Pregnancy, NSFW image Options

[Shalom]

I was looking up the meaning of "Gravida 2, Para 1" on the internet yesterday. Wikipedia's article on Pregnancy came up, and I found the answer there almost immediately.

But to get there, I had to scroll down the first screen and view a NSFW photo of a naked pregnant woman. I was at "W". Fortunately nobody saw it, but I felt uncomfortable.

It's not as if I were searching for information about a sexually explicit subject (the classic example is "autofellatio"). We're talking about a very common, ordinary phenomenon. For crying out loud, Wikipedian nerds, can you have the decency to show a pregnant woman with her clothes on?

[mydog]

Not to resurrect a dead topic or anything, but this issue has reached somewhat of a boiling point, with a shouting match at Talk:Pregnancy, a couple loud RFCs, and other such fun.

My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia.

[Tarc]

Not to resurrect a dead topic or anything, but this issue has reached somewhat of a boiling point, with a shouting match at Talk:Pregnancy, a couple loud RFCs, and other such fun.

My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia.

We also have User:Ludwigs2 (T-H-L-K-D), attempting to link the issue of the preggers image with the issue of certain groups not liking to see images of Muhammad.

[HRIP7]

My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia.

I think that is the view most sensible editors have endorsed.

We also have User:Ludwigs2 (T-H-L-K-D), attempting to link the issue of the preggers image with the issue of certain groups not liking to see images of Muhammad.

There is now a nice melee about Muhammad on Jimbo's talk page as well – not Ludwigs2's fault, but mine, because I think he is basically right.

[Tarc]

There is now a nice melee about Muhammad on Jimbo's talk page as well – not Ludwigs2's fault, but mine, because I think he is basically right.

Well, I think you're basically an idiot.

You, Luddy, and a handful of gadflies all up in arms over the plight of the poor Muslims and their butthurt religulous shtick. Fucking pathetic. No one sgould have to cater to the whims and demands of fundie whackjobs, whether they are Muslim or Christian or Jew or whatever.

Bleeding hearts might thing we all have a natural-born right to waltz through life un-offended, but we don't.

[HRIP7]

There is now a nice melee about Muhammad on Jimbo's talk page as well – not Ludwigs2's fault, but mine, because I think he is basically right.

Well, I think you're basically an idiot.

You, Luddy, and a handful of gadflies all up in arms over the plight of the poor Muslims and their butthurt religulous shtick. Fucking pathetic. No one sgould have to cater to the whims and demands of fundie whackjobs, whether they are Muslim or Christian or Jew or whatever.

Bleeding hearts might thing we all have a natural-born right to waltz through life un-offended, but we don't.

The article on Jesus is consistent with how Jesus is portrayed in Christian art, while the article on Muhammad is inconsistent with the way Muhammad is portrayed in Islamic art. How is that a good thing?

[anthony]

The article on Jesus is consistent with how Jesus is portrayed in Christian art, while the article on Muhammad is inconsistent with the way Muhammad is portrayed in Islamic art. How is that a good thing?

Well, is the Christian art portrayal of Jesus more accurate than the Islamic art portrayal of Muhammad?

[HRIP7]

The article on Jesus is consistent with how Jesus is portrayed in Christian art, while the article on Muhammad is inconsistent with the way Muhammad is portrayed in Islamic art. How is that a good thing?

Well, is the Christian art portrayal of Jesus more accurate than the Islamic art portrayal of Muhammad?

Yes, in my view, because the Islamic art shown is not as representative. While Christians would have no trouble identifying with the imagery shown in the Jesus article, the same is not true for muslims looking at the Muhammad article.

If you look at the Arabic Muhammad article, it features a lot of relevant iconic imagery that the English one, with its focus on figurative depictions, neglected. Unlike churches, mosques are overwhelmingly decorated with calligraphy and abstract art, not figurative images.

Some editors have pointed out that the Farsi article also contains miniatures of Muhammad. That's true, but then many of these miniatures are Persian. Iran is a Shiite country. Even nowadays, despite being an Islamic Republic, Iran has no problem with images of Muhammad, to the extent that you can buy Muhammad postcards there. See for example the story on the Muhammad "poster boy" image that's also shown in the Farsi article.

It's interesting to compare Iran, as an Islamic Republic, to Turkey in that regard. The Turkish article does not contain any images of Muhammad, even though Turkey is a truly secular country. But religiously, its population is predominantly Sunni. There are no Muhammad images in the Indonesian article either; again, Indonesia is a multicultural and multireligious state, but the overwhelming majority are Sunnis. Sunnis vastly outnumber Shiites worldwide.

[wikieyeay]

It's interesting to compare Iran, as an Islamic Republic, to Turkey in that regard. The Turkish article does not contain any images of Muhammad, even though Turkey is a truly secular country. But religiously, its population is predominantly Sunni. There are no Muhammad images in the Indonesian article either; again, Indonesia is a multicultural and multireligious state, but the overwhelming majority are Sunnis. Sunnis vastly outnumber Shiites worldwide.

That's the Malay wikiipedia. id is for Indonesia. The articles are very similar though.