The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

16 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Commons-hosted Muhammad Images
jsalsman
post Thu 5th April 2012, 2:02am
Post #41


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue 21st Feb 2012, 6:57pm
Member No.: 76,279



I used to be for including images until I found out that no contemporary depictions of Muhammad even exist. It's not about aniconism vs. NOTCENSORED, it's that there aren't any actual images of Muhammad. They are all made up, cartoons of someone else. So don't put any in the main article. Anyone who sees an image in the main article will be misled into thinking Muhammad may have looked like that when he didn't. That's completely unencyclopedic. Make a separate [[Depictions of Muhammad]] article and put them all there with a clear statement that they are all bogus in the first sentence.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Proabivouac
post Thu 5th April 2012, 5:13am
Post #42


Bane of all wikiland
*******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined: Thu 23rd Aug 2007, 8:25am
Member No.: 2,647

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(jsalsman @ Thu 5th April 2012, 2:02am) *

I used to be for including images until I found out that no contemporary depictions of Muhammad even exist. It's not about aniconism vs. NOTCENSORED, it's that there aren't any actual images of Muhammad.

That's true of Jesus as well. I'll admit that I do see a certain virtue in a Jesus article with no images, beginning, "Jesus was a first century Judaic carpenter turned ascetic who claimed to be the son of the creator god of Jewish myth." I mean, nothing made up, right?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Thu 5th April 2012, 7:37am
Post #43


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(jsalsman @ Thu 5th April 2012, 3:02am) *

I used to be for including images until I found out that no contemporary depictions of Muhammad even exist. It's not about aniconism vs. NOTCENSORED, it's that there aren't any actual images of Muhammad. They are all made up, cartoons of someone else. So don't put any in the main article. Anyone who sees an image in the main article will be misled into thinking Muhammad may have looked like that when he didn't. That's completely unencyclopedic. Make a separate [[Depictions of Muhammad]] article and put them all there with a clear statement that they are all bogus in the first sentence.


I'd like to see you put the same response at the Jesus (T-H-L-K-D) and see what the response would be. The image at the top isn't Jesus, it's just the WASP version of him. By all accounts the real Jesus was black.

The thing is, I don't see anyone using your argument for its removal.

But thanks anyway for teaching me a new word: "aniconism (T-H-L-K-D)".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bottled_Spider
post Thu 5th April 2012, 10:36am
Post #44


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun 11th Jan 2009, 8:27pm
From: Pictland
Member No.: 9,708



QUOTE(jsalsman @ Thu 5th April 2012, 3:02am) *
I used to be for including images until I found out that no contemporary depictions of Muhammad even exist........ there aren't any actual images of Muhammad.

Seriously?! You mean you actually thought there could be contemporary portraits, done in a presumably realistic style, of someone who was born in 570 ACE? Wow.

QUOTE(Web Fred @ Thu 5th April 2012, 8:37am) *
The image at the top isn't Jesus, it's just the WASP version of him. By all accounts the real Jesus was black.

I've always thought that too. And if he wasn't, he should have been. I'm sure I read somewhere that modern depictions of Jesus are based on portraits of the mass-murdering son-of-a-pope Cesare Borgia. It's a funny old world.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Thu 5th April 2012, 11:31am
Post #45


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE(Web Fred @ Thu 5th April 2012, 7:37am) *

By all accounts the real Jesus was black.

That is a historical impossibility I suspect. He would perhaps most likely have been off white. This would be like people in many countries in North Africa and the Middle East today. But black like a Nigerian? Surely not. Or does "black" mean "non-Aryan" in this context?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Thu 5th April 2012, 11:46am
Post #46


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Fusion @ Thu 5th April 2012, 12:31pm) *

QUOTE(Web Fred @ Thu 5th April 2012, 7:37am) *

By all accounts the real Jesus was black.

That is a historical impossibility I suspect. He would perhaps most likely have been off white. This would be like people in many countries in North Africa and the Middle East today. But black like a Nigerian? Surely not. Or does "black" mean "non-Aryan" in this context?


I can't remember the specifics other than he was a prince from a royal family. I definitely remember the description as being "black". Personally I would have thought mid-brown per Arabic, meddle-eastern appearance.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mister Die
post Thu 5th April 2012, 1:54pm
Post #47


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun 29th Jan 2012, 11:32pm
Member No.: 75,644

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Jesus is given the "WASP" treatment because that's the image of him in Western society and culture since at least the 1800's (probably two centuries older.) I mean if you go back enough you can find heroic warrior Jesus and other depictions, but no one uses them anymore.

With Muhammad there's no consistent portrayal of him, so it's a different issue.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Thu 5th April 2012, 2:16pm
Post #48


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Mister Die @ Thu 5th April 2012, 2:54pm) *

Jesus is given the "WASP" treatment because that's the image of him in Western society and culture since at least the 1800's (probably two centuries older.) I mean if you go back enough you can find heroic warrior Jesus and other depictions, but no one uses them anymore.

With Muhammad there's no consistent portrayal of him, so it's a different issue.


Consistency is irrelevant, they're all incorrect and some artist's impression; most probably with a cardinal stood behind him giving him their version of a photofit description.

And no it isn't a different issue, it's a legitimate response to jsalsman's assertion.

Personally I think it's all bollocks, especially the moslem argument. If the guy was alive today he'd have the paparazzi crawling up his ass. And I's like to see the no portrayals of the Prophet arguments then, every time he appears on the OK or Hello magazine's cover after attending some Jewish celebrities wedding.

Those moslems, and the christians, and all the other Abrahamic faiths, need a reality check. Living their lives according to a work of fiction? What a bunch of schmucks.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Thu 5th April 2012, 4:39pm
Post #49


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(jsalsman @ Wed 4th April 2012, 10:02pm) *

I used to be for including images until I found out that no contemporary depictions of Muhammad even exist. It's not about aniconism vs. NOTCENSORED, it's that there aren't any actual images of Muhammad. They are all made up, cartoons of someone else. So don't put any in the main article. Anyone who sees an image in the main article will be misled into thinking Muhammad may have looked like that when he didn't. That's completely unencyclopedic. Make a separate [[Depictions of Muhammad]] article and put them all there with a clear statement that they are all bogus in the first sentence.


So you used to be enlightened, but then became corrupted by someone's ignorant argument. Are you on the administrator fast track yet?

This post has been edited by Tarc: Thu 5th April 2012, 4:40pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Thu 5th April 2012, 8:49pm
Post #50


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Bottled_Spider @ Thu 5th April 2012, 11:36am) *

['m sure I read somewhere that modern depictions of Jesus are based on portraits of the mass-murdering son-of-a-pope Cesare Borgia.

So it's been said.

http://www.thehalsreport.com/2010/07/is-th...-cesare-borgia/


QUOTE(Web Fred @ Thu 5th April 2012, 12:46pm) *

I can't remember the specifics other than he was a prince from a royal family. I definitely remember the description as being "black". Personally I would have thought mid-brown per Arabic, meddle-eastern appearance.

He wasn't a prince. His father (or at least his mother's husband) was a carpenter, although allegedly descended from King David. Of course there weren't any Arabs in that part of the world until the 7th century. Still, he would no doubt be described as "very swarthy" rather than black or even brown.


QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 29th March 2012, 10:32pm) *

The "images are included to purposefully offend" comes across as desperate reaching, IMO.

Probably not "to purposefully offend" (which would be a split infinitive, anyway), just "to show them who's boss: WP:NOTCENSORED!"


QUOTE(Mister Die @ Thu 5th April 2012, 2:54pm) *

Jesus is given the "WASP" treatment because that's the image of him in Western society and culture since at least the 1800's (probably two centuries older.)

No doubt in Western culture he was always imagined to be white. People weren't aware of non-white people for the most part.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 5th April 2012, 11:01pm
Post #51


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 5th April 2012, 11:39am) *
So you used to be enlightened, but then became corrupted by someone's ignorant argument.

I realize you're just trying to show your anti-Muslim credentials here, but why would anyone think that argument was "ignorant"? And obviously it's someone else's argument - it's a common-enough position to take on the issue, since it is, in fact, true. Or are you saying that if he doesn't have a brand-spanking-new reason to oppose inclusion of these images, he should just shut up? If so, then I'd have to say that's not very nice.

Speaking of which, the only reason anyone even bothers to bring up additional arguments in the first place is because Wikipedians have already rejected the sanest, most rational, and most logical argument there is, which is that including the images is inherently insulting to vast numbers of people, and insulting people is not nice. If you're a legitimate "encyclopedia," you take key cultural sensitivities into account when and if you can. Since there's no requirement that Wikipedia include these images in order to properly cover the subjects of Islam and Mohammed's life, they most certainly can in this case.

