![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
SenseMaker |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 136 Joined: Member No.: 2,195 ![]() |
From watching AN/I recently, probably many are aware of this petition which has now gardnered more than 18,000 signatures:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-o...-from-wikipedia The issue is whether the painting of Muhammad should be included in Wikipedia's Muhammad's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad It seems that there is significant unity of opinion among Muslims that the image should not be included because it is a taboo in Islam to show their prophet's face. Those arguing for include tend to be non-Muslims or, like Matt57, those who can be classified as anti-Muslims. Some are claiming that this is an issue of censorship, but I can't believe it is that as the painting of Muhammad isn't a likeness but rather just non-realistic depiction. The argument around this image seems to be more about whether or not removing the image will set a precedent that will result in all depictions of Muhammad being removed from Wikipedia. My opinion is that this particular image makes no significant contribution to the article, but that it does serve as a rallying point for a contrived conflict between anti-Muslim editors (who camouflage their incitement under the banner of "anti-censorship") and Muslim editors. Although, I do think that the images of Muhammad should be kept in Wikipedia in general and especially with regards to the Danish cartoon controversy. To remove all images of Muhammad from Wikipedia is wrong but we should cover the topic with modicum of sensitivity. Thus I do strongly favor keeping this separate article and its images (and its name should be enough to warn any pious Muslim as to what he/she should expect): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad But keeping one solitary and non-depictive painting of Muhammad in the Muhammad article merely to aggrevate Muslims for the pleasure of anti-Muslim editors seems to be unnecessary, in fact, it seems to be purposely "trollish." This post has been edited by SenseMaker: |
![]() ![]() |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 ![]() |
The petition now exceeds 40,000 signatures.
|
Ben |
![]() ![]()
Post
#3
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 134 Joined: Member No.: 12 ![]() |
The images say "This is what Muhammad actually looked like"
Every article implies it, and this is what makes Muslims angry. The text should not describe the image this way. All artwork should be cited properly: as artwork. Something like: QUOTE Osman [1595]. Siyer-ı Nebi (The Life of the Prophet). Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul: Ottoman Miniature illus. Muhammad at Mount Hira, Hazine 1221, folio 223b The way the images are included now the writers might as well have illustrated the article with pictures of Muhammad themselves. The artwork is only included for color's sake, even the "ancient illustration" context is simply tossed aside in favor of more gratuitous depictions of Muhammad. |
Proabivouac |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Bane of all wikiland ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,246 Joined: Member No.: 2,647 ![]() |
The way the images are included now the writers might as well have illustrated the article with pictures of Muhammad themselves. The artwork is only included for color's sake, even the "ancient illustration" context is simply tossed aside in favor of more gratuitous depictions of Muhammad. These are among the very most notable and historical images of Muhammad available. One is the earliest known image of the subject of the article. They were selected with a gravity of purpose appropriate to a serious academic enterprise. All were created by Muslims, some famous in their own right. They were provided by scholarly institutions of the highest caliber, such as the University of Edinburgh and the French National Library. All were already made available on the internet by these same institutions. |
msharma |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 112 Joined: From: Not Michael Moore Member No.: 2,466 ![]() |
The way the images are included now the writers might as well have illustrated the article with pictures of Muhammad themselves. The artwork is only included for color's sake, even the "ancient illustration" context is simply tossed aside in favor of more gratuitous depictions of Muhammad. These are among the very most notable and historical images of Muhammad available. One is the earliest known image of the subject of the article. They were selected with a gravity of purpose appropriate to a serious academic enterprise. All were created by Muslims, some famous in their own right. They were provided by scholarly institutions of the highest caliber, such as the University of Edinburgh and the French National Library. All were already made available on the internet by these same institutions. Utter nonsense. Cite each of those things. Mention it in the article. Place these images in historical context. None of that has been done. They aren't pretty colours for you to play with. Possibly the answer lies in their minds, and not ours. I'm really beginning to doubt that. |
Proabivouac |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Bane of all wikiland ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,246 Joined: Member No.: 2,647 ![]() |
Utter nonsense. Cite each of those things. Mention it in the article. Place these images in historical context. The sources are on the image pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg and are also cited in the "references" section of the article (#18 and #42 respectively.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Notes. |
msharma |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 112 Joined: From: Not Michael Moore Member No.: 2,466 ![]() |
Utter nonsense. Cite each of those things. Mention it in the article. Place these images in historical context. The sources are on the image pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg and are also cited in the "references" section of the article (#18 and #42 respectively.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Notes. Nowhere in your links does it state why they're important/mainstream enough to be shown. Which is what I asked you to cite. The whole point is that people of a certain sort simply want to piss other people - of a religion or race you don't like - off, and that's why they push for things that are otherwise ruled out by WP:UNDUE. |
