the other. I don't think the business reflects either shame or credit or whatever, people who have stood up for the right of Muslims not to be offended need not feel ashamed. People who have stood up for freedom from censorship of the encyclopaedia need not feel ashamed. Sometimes things are difficult to resolve in a mutually amicable way.

Now can we just put that behind us and work with the situation as it is. The core principle of no censorship has been affirmed but the problem of people taking offence for whatever reason remains and it can drive them away from using Wikipedia - and there's an awful lot of people out there of various ilk ready to be offended not just Muslims. The RfC on the images has outlined the boundaries for any method for dealing with the problem and they are fairly strict, but I do not believe they preclude a solution. So can we just go on and try and figure out a solution within those confines please rather than raking over things that have been well and truly decided. Perhaps some decisions will have changed appreciably in a couple of years but they most certainly will not have done so in any substantial way yet. Dmcq (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the 'core principle' that seems to have been affirmed is that Wikipedia is a badly-run amateur-bureaucratic cult more obsessed with its own policies than with producing a half-credible encyclopaedia. There are no images of Mohammed, any more than there are images of the Holy Ghost, or of the footprints of the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll. This whole debate was never about Islam, or the prophet Mohammed. Instead it has been about how far Wikipedia should go in portraying Islam as some sort of medieval throwback, because it suits the agendas of the majority of the contributors - far too many of whom would be seen as lacking in knowledge, even in the middle ages. Nobody knows what Mohammed looked like, and anyone who thinks it matters is an idiot. Still, if the idiots want to write their own encyclopaedia, why should we stop them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it's all over but the crying. And my god are some of the pro-censorship people ever crying. Resolute 04:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm arguing for intelligence not censorship. (*sniff*) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. Your aim may be noble, but how many times must your "intelligent" viewpoint be rejected by other "intelligent" viewpoints in RFCs before this ends? Seriously, there's been at least four or five since Ludwigs began this idiotic round of bickering, and the status quo was upheld every single time. A lot of productive editing time is being wasted by continuing to beat this dead horse. Except for Andy's time, of course. He quit Wikipedia in a huff a couple weeks ago, and yet, his ghost still here. Resolute 04:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I was half-way to the shops and came back to correct this but was too late, you'd already responded. I should have said "social intelligence". Most of the people involved in this dispute have no IQ problems that I can see. Umm. I just came here to have a chat with Jimbo, if he was up for it. That's all. Chewing the fat. A bit of meta-discussion. I'm frankly getting a bit annoyed with other editors telling me to shut up when I'm addressing a third party. It's, at the very least, rude. It's also a bit inconsistent, coming from a group that invokes free speech to justify disaffecting millions of our readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A meta-discussion, that sounds good. Is this a meta-meta discussion? Oh... isn't that recursive, would this then be an omega-meta discussion? Or does it never go up levels like that so there is no higher type of discussion than a meta discussion? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If all you want is a conversation with Jimbo then use the convenient "Email this user" link. You've been around way longer than long enough to know that this talk page is watched by many people and you couldn't have expected this conversation to have included only the two of you. The fact that you keep responding while claiming that you only wanted to talk with Jimbo is a bit contradictory. But if that's what you want, then just email him and stop responding. SÆdon^talk 11:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The hat says, Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. Please don't consider alerting him to any topic to be canvassing. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, in this case Wikipedia had the good fortune that the world's top Muhammad images scholar was prepared to provide background information and advice (which was ignored). I see no sign that contributors to the RfC generally understood these subtleties, or were even interested in them. The main preoccupation of many seems to have been free speech (or demonstrating the freedom to do something that it is known some people do not want us to do – regardless of the merits of doing it), and the debate, if one may call it that, was largely on an intellectual level south of South Park. Ignorant and proud of it. Yay! Still, at least there was a sufficient consensus to have calligraphy in the info box. It could have been worse. But I question the usefulness of a mass RfC on issues like that. An FAC drive might have been a better route to go. JN466 10:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Count

9999. Nice! --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

looking at that, I couldn't help but think, "There is no way he would pass an RfA today... I mean over 40% of his edits are on his own talk page." ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Humble indie bundle V - remove all links in articles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwANFc7D1ac is selling pirate games for one cent ("or anything yo want to pay"). 99 mercosul mythghoster (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No they aren't! --Errant ^(chat!) 16:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta

Does sensational speculation and lurid tabloid journalism - however widely covered - really trump WP:BLPCRIME? At best this should be an article about a murder, noting that Magnotta is the prime suspect. GwenChan 19:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to state your opinion at Talk:Luka_Magnotta#Renaming_the_article:_Murder_of_Lin_Jun. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. There are plenty of examples where a fugitive's own notoriety completely trumps the crime(s) they are accused of committing. In this case, we are talking about an individual who may be one of the most wanted men in the world. It is appropriate to then use common sense rather than mindlessly misapplying aspects of a policy. Which, in this case, may be unfortunate as it seems to me that publicity is exactly what all of this is about. Resolute 01:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• A separate bio-page is an NPOV view of a person: It is difficult to pretend that person is described in a wp:NPOV manner when the article is titled "Murder of Lin Jun". We have had this situation before, and there should be a separate article for the suspect; otherwise, the remainder of a person's NPOV details about their life typically become wp:UNDUE details in a murder article. It would be like a college professor of 30 years who was charged with a crime, but details about the professor's career often would be viewed as an off-topic tangent (with wp:UNDUE weight) in describing the crime, whereas "30 years" is a major part of having an NPOV view about a person's life. Fortunately, Wikipedia is large enough to allow 2 articles in this case: 1 for the crime, and 1 for the professor. If a person is notable enough to name in a major crime, then they are notable enough for NPOV treatment in an article named for them, as a person, rather than as a crime which happens to name them. A person's entire life should not be viewed as the few hours related to a crime, as that is not an NPOV-neutral view of a person's life. Even the court cases are titled with people's names ("A versus B") rather than names of crimes, as if the court case were "Prosecution of suspect in Murder of Jane Doe". Suspects should have separate articles filed by person's name, if they are to be named in a crime. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• According to press reports, Magnotta edited Wikipedia and Stormfront, where he was hailed as a hero of free speech. --JN466 11:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Karla Homolka was semi-protected in July 2008 after an IP kept inserting Magnotta's name. Like many of the claims being made about Magnotta at the moment, it is far from clear whether 67.83.201.240 actually was Magnotta.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)