Of course, they're not a legitimate encyclopedia, so they don't take those sensitivities into account, and people end up having to make these otherwise-unnecessary (but hardly "ignorant") arguments. And that's just how they like it, because hey, moar drama! More attention for us! Wheeeeee! It's the very definition of "internet trolling," and Wikipedia does it routinely.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Fri 6th April 2012, 9:06am
Post #52


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 6th April 2012, 12:01am) *
If you're a legitimate "encyclopedia," you take key cultural sensitivities into account when and if you can.


No you don't, because sooner or later what was once 'an inch thick' soon becomes a pamphlet.

To avoid this you put in what is encyclopaedic and show an even hand across the board. Pictures of Jesus goi in? Then pics of Mo go in too.

After all people are notoriously fickle about what they deem to be sensitive.

If moslems want to dictate terms then they should start their own Wiki, Qu'raniWiki perhaps?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Fri 6th April 2012, 9:17am
Post #53


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Web Fred @ Fri 6th April 2012, 4:06am) *
If moslems want to dictate terms then they should start their own Wiki, Qu'raniWiki perhaps?

That's a bit short-sighted, isn't it? Why alienate a billion people when you don't have to? (Unless you're running the Wikipedia Review, in which case I guess you want to alienate as many people as possible.)

Obviously there's no danger of Wikipedia turning into a "pamphlet," though it would probably be an improvement if it did, and as for images of Jesus or of any other religious figure whose adherents don't mind their existence (putting aside the whole "graven images" thing), what is it they say about "a foolish consistency" again...?

Mind you, I'm not a Muslim, in fact I don't even know any Muslims near where I live these days. I'd just like to know why so many people seem hell-bent on pissing them off for no good reason.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Fri 6th April 2012, 9:55am
Post #54


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 6th April 2012, 10:17am) *


Mind you, I'm not a Muslim, in fact I don't even know any Muslims near where I live these days. I'd just like to know why so many people seem hell-bent on pissing them off for no good reason.


But apparently it's fine for them to piss us off ad infinitum?

But no, it isn't my intention to piss them off, merely to demonstrate that they don't dictate their cultural ideals to us.

For example should they start their own wiki then I wouldn't dream of dictating anything to them, so why should they dictate their POV on a western-centric (please don't quote NPOV, there's no way in hell it'll ever be NPOV) encyclopaedia.

How about, for example, a team of moslem writers come to the 9/11 article and started entering information from the Islamic side of things? Other than MONGO having a meltdown of course, what do you think would happen to NPOV then. What if they demand that certain Islamic beliefs should be upheld in the article?

And no, I'm not anti-moslem, at least no more than I am anti-christian. What I am against is stupidity. And to demand that archival imagery shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article is, in my personal view, stupidity personified.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bottled_Spider
post Fri 6th April 2012, 11:29am
Post #55


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun 11th Jan 2009, 8:27pm
From: Pictland
Member No.: 9,708



Why don't they just dig up Muhammed's skull and get one of those reconstructive scientists to do their magic on it with their pegs and clay and resurrect the guy in all his glory? Then take a picture of it and pop it into the public domain and stuff so Wikipedia can use it. Result: something that's both informative and respectful to the religionists and their culture, and all that. Or maybe not, but the idea still stands, probably.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mister Die
post Fri 6th April 2012, 1:47pm
Post #56


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun 29th Jan 2012, 11:32pm
Member No.: 75,644

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Web Fred @ Fri 6th April 2012, 9:55am) *
And no, I'm not anti-moslem, at least no more than I am anti-christian. What I am against is stupidity. And to demand that archival imagery shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article is, in my personal view, stupidity personified.
You're an internet atheist with Aspergers who rants against religion. I don't recall any book encyclopedias having portraits of Muhammad, because there's simply no strong reason to have it. Again, you either wind up with "here's a medieval portrayal by Christians of Muhammad burning in hell" or something, or "here's an Islamic depiction of Muhammad with his face veiled." Since there's apparently no portrayal of Muhammad based on what his contemporaries actually described his facial features and such as (although there would probably be people willing to make half-assed svg images to get around that), the best bet you could go for would be the aforementioned veiled images. But then that isn't supposed to happen because that means we give in to the dreaded Islamofascists or whatever (most of whom at any rate would prefer no portrayals whatsoever), so instead the article has random portrayals of Muhammad which tend to exist solely for the benefit of showing how "not censored" (read: "TAKE THAT TOTALITARIAN MOSLEM SWINE") Wikipedia is.

With Jesus there's an overwhelming portrayal in the world of him as a "WASP" character (to the extent that modern derivative portrayals outside of Europe tend to just be "him" with a slightly darker skin color), no matter the portrait.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Fri 6th April 2012, 2:06pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Fri 6th April 2012, 2:51pm
Post #57


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Mister Die @ Fri 6th April 2012, 2:47pm) *

QUOTE(Web Fred @ Fri 6th April 2012, 9:55am) *
And no, I'm not anti-moslem, at least no more than I am anti-christian. What I am against is stupidity. And to demand that archival imagery shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article is, in my personal view, stupidity personified.
You're an internet atheist with Aspergers who rants against religion. I don't recall any book encyclopedias having portraits of Muhammad, because there's simply no strong reason to have it. Again, you either wind up with "here's a medieval portrayal by Christians of Muhammad burning in hell" or something, or "here's an Islamic depiction of Muhammad with his face veiled." Since there's apparently no portrayal of Muhammad based on what his contemporaries actually described his facial features and such as (although there would probably be people willing to make half-assed svg images to get around that), the best bet you could go for would be the aforementioned veiled images. But then that isn't supposed to happen because that means we give in to the dreaded Islamofascists or whatever (most of whom at any rate would prefer no portrayals whatsoever), so instead the article has random portrayals of Muhammad which tend to exist solely for the benefit of showing how "not censored" (read: "TAKE THAT TOTALITARIAN MOSLEM SWINE") Wikipedia is.

With Jesus there's an overwhelming portrayal in the world of him as a "WASP" character (to the extent that modern derivative portrayals outside of Europe tend to just be "him" with a slightly darker skin color), no matter the portrait.


I'm not sure what my Asperger's has to do with it, and I certainly wasn't ranting, merely stating an opinion. Your diatribe appeared to be much more a rant than mine.

You were right about me being anti-religion (but not anti-personal-belief). And living one's life to the dictates from a work of fiction, whether it be the Qu'ran or the bible, is simply something I can't get my head around. It's akin to being lead by the beliefs and values of JK Rowling.

The other thing I can't get my head around is the argument that none of these pictures are a true likeness of Mo. If that's the case, then why is the argument there that they don't won't pics of Mo appearing, when everyone says they aren't actually Mo.

You'll be telling me next that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mister Die
post Fri 6th April 2012, 2:55pm
Post #58


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun 29th Jan 2012, 11:32pm
Member No.: 75,644

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Web Fred @ Fri 6th April 2012, 2:51pm) *
The other thing I can't get my head around is the argument that none of these pictures are a true likeness of Mo. If that's the case, then why is the argument there that they don't won't pics of Mo appearing, when everyone says they aren't actually Mo.
Because they're in an article about "Mo" and they're listed as portrayals of Muhammad?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Fri 6th April 2012, 3:17pm
Post #59


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Mister Die @ Fri 6th April 2012, 3:55pm) *

QUOTE(Web Fred @ Fri 6th April 2012, 2:51pm) *
The other thing I can't get my head around is the argument that none of these pictures are a true likeness of Mo. If that's the case, then why is the argument there that they don't won't pics of Mo appearing, when everyone says they aren't actually Mo.
Because they're in an article about "Mo" and they're listed as portrayals of Muhammad?


I am currently shaking my head from side to side.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Fri 6th April 2012, 5:19pm
Post #60


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 5th April 2012, 7:01pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 5th April 2012, 11:39am) *
So you used to be enlightened, but then became corrupted by someone's ignorant argument.

I realize you're just trying to show your anti-Muslim credentials here,


At first I was like

blink.gif

but then

Image

Somey, you ignorant prat. I was targeted by the Jayjg Cabal and held up as one of the "anti-Jew" editors for years because I dared to protest various Muslim and Palestine-related articles form becoming mouthpieces for Zionist propaganda. And now I have you who think I'm "anti-Muslim" because I do not want the Wikipedia to bend to their religious sensibilities? What lulz.

I think they're all a bunch of prehistoric knuckle-draggers, honestly. "Oh no, no one can work on Sunday!", "oh no, I can't stand anyone to look at my prophet!"

Fuck em all.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Fri 6th April 2012, 5:21pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

16 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 10 17, 3:27pm