Proabivouac |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Bane of all wikiland ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,246 Joined: Member No.: 2,647 ![]() |
Utter nonsense. Cite each of those things. Mention it in the article. Place these images in historical context. The sources are on the image pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg and are also cited in the "references" section of the article (#18 and #42 respectively.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Notes. Nowhere in your links does it state why they're important/mainstream enough to be shown. Which is what I asked you to cite. The whole point is that people of a certain sort simply want to piss other people - of a religion or race you don't like - off, and that's why they push for things that are otherwise ruled out by WP:UNDUE. That's the first time I've heard that an article should explain in the article itself why what is presented has been presented. Usually this is on the talk page. As for undue weight, please remember that this is a biography of Muhammad the actual man, not an article about how Muslims represent and venerate Muhammad. Images of biographical subjects don't suggest that the images are part of any cultural movement, modern or otherwise: they are only depictions of the subject. Most images of biographical subjects have no cult or fame at all, in most cases, the reader will never have seen them before, which is good: if readers only see what they already know, they've learned nothing. Reductio ad absurdum is a simple matter in this instance: if only one image survives of a biographical subject, and most people haven't seen it or heard of it, we can't include it in the article: because the norm is for no image to be made or seen, its inclusion violates undue weight. The logical fallacy is to count depictions never created as being "represented" by the absence of depictions which were. We may as well shorten the article's text to represent the majority of the world's population who never think about or discuss Muhammad at all. More rationally, an image which, for whatever reason, was never created, is aptly and sufficiently "represented" by its own failure to appear. I'm so tired of all these essentially random arguments… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense http://cache.boston.com/images/bostondirtd...d_Chewbacca.jpg The only honest argument is that forwarded by Glass bead game and Disilliusioned lackey: the display of the images upsets many Muslims for reasons the rest of us don't relate to and can't truly understand, and we should avoid this because it's only right/they have lots of oil/they might get violent etc. Muslims don't like it, and that's all we need to know. Appeals to novel interpetations of Wikipedia policy as the deus ex machina which will come and elegantly solve the apparent contradiction between the pursuit of disinterested neutrality and public relations concerns are wastes of everybody's time. This post has been edited by Proabivouac: |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 ![]() |
The only honest argument is that forwarded by Glass bead game and Disilliusioned lackey: the display of the images upsets many Muslims for reasons the rest of us don't relate to and can't truly understand, and we should avoid this because it's only right/they have lots of oil/they might get violent etc. Muslims don't like it, and that's all we need to know. Appeals to novel interpetations of Wikipedia policy as the deus ex machina which will come and elegantly solve the apparent contradiction between the pursuit of disinterested neutrality and public relations concerns are wastes of everybody's time. "Might get violent" and "have a lot of oil" is bigoted rubbish and has no part of my argument. |
Proabivouac |
![]()
Post
#10
|
Bane of all wikiland ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,246 Joined: Member No.: 2,647 ![]() |
The only honest argument is that forwarded by Glass bead game and Disilliusioned lackey: the display of the images upsets many Muslims for reasons the rest of us don't relate to and can't truly understand, and we should avoid this because it's only right/they have lots of oil/they might get violent etc. Muslims don't like it, and that's all we need to know. Appeals to novel interpetations of Wikipedia policy as the deus ex machina which will come and elegantly solve the apparent contradiction between the pursuit of disinterested neutrality and public relations concerns are wastes of everybody's time. "Might get violent" and "have a lot of oil" is bigoted rubbish and has no part of my argument. I didn't mean to mischaracterize your argument - DL invoked a 1973-type oil scenario, and the possibility of communal violence comes up again and again on both sides, probably based on the reaction to the Danish cartoons (which, unlike these depictions, were created to be provocative.) I only meant to highlight that unlike some others, you're not bothering to construct arcane wiki-arguments, when the real point has nothing to do with WP's editorial policies, which make no attempt to address the social-political consequences. For no good reason, save for.... the game. And so typical on Wikipedia. What do you think of the French National Library's display of the same image? http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm |
Disillusioned Lackey |
![]()
Post
#11
|
Unregistered ![]() |
What do you think of the French National Library's display of the same image? http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm I think it has everything to do with France's "issues" with muslim immigration (and immigration in general). Which is why they made it illegal for little muslim girls to wear the hijab in schools (how's that for freedom of expression). You don't want to start bringing France-and-issues-with-islam into the mix, because that's another fork entirely. On that note, France may have given the world Voltaire, but recall the Voltaire spent most of his life in Switzerland, or on the French Swiss border town which now bears his name (or other nearby regions) because he was "banned" (also known as exiled) from France. He's appreciated in the present day, but back-in-the-day? Not so much. In some ways, the more things change.....