Talk:Muhammad/images: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

@@ Line 1,197: / Line 1,197: @@
 ::::::I didn't say we're free to insult, I said we should not consider ''offense'' when determining article content.  Not caring about offending someone is not the same as insulting someone, it is very very different both in MO and intention. Some people are offended by things you and I would find tame, there's a difference between not considering what offends them important and calling those people dicks - big difference. [[User:Noformation|<font color="black">N</font><sup><font color="red">o</font></sup><font color="black">f</font><font color="red">o</font><font color="black">rmation</font>]] <font color="black"><sup>[[User talk:Noformation|Talk]]</sup></font> 04:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 :::::::Exactly. I recognize that there are people who get up in arms over images of Muhammad, just as there are many, many Muslims who do not. While they are perfectly entitled to be as angry as they want, we are under no obligation to take it into account. This has nothing to do with deliberately offending people, but rather providing the highest quality information we can. It doesn't make sense to try and describe someone as well-known as Muhammad without knowing the different ways he was portrayed. All of the images here, at least in my opinion, do a better job of communicating it than mere text would, and is therefore in compliance with policy. If providing high quality information means some people get angry, that's the price we pay; think for a moment about the 6 billion or so people (such as myself) who aren't Muslims for a moment. Why should our understanding of Muhammad suffer because some Muslims happen not to like something?  (By the way, I'm not claiming the only people who dare argue against the images of Muhammad are all fanatics of some sort, more that there's more than one Muslim point of view on the matter.  Neither of us can speak for the "Muslim point of view" as if it's unified, because it's plainly not.)  [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]]  ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 05:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
+::::::::Guys, you do realize that this is '''exactly''' the kind of reasoning used in entrenched racism, son't you?  I mean, this is like that age-old Deep South [[Jim Crow]] thing where they used to say (pardon me for this offensive example): ''"'N*@@er' is just what we call those people, we don't mean any insult by it, and it's not our concern if a few uppity n*@@ers don't like it."''  You are trying to render your opponents as unworthy of being listened to - you may even truly believe they are unworthy of being listened to - but that is ''your'' problem, not ''theirs.''
+::::::::You are playing word games to make your unpleasant actions look socially acceptable.   but let's look at the facts:
+::::::::* You know that these images offend people (you collectively acknowledge it regularly)
+::::::::* You know that a proscription against images like this exists in the Muslim faith (you collectively acknowledge that regularly as well)
+::::::::* You know that these images add little to nothing to the article (none of you has been able to point to anything except trivial values for these images)
+::::::::Now look at the way you collectively try to twist out of this ungainly state:
+::::::::* You attack the people who are offended, suggesting they are ignorant zealots unworthy of consideration
+::::::::* You try to minimize this as 'individual preferences' and refuse to acknowledge that this is a well-known principle of the faith
+::::::::* You try to shift blame onto the victims (classic passive-voice deflection, e.g. ''"We're not offending then, they are just being offended by what we're doing"'')
+::::::::* You use bad policy logic (''"we have to offend them because our policy says we can't not do it"'')
+::::::::Add that you consistently ignore counter-arguments and then ''make stuff up'', and your whole argument becomes patently ridiculous.  to whit:
+::::::::*Blade: as discussed repeatedly these images are not 'high-quality information'. They have little to no informational value, and could easily be removed from the article without harm.
+::::::::*Nofo: 'not caring about offense' cuts both ways; if you ''truly'' didn't care about offense you would consider removing the images because they have no particular informational value, but instead you seem to care very much about ''continuing to offend'' people regardless of the benefits (or lack thereof) to the encyclopedia.  'WP doesn't about offense' is not the same as 'WP tells them they can suck it'.
+::::::::*Blade: You say that ''"Neither of us can speak for the "Muslim point of view"'', but in fact you are trying to promote a side of the dispute that is a distinct historical minority.  Not showing pictures of the prophet unless we have cause is neutral; insisting on pictures even without cause is a distinct action that can only be perceived as biased.
+::::::::You talk you me as though you think I don't understand that Wikipedia sometimes has to offend people because the encyclopedia requires it.  But ''you'' are the ones who do not seem to understand that last 'requires it' phrase.  I '''defy''' you to give an explanation of why these images are required on this page - I do that safely because I'm quite sure you can't.  In fact, I expect you to ignore the challenge, because that's what happened the last three or four times I've asked for that explanation.  But realize that by avoiding this question you are just putting off the inevitable.  Sooner or later you are going to have to face the fact that you are wasting 100s of hours of editor time defending images that piss people off for no good reason.  When you finally face that, I hope you will have the good graces to be ashamed. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)