![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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: |
msharma |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 112 Joined: From: Not Michael Moore Member No.: 2,466 ![]() |
QUOTE 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. No, I asked you to back up what you've said on this board. You haven't done that, of course. QUOTE 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. And these pictures are pictures of the man? No, they aren't. They are representations of a venerated figure. As such they are a vanishingly small minority of such representations, and ruled out by WP:FRINGE. Unless you thought that they were photographs of the man. QUOTE 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. You're right, that is absurd. Also irrelevant, as the norm is not "for no image to be made or seen", merely that few images are available. There is a difference. QUOTE 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. That isn't a fallacy, actually. And your analogy isn't an analogy. If the depictions were not being created for a reason, and if depictions that were created were clearly a fringe approach, to give those depictions weight of this sort is quite a different matter. QUOTE 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 Now that is random. QUOTE 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. A novel interpretation for you, perhaps. Perfectly obvious to those of us who don't see WP as a way to play out little wars. 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? By all means go ahead and guess what my opinion is. I'm sure you'll figure it out. What's missing here is an acknowledgment that the images serve a legitimate scholarly purpose. If Islam were a thing of the past - if there were no Muslims to complain about the images, or for trolls to upset - if no Wikipedia editors had any opinions of their own about Islam - would they be displayed? Of course they would be. And the reason they would be is exactly that other motivation that you refuse to see: to inform. If they would be, that would still be an error. I mean, what harm does it do if someone does not want a certain picture presented - not a lot, unless you are worried about principles. When you worry only about principles then you are on dangerous ground. Well, I want the very most scholarly, accurate and deadpan dispassionate/clinical/disinterested resource on Islam available. No publication can be everything to everyone. I would hope that, say, a public statement by the American State Department would take all these things into consideration, just as I'd hope that a book by Watt or Lewis etc. that I picked up would ignore them. I'd be uncomfortable walking with a friend with a picture of Muhammad on her t-shirt. I'd be uncomfortable going to the university library and finding that images of Muhammad were no longer available. So in part, the question is, what is Wikipedia, a scholarly resource or mass media? There is a good deal of material in the academic literature, which while neutral and accurate, is highly offensive to believing Muslims. You may be aware that, in some quarters, the entire Western field of Islamic studies ("Orientalism") is thought intolerably offensive. .... I guess I feel that to preserve the scholarly character of Wikipedia entails tough choices, and telling people no when what they're asking is incompatible with the mission. Perhaps I'm alone here, but if I could wave a magic wand and have WP lose 70% of its readers, be banned from Saudi Arabia and a dozen other countries, but gain scholarly credibility (= citable), I would wave that wand. I'm just not interested in the mass-market global-safe concept of an uncontroversial resource that forces serious researchers to turn elsewhere. A serious secular academic researcher of Muhammad will wish at least to know about these depictions - I don't think anyone can deny that, they are at least very interesting - and that to me is the bottom line. The "academic literature" that Wikipedia cites on Islam and that you would no doubt like to see expanded comes mainly from hacks and bigoted time-servers outside the academy. Don't make me laugh. Robert Spencer and his under-educated ilk do not a scholarly character make. |
Proabivouac |
![]()
Post
#10
|
Bane of all wikiland ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,246 Joined: Member No.: 2,647 ![]() |
QUOTE 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. You're right, that is absurd. Also irrelevant, as the norm is not "for no image to be made or seen", merely that few images are available. There is a difference. QUOTE 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. That isn't a fallacy, actually. And your analogy isn't an analogy. If the depictions were not being created for a reason, and if depictions that were created were clearly a fringe approach, to give those depictions weight of this sort is quite a different matter. So, if someone deliberately didn't create an image, this must be represented by removing another one. Can you name even one other situation in which this logic should apply? When kings commission artwork from the greatest living scholars, that's "a fringe approach"… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jami_al-Tawarikh …after all, it's only maybe a few dozen of people involved, right? More honest and direct is to state that many people today don't like seeing them there. But because that's not a Wikipedia policy, we're reduced to this. This post has been edited by Proabivouac: |
msharma |
![]()
Post
#11
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 112 Joined: From: Not Michael Moore Member No.: 2,466 ![]() |
QUOTE 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. You're right, that is absurd. Also irrelevant, as the norm is not "for no image to be made or seen", merely that few images are available. There is a difference. QUOTE 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. That isn't a fallacy, actually. And your analogy isn't an analogy. If the depictions were not being created for a reason, and if depictions that were created were clearly a fringe approach, to give those depictions weight of this sort is quite a different matter. So, if someone deliberately didn't create an image, this must be represented by removing another one. Can you name even one other situation in which this logic should apply? More honest and direct is to state that many people today don't like seeing them there. But because that's not a Wikipedia policy, we're reduced to this. As usual, you show no understanding of other points of view, and wish to reduce complicated issues to something simple enough to understand. As a matter of fact, I do like seeing them there. An article without a picture looks silly, and these are nice pictures. However, they aren't the right pictures. QUOTE When kings commission artwork from the greatest living scholars, that's "a fringe approach"… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jami_al-Tawarikh …after all, it's only maybe a few dozen of people involved, right? No, its a single culture at a single moment in time out of several hundred different cultures at several hundred other moments in time that have preferred other means of representation. That is known as a fringe POV, and you're pushing it to piss people off. |
Proabivouac |
![]()
Post
#12
|
Bane of all wikiland ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,246 Joined: Member No.: 2,647 ![]() |
No, its a single culture at a single moment in time out of several hundred different cultures at several hundred other moments in time that have preferred other means of representation. Again let us bear in mind that the article is about Muhammad, not Muslims, or even mainly what Muslims think about Muhammad. The appearance of a particular fact or image doesn't in any way suggest it to play a part in Muslim veneration of Muhammad, past or present. On the other hand, articles such as Islam and Muslims are exactly about Muslims and what they believe. Here, an image of Muhammad would be subject to your objection: depictions of Muhammad are not a significant part of Islam, present or past, and would be pretty much off-topic. It's occasionally been suggested on Talk:Muhammad that the article be split in two, one entitled "Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)" - an unambigous POV fork. Silly as it sounds (though every bit as sincere as the request to remove the depictions,) this suggestion highlights the assumption which underpins the objections: that the article is not a regular biography, but a description of an aspect of the Islamic religion, which might as well be entirely mythical, per the comparison to Zeus above. A secular biography of Muhammad is not in any way based upon what Muslims believe, it's based upon the historical records of Muhammad's life as interpreted by academic scholars. If you've read the article, you'll find a number of things that don't constitute any significant part, or even diverge from, what Muslims believe. Similarly, the depictions weren't intended by their creators to be devotional, but to illustrate history for their commissioners. QUOTE "…a single culture at a single moment in time out of several hundred different cultures at several hundred other moments in time…" It's wildy incorrect to conflate the Il-Khanate, Safavids and Ottomans (at least) to "a single culture at a single moment in time." And they're hardly marginal, even in the vast scheme of Islamic (or world) history. This post has been edited by Proabivouac: |
msharma |
![]()
Post
#13
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 112 Joined: From: Not Michael Moore Member No.: 2,466 ![]() |
QUOTE Again let us bear in mind that the article is about Muhammad, not Muslims, or even mainly what Muslims think about Muhammad. The appearance of a particular fact or image doesn't in any way suggest it to play a part in Muslim veneration of Muhammad, past or present. No, it merely implies that this is how he was represented, past or present. Which is a lie. QUOTE A secular biography of Muhammad is not in any way based upon what Muslims believe, it's based upon the historical records of Muhammad's life as interpreted by academic scholars. If you've read the article, you'll find a number of things that don't constitute any significant part, or even diverge from, what Muslims believe. Yes. And some of it diverges from what mainstream academia believes. That's the part you want expanded. QUOTE Similarly, the depictions weren't intended by their creators to be devotional, but to illustrate history for their commissioners. Their commissioners. We might not have the same standards of illustration as fourteenth century autocrats. I do hope not, actually. QUOTE It's wildy incorrect to conflate the Il-Khanate, Safavids and Ottomans (at least) to "a single culture at a single moment in time." And they're hardly marginal, even in the vast scheme of Islamic (or world) history. You haven't even read the article you provided, have you? A particular phase of the Mongol khanate, early in the assimilation process, during which this was produced, and in which the artist exceeded his brief. Typical laziness. Listen, its clear to me and to absolutely everyone else who has commented here that your only aim, and that of people like you, is to put irrelevant and marginal stuff like this in to piss people off. Pissing off the religious is something I am happy to do, but I would rather it not happen on a nominally objective page. Those of us who still have ambitions for WP would rather that it not be screwed up by weirdos fighting insane battles from their armchairs. |
Proabivouac |
![]()
Post
#14
|
Bane of all wikiland ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,246 Joined: Member No.: 2,647 ![]() |
Listen, its clear to me and to absolutely everyone else who has commented here that your only aim, and that of people like you, is to put irrelevant and marginal stuff like this in to piss people off…Those of us who still have ambitions for WP would rather that it not be screwed up by weirdos fighting insane battles from their armchairs. Your comments convince me that no purpose is served by discussing this with you any further. I've no interest in trading off ad hominem attacks and speculations (as Moulton would put it, "theories of mind") with you. Flame warring is occurring on en.wikipedia.org, if you'd like to join in. Maybe you can open an ArbCom case and attack people there - I hear they get off on this shit. |
msharma |
![]()
Post
#15
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 112 Joined: From: Not Michael Moore Member No.: 2,466 ![]() |
Listen, its clear to me and to absolutely everyone else who has commented here that your only aim, and that of people like you, is to put irrelevant and marginal stuff like this in to piss people off…Those of us who still have ambitions for WP would rather that it not be screwed up by weirdos fighting insane battles from their armchairs. Your comments convince me that no purpose is served by discussing this with you any further. I've no interest in trading off ad hominem attacks and speculations (as Moulton would put it, "theories of mind") with you. Flame warring is occurring on en.wikipedia.org, if you'd like to join in. Maybe you can open an ArbCom case and attack people there - I hear they get off on this shit. As I said, you are sadly unlikely to change your mind. I do urge you to note that of all of us here, nobody really agrees with you; perhaps some soul-searching is in order. The broader problem still holds: individual articles in WP on such subjects are used as battlegrounds by people, like you, who care too much; which is why I, for example, try to stay away, even though they're some of the worst on the pedia. Robert Spencer and his under-educated ilk do not a scholarly character make. I know I said I woudn't, but I just saw this and it bugs me because…it's completely untrue. Spencer is not cited in Muhammad, or on Islam. The consensus (including me) is that he is not a reliable academic source. References are right there in the "notes" and "references" section, if there's someone else's character you'd like to impugn. Untrue how? Its still true that they're over-used. in Islam articles They're fighting about it on the noticeboards right now. There are a bunch of other polemicists who are overused in religion articles. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |