Illustration of Muhammad, Censorship or respect for diversity? Options

[LamontStormstar]

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

No, I mean as many as they can. Wikipedia has 2. I mean over 50. and as many insulting ones as they can.

[SenseMaker]

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

No, I mean as many as they can. Wikipedia has 2. I mean over 50. and as many insulting ones as they can.

Just having the images in Wikipedia or in the Danish cartoon controversy article doesn't bother me that much. The issue I and many others have is using these images for no purpose whatsoever except to bait Muslims as is being done on the highly trafficed Muhammad page.

There is a cottage industry of anti-Muslim sites on the web these days, it probably exceeds the number of antisemitic / Holocaust denial websites. Go back and read the comparison I made between "Jew baiting" and "Muslim baiting", I think it is very relevant in understanding the dynamic that is going on.

This post has been edited by SenseMaker: Sat 29th December 2007, 2:29am

[GlassBeadGame]

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

No, I mean as many as they can. Wikipedia has 2. I mean over 50. and as many insulting ones as they can.

There are four images depicting Muhammad currently in the article. But that aside I did know what you meant. You know...just messing with you.

[SenseMaker]

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

No, I mean as many as they can. Wikipedia has 2. I mean over 50. and as many insulting ones as they can.

There are four images depicting Muhammad currently in the article. But that aside I did know what you meant. You know...just messing with you.

There is this collage image of insulting Muslim depictions, but again, I think this one serves a purpose as it it is central to a major controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jylland...meds-ansigt.png

[Proabivouac]

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

Not at all. There was negotiated a limit to the number of depictions which would appear on Muhammad, something which doesn't exist for any other article on a major historical figure of which I'm aware, some of whom have many more depictions than does Muhammad . Several images were rejected for inclusion due to their disparaging character, even though they're historical and topical - for example, Blake's image of Muhammad in Hell.

One article which might be more aptly criticized is Depictions of Muhammad - I'm not sure why this article is necessary - however, it was created not to bait Muslims, but to provide an excuse for removing images from Muhammad (we're not censoring them, just moving them.)

[LamontStormstar]

This is more insulting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

"Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad. She stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummated

"Marriages, or love relationships, or for pleasure in an informal sense, are said to be consummated when the act of sexual intercourse has taken place after the ceremony or confession of love."


Yup, that's right.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Sat 29th December 2007, 2:34am

[Proabivouac]

This is more insulting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

"Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad."

The problem is that it appears to be true. All Islamic records (the only sources) agree in this.

[GlassBeadGame]

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

Not at all. There was negotiated a limit to the number of depictions which would appear on Muhammad, something which doesn't exist for any other article on a major historical figure of which I'm aware, some of whom have many more depictions than does Muhammad . Several images were rejected for inclusion due to their disparaging character, even though they're historical and topical - for example, Blake's image of Muhammad in Hell.

One article which might be more aptly criticized is Depictions of Muhammad - I'm not sure why this article is necessary - however, it was created not to bait Muslims, but to provide an excuse for removing images from Muhammad (we're not censoring them, just moving them.)

It is only Wikipedian self importance and entitlement that says they need any offensive images. The depictions add nothing whatsoever. WP should show greater self-restraint. Yes I figured that the images were the result of some WP wonkering process. It has two "veiled" images and two showing Muhammad's face. How nice of them to only make the more blatant offense twice.

[LamontStormstar]

Wikipedia also says Muhammed was polygamous like the early Mormons. Strange.....

[SenseMaker]

This is more insulting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

"Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad."

The problem is that it appears to be true. All Islamic records (the only sources) agree in this.

It is quite likely true as it is described as such in the Quran. It is covered accurately in Wikipedia. I'm not sure it is relevant unless we are going derail this thread into a general criticism of Islam thread -- if that is the case, I recommend moving these specific off-topic posts to the politics forum.

This post has been edited by SenseMaker: Sat 29th December 2007, 2:45am

[GlassBeadGame]

Wikipedia also says Muhammed was polygamous like the early Mormons. Strange.....

So what? So was Abraham. So was David.

[LamontStormstar]

This is more insulting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

"Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad."

The problem is that it appears to be true. All Islamic records (the only sources) agree in this.

It is quite likely true as it is described as such in the Quran. It is covered accurately in Wikipedia. I'm not sure it is relevant unless you want to derail this thread into a general Muslim criticism thread -- if that is the case, I recommend moving these specific off-topic posts to the politics forum.

Okay, I was thinking of the BLPs. In a BLP, they like to remove all the embarressing facts, like Jason Mewes's drug use.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Sat 29th December 2007, 2:46am

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

You can't really "troll" an entire religion.

You can try. I'm thinking of Richard Dawkins He probably doesn't even stop at trolling just one religion

The mis-labelling of any contentious idea as "trolling" - that is, as communication designed to elicit an angry response for comedy value - is a major contributor to WP's growing inability to host coherent discussions. Outside of the putrefied atmosphere of usenet, the word is almost always a device to discredit contributions by devaluing the contributor.

Dawkins, like most "trolls", is not guilty.

[everyking]

Just hide the images behind links. That's the sensible approach to handling controversial images; I was telling them to do that back during the cartoons controversy.

[Derktar]

You can't really "troll" an entire religion.

You can try. I'm thinking of Richard Dawkins :D He probably doesn't even stop at trolling just one religion :D

The mis-labelling of any contentious idea as "trolling" - that is, as communication designed to elicit an angry response for comedy value - is a major contributor to WP's growing inability to host coherent discussions. Outside of the putrefied atmosphere of usenet, the word is almost always a device to discredit contributions by devaluing the contributor.

Dawkins, like most "trolls", is not guilty.

Ah UseOnceAndDestroy, you finally speak, welcome to the Review. I just hope you don't self-terminate now.

[Amarkov]

I don't understand why this is a problem. The Judaism article contains about 35 instances of the word "God"; should we remove those too?

[SenseMaker]

I don't understand why this is a problem. The Judaism article contains about 35 instances of the word "God"; should we remove those too?

Not quite the same. Observant Jews can write the name of God. More here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...me.html#Writing

[Amarkov]

I don't understand why this is a problem. The Judaism article contains about 35 instances of the word "God"; should we remove those too?

Not quite the same. Observant Jews can write the name of God. More here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...me.html#Writing

No, it's not quite the same, I admit. But an informative encyclopedia (which Wikipedia pretends to want to be) shouldn't have to obey religious restrictions, even if failing to do so might offend people.

[Miltopia]

If depictions of Muhammad come down, Piss Christ had better not be far behind.

[Poetlister]

Given that Moslems revere Jesus as a prophet, what would happen if they complained about a depiction of Jesus as being offensive to Moslems?

On Jews writing the name of God, I actually found a case on Wikisource where someone amended "lord" to "L-rd" in a poem extracted from a Jewish prayer book, although "lord" was how it appeared in the prayer book.