(you know the other half). I don't have a dog in that fight, but I've watched the proverbial "fighting dogs" Recall that we in the U.S. (and Canada, and Australia) are immigrant countries. For all our struggles with racism (etc) we are made up of newcomers, so eventually, every new wave of immigrants is more-or-less eventually accepted, over time, esp. in the 2nd or 3rd generation (caveats on what is considered "accepted" acknowledged). Not so in Europe. Or not in the same way, would be more accurate to say. A 3rd generation, German born Turk, til a few years ago, per jus sanguinis, was considered a Turk, whereas an American or Czech who could prove German blood many generations back got a passport immediately. Fair? Nope. But that's how it was. It's changed a bit, and France didn't exactly do that, but still, the adjustments aren't as easy in immigrant countries. Such adjustment "teething pains" have more to do with feelings about islam, I think, than the real points being made or yelled about. As it were. So I'd add to my recommendation to you to speak to a muslim or two about the cartoon issue, to also talk to a French person about the hijab/scarf issue. Per the latter, prepare to not "talk" but to witness a wave of words which will not be interrupted. Strong feelings there, and not entirely lacking in emotion. To say the least. This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#12
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 ![]() |
What do you think of the French National Library's display of the same image? http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm I think it has everything to do with France's "issues" with muslim immigration (and immigration in general). Which is why they made it illegal for girls to wear the hijab in schools. You don't want to start bringing France-and-issues-with-islam into the mix, because that's another fork entirely. So I'd add to my recommendation to you to speak to a muslim or two about the cartoon issue, to also talk to a French person about the hijab. Per the latter, prepare to not "talk" but to witness a wave of words which will not be interrupted. Strong feelings there, and not entirely lacking in emotion. To say the least. 44,083 are waiting to talk about Wikipedia, a land stranger than France. |
Disillusioned Lackey |
![]()
Post
#13
|
Unregistered ![]() |
Yes, the Wikipedia "community" is one of those new-fangled "non-state actors" as they call them in politics and law. As are terrorist groups, like Al Quaida. (or any other group which supra-ceded national borders and was active enough to merit some form of recognition of legal personality). No association implied of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) But they both would qualify for that terminology. Hence the new branch of legal thought addressing such entities whereas old fashioned national law (and supra-national law, aka international law) don't address such animals at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: |
Ben |
![]()
Post
#14
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 134 Joined: Member No.: 12 ![]() |
Newsflash:
It is obvious--to everyone except those who put up the pictures, and to anyone familiar with the high school level discourse surrounding them--that the real reason they are up there is, to put it in these people's terms, to teach the violent barbarian Muslims a lesson about their stupid religion. Turkish Muslims weren't barbarians, and didn't think icongraphy was blasphemous like a bunch of idiots, so they were the "good" Muslims. The other Muslims are the bad ones that blew up the World Trade Center and killed 3000 people, and maybe showing them who the good Muslims are will change their ways. It is obvious to everyone it is puerile crap. But the picture-lovers won't admit it. Why? It's a psychological issue called cognitive dissonance. They are unwilling to admit to themselves and to others that they *like* offending Muslims and their stupid religion and backwards violent ways. So instead of admitting it, and opening themselves up to being called racists, they'll spin up all sorts of nonsense and unrelated reasons to keep the pictures up. The thing is there's no good reason. It's decoration, and decorations are not important. Put up an artist's impression of what he looked like and there you have a nice decoration for the article. Now if taking down *a decoration* seems like a big deal, that's because the picture lovers have a lot more invested in displaying them them than any normal, neutral, person. And what is invested is their plan of attack. They want to offend Muslims with these pictures, that's the whole idea of putting them up there in the first place. |
Proabivouac |
![]()
Post
#15
|
Bane of all wikiland ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,246 Joined: Member No.: 2,647 ![]() |
Newsflash: It is obvious--to everyone except those who put up the pictures, and to anyone familiar with the high school level discourse surrounding them--that the real reason they are up there is, to put it in these people's terms, to teach the violent barbarian Muslims a lesson about their stupid religion. Turkish Muslims weren't barbarians, and didn't think icongraphy was blasphemous like a bunch of idiots, so they were the "good" Muslims. The other Muslims are the bad ones that blew up the World Trade Center and killed 3000 people, and maybe showing them who the good Muslims are will change their ways. It is obvious to everyone it is puerile crap. But the picture-lovers won't admit it. Why? It's a psychological issue called cognitive dissonance. They are unwilling to admit to themselves and to others that they *like* offending Muslims and their stupid religion and backwards violent ways. So instead of admitting it, and opening themselves up to being called racists, they'll spin up all sorts of nonsense and unrelated reasons to keep the pictures up. The thing is there's no good reason. It's decoration, and decorations are not important. Put up an artist's impression of what he looked like and there you have a nice decoration for the article. Now if taking down *a decoration* seems like a big deal, that's because the picture lovers have a lot more invested in displaying them them than any normal, neutral, person. And what is invested is their plan of attack. They want to offend Muslims with these pictures, that's the whole idea of putting them up there in the first place. In your opinion, is that the only reason why non-Muslims have ever displayed these images? Including the French National Library and the University of Edinburgh? |
Ben |
![]()
Post
#16
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 134 Joined: Member No.: 12 ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |