|
Illustration of Muhammad, Censorship or respect for diversity? |
|
|
SenseMaker |
|
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-wikipediaThe issue is whether the painting of Muhammad should be included in Wikipedia's Muhammad's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuhammadIt 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_MuhammadBut 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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
Ben |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
msharma |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 112
Joined:
From: Not Michael Moore
Member No.: 2,466
|
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 21st January 2008, 11:22am) QUOTE(Ben @ Mon 21st January 2008, 10:38am) 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. QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 22nd January 2008, 4:31am)
Possibly the answer lies in their minds, and not ours.
I'm really beginning to doubt that.
|
|
|
|
msharma |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 112
Joined:
From: Not Michael Moore
Member No.: 2,466
|
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 22nd January 2008, 5:47am) QUOTE(msharma @ Tue 22nd January 2008, 5:28am) 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.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpgand 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 |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(msharma @ Thu 24th January 2008, 7:53am) QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 22nd January 2008, 5:47am) QUOTE(msharma @ Tue 22nd January 2008, 5:28am) 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.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpgand 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_defensehttp://cache.boston.com/images/bostondirtd...d_Chewbacca.jpgThe 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 |
|
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 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. QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 25th January 2008, 5:47am) QUOTE(Ben @ Fri 25th January 2008, 5:09am) QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 24th January 2008, 11:38pm) 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. QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 25th January 2008, 12:12pm) QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 25th January 2008, 11:36am) 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 |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(msharma @ Fri 25th January 2008, 10:17pm) 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 |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 112
Joined:
From: Not Michael Moore
Member No.: 2,466
|
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 25th January 2008, 10:28pm) QUOTE(msharma @ Fri 25th January 2008, 10:17pm) 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 |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(msharma @ Sat 26th January 2008, 8:04am) 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 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
SenseMaker Illustration of Muhammad Aloft
From watching AN/I recently, probably many are aw... Miltopia Not really. To me it seems more informative, wher... SenseMaker Not really. To me it seems more informative, wher... dtobias Under NPOV, the views of a particular religious gr... GlassBeadGame
Under NPOV, the views of a particular religious g... Moulton The inability to engage in voluntary restraint is ... One
Voluntarily refraining from publishing images off... SenseMaker
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='70304' date='Fr... One
[quote name='One' post='70318' date='Fri 28th Dec... Miltopia You can't really "troll" an entire r... wikiwhistle
You can't really "troll" an entire ... SenseMaker
You can't really "troll" an entire... wikiwhistle
Instead of the term "trolling", it may... SenseMaker Instead of the term "trolling", it may b... UseOnceAndDestroy
You can't really "troll" an entire... Derktar
[quote name='wikiwhistle' post='70312' date='Fri ... UseOnceAndDestroy
Ah UseOnceAndDestroy, you finally speak, welcome ... wikiwhistle
The argument around this image seems to be more a... Proabivouac The underlying problem is that most Muslims aren... SenseMaker
The underlying problem is that most Muslims aren... LamontStormstar There are some websites that go and try to display... GlassBeadGame
There are some websites that go and try to displa... LamontStormstar
There are some websites that go and try to displ... SenseMaker [quote name='GlarseBeadGame' post='70342' date='Fr... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='GlarseBeadGame' post='70342' date='F... SenseMaker [quote name='LamontStormstar' post='70345' date='F... Proabivouac
There are some websites that go and try to displ... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='70342' date='Sa... LamontStormstar This is more insulting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi... Proabivouac
This is more insulting
http://en.wikipedia.org/w... SenseMaker [quote name='LamontStormstar' post='70351' date='S... LamontStormstar
[quote name='LamontStormstar' post='70351' date='... msharma
[quote name='LamontStormstar' post='70351' date='... LamontStormstar Wikipedia also says Muhammed was polygamous like t... GlassBeadGame
Wikipedia also says Muhammed was polygamous like ... everyking Just hide the images behind links. That's the ... Amarkov I don't understand why this is a problem. The ... SenseMaker
I don't understand why this is a problem. The... Amarkov
I don't understand why this is a problem. Th... Miltopia If depictions of Muhammad come down, Piss Christ h... Poetlister Given that Moslems revere Jesus as a prophet, what... GlassBeadGame
Given that Moslems revere Jesus as a prophet, wha... LamontStormstar
Given that Moslems revere Jesus as a prophet, wha... Proabivouac
From watching AN/I recently, probably many are aw... SenseMaker has been blocked indefinitely:
http://en.wikipedi... jorge
I haven't followed Farazilu extensively, but ... Proabivouac
"Not certain myself how these tie together... guy Bad move. Now he can tell the World that he was b... Moulton I think the word you are looking for is sensibilit... guy
I think the word you are looking for is [i]sensib... dtobias Why is it "socially responsible" to give... jorge
Why is it "socially responsible" to giv... Disillusioned Lackey
Why is it "socially responsible" to giv... GlassBeadGame
For Wikipedia's sake, it was best to take t... Disillusioned Lackey
More importantly for the future of collaborative ... Proabivouac
They have made the values and prejudices of their... Disillusioned Lackey
They have made the values and prejudices of thei... SenseMaker [quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='70536' date='Sat... SenseMaker I don't have issue with freedom of expression.... GlassBeadGame
Why is it "socially responsible" to giv... Nathan
Yes, look at the undo pressure these people are a... Proabivouac In the interests of bringing this thread back on-t... Yehudi I find many pictures on WP offensive, the pornogra... cyofee Everything about cheese is offensive to me. If Wik... dtobias
Everything about cheese is offensive to me. If Wi... cyofee
Everything about cheese is offensive to me. If W... dtobias
I don't care about your opinion. I'm just... thekohser
I don't care about your opinion. I'm jus... Disillusioned Lackey I don't care about your opinion. I'm just ... Moulton Then there are the martyrs who bear witness to the... The Joy When I took a world religions class in college, I ... Moulton The World Book Encyclopedia does not have a pictur... Moulton I'll take "Or Else" for twenty Quatl... GlassBeadGame The Petition now has 21,734 signatures.
GlassBeadGame The petition is currently at 22,750 signature. Th... jorge
Hmm I guess is we don't get a lot of read... GlassBeadGame
Hmm I guess is we don't get a lot of rea... Proabivouac
This Farazilu sounds a little fake to me - the mi... jorge
[quote name='jorge' post='71277' date='Tue 1st Ja... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='jorge' post='71277' date='Tue 1st J... Disillusioned Lackey
[quote name='Proabivouac' post='71322' date='Wed ... Disillusioned Lackey
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='71275' date='Tu... Disillusioned Lackey
I don't think that simple Wikipedians realiz... jorge
This [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C... Disillusioned Lackey
I was saying the language that Farazilu used seem... jorge
Revealing your lack of focus on the topic.... th... Proabivouac
"The good will and patience demonstrated by ... Herschelkrustofsky Nota bene: I have taken a considerable number of p... Moulton I can has arbitration? Moulton Some movements require leadership -- at least at f... GlassBeadGame The petition now has more than 25,000 signature (... Selina Are we going to be getting a count every few thous... GlassBeadGame
Are we going to be getting a count every few thou... Selina
Are we going to be getting a count every few tho... Proabivouac Selina, I don't have a problem with you includ... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='msharma' post='71735' date='Fri 4th ... guy This reminds me of when the Church Times ran a pol... Proabivouac Hey guys, look at this:
http://fa.wikipedia.org/w... msharma
Hey guys, look at this:
http://fa.wikipedia.org/... Selina fine I removed it, I was just trying to help - the... Proabivouac
fine I removed it, I was just trying to help - th... Moulton I think he is just saying that an editor's not... jorge The reason a depiction is included in the Farsi wi... Yehudi You have to appreciate that in Islam, followers of... GlassBeadGame
You have to appreciate that in Islam, followers o... guy
You have to appreciate that in Islam, followers ... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='72348' date='Mo... cyofee
Mainstream scholars are afraid of their life, an... GlassBeadGame
Mainstream scholars are afraid of their life, a... cyofee If you want me to, I could write a bot that will g... GlassBeadGame
If you want me to, I could write a bot that will ... cyofee
Touché. You've caught me on this one, but... GlassBeadGame
Touché. You've caught me on this one, bu... Sxeptomaniac Here's an issue, though: both the images in th... GlassBeadGame
Here's an issue, though: both the images in t... Amarkov The thing is, their being offended isn't a big... GlassBeadGame
The thing is, their being offended isn't a bi... Amarkov I agree with the general principle that there exis... ala101
That's coz there are Arabs who cannot express... Amarkov
That's coz there are Arabs who cannot expres... dtobias
Stop framing it as "one side wants to respec... Kato
[quote name='Amarkov' post='73340' date='Sat 12th... Proabivouac
That's coz there are Arabs who cannot expres... Moulton The desire for honor, dignity, and respect is a co... Yehudi Don't you understand the way Wikipedia works? ... Moulton Wikipedia politics works just like meatspace polit... Yehudi In real life, while there is an offence of conspir... Moulton Indeed. The age of Crusades, Genocides, and Ethni... Disillusioned Lackey
Indeed. The age of Crusades, Genocides, and Ethn... Disillusioned Lackey Genocide is in the past? Hmroo?
[img]http://www.... Disillusioned Lackey What the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTU... Moulton Meanwhile, today on NPR's This American Life, ... Disillusioned Lackey
Meanwhile, today on NPR's This American Life,... Moulton What?!? You mean I'm mistaken?!?
Do y... Moulton Are you perplexed? jorge
Are you perplexed?
Anyone that thought that Moul... Disillusioned Lackey
Are you perplexed?
Completely lost in the wilde... Moulton Don't be silly. jorge
Don't be silly.
OK, a little stubbing of toe... GlassBeadGame I think the SCOTUS incident is on point and comple... Moulton Let's not stub our silly toes tripping over th... Moulton It's a great adventure, eh? Ben One is the earliest known image of the subject of ... Kato
[quote name='Proabivouac' post='74617' date='Mon ... Ben I'm being serious here, Kato. Maybe you can jo... LamontStormstar
Yes. The earliest known photograph of Mohammad wa... Proabivouac
One is the earliest known image of the subject of... Ben
Are you asking a rhetorical question? GlassBeadGame
The only honest argument is that forwarded by Gl... Disillusioned Lackey
[quote name='Proabivouac' post='75126' date='Thu ... Proabivouac
[quote name='Proabivouac' post='75126' date='Thu ... Disillusioned Lackey
What do you think of the French National Library... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='Proabivouac' post='75247' date='Thu ... Disillusioned Lackey
44,083 are waiting to talk about Wikipedia, a la... Ben Newsflash:
It is obvious--to everyone except thos... Proabivouac
Newsflash:
It is obvious--to everyone except tho... Ben
In your opinion, is that the only reason why non-... Proabivouac
[quote name='Proabivouac' post='75339' date='Thu ... Ben
You need me to spell out the fact that a museum p... Disillusioned Lackey
Newsflash:
It is obvious--to everyone except tho... Ben
It is my opinion of what people in general would... Disillusioned Lackey
I'd agree it's hypocrisy, but I also did ... dogbiscuit
If the goal is to avoid controversy and hurt fee... Proabivouac
It seems the only reason they have contemplated t... dogbiscuit
It seems the only reason they have contemplated ... Proabivouac
I mean, what harm does it do if someone does not ... dogbiscuit
So in part, the question is, what is Wikipedia, a... Proabivouac
If it were a genuine scholarly work then I would ... Disillusioned Lackey
Can we not distinguish between real harm (reputat... Disillusioned Lackey This is really tiresome. It is a debating society... msharma
Listen, its clear to me and to absolutely everyo... Proabivouac
Robert Spencer and his under-educated ilk do not... Disillusioned Lackey
The images say "This is what Muhammad actual... Proabivouac Oh, wait, I get it, you're objecting to my cho... Moulton I'd rather see the Supreme Court honor James G... GlassBeadGame I don't think any 'cult of the amateur... Ben "This is the earliest known image of Thor, th... Disillusioned Lackey
I don't think any 'cult of the amateur... Proabivouac
I don't think any 'cult of the amateur... Disillusioned Lackey
I don't think of it as a game. It's a ve... Moulton WP doesn't not provide a functional process fo... GlassBeadGame
Neither did the Spanish Inquisition.
Cue 15 yea... Moulton The Klingon Ethic (Death Before Dishonor) is not e... LamontStormstar
The Klingon Ethic (Death Before Dishonor) is not ... Moulton The first written appearance of the proverb ... Moulton I prefer the Mel Brooks song and dance number cele... Cedric
I prefer the Mel Brooks song and dance number cel... Moulton Wikipedia is not in business to not upset people.
... Amarkov It's not that sinister, I don't think. Wik... Proabivouac
They certainly have a right to have the images up... Amarkov When you're a small site, you can afford to do... Moulton As far as theories of mind go, I imagine it's ... Kato There is quite a thoughtful blog post about this h... GlassBeadGame
There is quite a thoughtful blog post about this ... Proabivouac
There is quite a thoughtful blog post about this ... Proabivouac
Why was Rodinson's book banned? Because, as a... Disillusioned Lackey
The key point.......A neutral treatment of Muhamm... Proabivouac
much less secular treatments of Muhammad and Isl... Disillusioned Lackey
[quote name='Disillusioned Lackey' post='77017' d... Proabivouac
But why not give the pictures a rest. The U.S. S... Disillusioned Lackey
But why not give the pictures a rest. The U.S. ... Proabivouac
There's a reason why the Islamic world isn... Moulton Compare how Muslims feel about pictures of the Pro... Kato
Compare how Muslims feel about pictures of the Pr... GlassBeadGame
Compare how Muslims feel about pictures of the Pr... Proabivouac
In a politicized culture, those in power can outl... Moulton Actually, it was both. Greg decided he didn't ... guy
Actually, it was both. Greg decided he didn't... Amarkov Illustrations of Muhammad are not, at all, analago... Disillusioned Lackey
Illustrations of Muhammad are not, at all, analag... Amarkov
[quote name='Amarkov' post='77056' date='Sun 3rd ... Kato
You ignored my point. Christians don't get to... GlassBeadGame
Illustrations of Muhammad are not, at [i]all, ana... Proabivouac
Moulton was talking about how the depiction made ... Disillusioned Lackey
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='77108' date='Mo... Moulton The feelings to compare are not those of the explo... Amarkov Okay, Christians shouldn't get the power to ba... Kato
Okay, Christians [i]shouldn't get the power t... Sxeptomaniac
Okay, Christians [i]shouldn't get the power ... Kato Wiki-apologist Ben Yates comments on this on his b... wikipediablog
Wiki-apologist Ben Yates comments on this on his ... Kato
Presumably I'm doing something right.
Welcom... Moulton Notice how so much of the liminal social drama rev... Moulton Children don't learn from teachers they don... Disillusioned Lackey
Children don't learn from teachers they don...
2 Pages 1 2 >
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |