Sorted

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
80 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Sorted

Tony Sidaway
We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad".  Illustrations
are greatly overrated in my opinion.

Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with
the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another
Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

geni
On 22/02/2008, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad".  Illustrations
>  are greatly overrated in my opinion.
>
>  Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
>  article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with
>  the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another
>  Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
>

Because there is no reason to remove them from the Muhammad article.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Alex G-3
And by the same strong argument there is no reason to keep them there. Sure,
we're not censored, but that doesn't mean we need to be stubborn when a
(sort of) uncensored solution exists.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:14 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 22/02/2008, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad".  Illustrations
> >  are greatly overrated in my opinion.
> >
> >  Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
> >  article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with
> >  the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another
> >  Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
> >
>
> Because there is no reason to remove them from the Muhammad article.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway
 
In a message dated 2/22/2008 1:26:57 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

Why  don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
article,  >>>


---------------------
OK ask the guy who started the petition if moving the image to another  
article would be satisfactory.
 
I'm not getting a great feeling that it would be satisfactory to him or  
them.  But it's worth a shot isn't it?
 
Will Johnson



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway
On 22/02/2008, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
> article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with
> the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another
> Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.

I have absolutely no idea. It's been suggested in the past and doesn't
seem to have got anywhere...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

The Mangoe
I suggested somewhere along in here that this seems a reasonable
approach, as long as the main article says the truth about such
depictions in summary, and that it gives a reasonable enough
hint/statement that the images are in the other article.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 22/02/2008, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  >
>
> > Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
>  > article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with
>  > the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another
>  > Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
>
>  I have absolutely no idea. It's been suggested in the past and doesn't
>  seem to have got anywhere...
>
>  --
>  - Andrew Gray
>   [hidden email]
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Magnus Manske-2
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad".  Illustrations
>  are greatly overrated in my opinion.
>
>  Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
>  article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with
>  the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another
>  Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.

That's what I suggested early on in the initial thread. Since then, I
have realized that the petition doesn't mean that these people don't
want to see the image; it means we shouldn't have one at all. So, all
move-to-other-article, hide-with-opt-in suggestions are moot.

Magnus

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Andrew Gray
On 22/02/2008, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad".  Illustrations
> >  are greatly overrated in my opinion.
> >
> >  Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
> >  article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with
> >  the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another
> >  Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
>
> That's what I suggested early on in the initial thread. Since then, I
> have realized that the petition doesn't mean that these people don't
> want to see the image; it means we shouldn't have one at all. So, all
> move-to-other-article, hide-with-opt-in suggestions are moot.

This does not completely anull the value of it as a compromise, though
- it does mean we are taking the decision to say "we will not force
this on you", which is something.

The basic problem is that when a debate is binary - include or don't
include - we can't really compromise with both sides unless we get
interestingly creative...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Wily D
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad".  Illustrations
>  are greatly overrated in my opinion.
>
>  Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
>  article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with
>  the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another
>  Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
>
As someone who's been following the debate on images in the Muhammad
article for the last year or so, it's my definite impression that few
editors from either side are likely to find this an acceptable
comprimise.

But feel free to suggest it at [[Talk:Muhammad/images]]

Cheers
WilyD

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Ian Woollard
I personally think that this should be done. Even if it doesn't solve
the problem entirely, it will help, it's proportionate and consistent
with the sources for that article, as well as the goals and policies
of the wikipedia.


On 22/02/2008, Wily D <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad".  Illustrations
> >  are greatly overrated in my opinion.
> >
> >  Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
> >  article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with
> >  the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another
> >  Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
> >
> As someone who's been following the debate on images in the Muhammad
> article for the last year or so, it's my definite impression that few
> editors from either side are likely to find this an acceptable
> comprimise.
>
> But feel free to suggest it at [[Talk:Muhammad/images]]
>
> Cheers
> WilyD
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


--
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Mathias Schindler-2
In reply to this post by Alex G-3
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Alex G <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And by the same strong argument there is no reason to keep them there. Sure,
>  we're not censored, but that doesn't mean we need to be stubborn when a
>  (sort of) uncensored solution exists.

Wouldn't "solution" require the petitioners to agree to the idea that
showing drawings of people they consider to be prophets can shown when
the title of the page is called "depiction of X"?

Mathias

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Ian Woollard
On 22/02/2008, Mathias Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Wouldn't "solution" require the petitioners to agree to the idea that
> showing drawings of people they consider to be prophets can shown when
> the title of the page is called "depiction of X"?

Forget them. I checked, there's no references with those kinds of
images in the Muhammad article, except those *directly* associated
with those images. That they should be in the article is an extreme
minority position in the references.

Yes, I'm actually arguing that we should do that, even if we weren't
being petitioned. The NPOV seems to be NOT to include them.

It's an *indirect* effect of the prohibition within Islam, acting via
the references, but we're not directly doing it because of that, we're
doing it because of NPOV.

> Mathias

--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

geni
In reply to this post by Ian Woollard
On 22/02/2008, Ian Woollard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I personally think that this should be done. Even if it doesn't solve
>  the problem entirely, it will help,

1) It wont. and 2)censorship in not an area that this project exists to help in.

> it's proportionate and consistent
>  with the sources for that article, as well as the goals and policies
>  of the wikipedia.

ah {{fact}}

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

geni
In reply to this post by Alex G-3
On 22/02/2008, Alex G <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And by the same strong argument there is no reason to keep them there.

They are educational.

>Sure,
>  we're not censored, but that doesn't mean we need to be stubborn when a
>  (sort of) uncensored solution exists.
>

"(Sort of) uncensored" is impossible.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Rich Holton
Are any of the depictions based on actual likenesses? Or even on a detailed
description of the man? If not, then the depictions are not educational with
respect to the man, on with respect to how the man has been depicted.

Removing them from the article would be an editorial decision, not
"censorship" by any reasonable definition of the word.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:27 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 22/02/2008, Alex G <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > And by the same strong argument there is no reason to keep them there.
>
> They are educational.
>
> >Sure,
> >  we're not censored, but that doesn't mean we need to be stubborn when a
> >  (sort of) uncensored solution exists.
> >
>
> "(Sort of) uncensored" is impossible.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

geni
On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Are any of the depictions based on actual likenesses? Or even on a detailed
>  description of the man? If not, then the depictions are not educational with
>  respect to the man, on with respect to how the man has been depicted.
>

By this point you should be familiar with the Charlemagne counter
argument. Dito Macbeth of Scotland.

>  Removing them from the article would be an editorial decision, not
>  "censorship" by any reasonable definition of the word.

Only if it could be editorially justified.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Rich Holton
> Are any of the depictions based on actual likenesses? Or even on a
> detailed
> description of the man? If not, then the depictions are not educational
> with
> respect to the man, on with respect to how the man has been depicted.
>
> Removing them from the article would be an editorial decision, not
> "censorship" by any reasonable definition of the word.

No, none of them are. They are works of imagination and that's part of
why they are offensive. They give definite material form to what is
unknown. If they have value it is as art or as information about those
Muslims who have accepted such representations.

One thing that is not understood, it is not just radical Islamists who
object to representations of the Prophet, but nearly all mainstream
Muslims. I don't think much of Islam, but I can relate to the falseness
and, indeed evil, of making things up about Muhammad, which is what all
these images amount to, unsourced information from unreliable sources.

Fred


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by geni
> On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Are any of the depictions based on actual likenesses? Or even on a
>> detailed
>>  description of the man? If not, then the depictions are not
>> educational with
>>  respect to the man, on with respect to how the man has been depicted.
>>
>
> By this point you should be familiar with the Charlemagne counter
> argument. Dito Macbeth of Scotland.

Images of those men are simply false, they do not give form to the sacred
as an image of Muhammad does.

>>  Removing them from the article would be an editorial decision, not
>>  "censorship" by any reasonable definition of the word.
>
> Only if it could be editorially justified.

Removing information we know to be false is not censorship.

Fred



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

geni
On 22/02/2008, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  >> Are any of the depictions based on actual likenesses? Or even on a
>  >> detailed
>  >>  description of the man? If not, then the depictions are not
>  >> educational with
>  >>  respect to the man, on with respect to how the man has been depicted.
>  >>
>  >
>  > By this point you should be familiar with the Charlemagne counter
>  > argument. Dito Macbeth of Scotland.
>
>
> Images of those men are simply false, they do not give form to the sacred
> as an image of Muhammad does.

Muhammad is sacred? Doesn't that rather run into the do not worship
prohibition? You also appear to be rejecting the divine right of kings
thing.

Still if you want a more exact equiv

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster#Place


> Removing information we know to be false is not censorship.
>

We don't pretend the image is historically accurate.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Rich Holton
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 22/02/2008, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >  >> Are any of the depictions based on actual likenesses? Or even on a
> >  >> detailed
> >  >>  description of the man? If not, then the depictions are not
> >  >> educational with
> >  >>  respect to the man, on with respect to how the man has been
> depicted.
> >  >>
> >  >
> >  > By this point you should be familiar with the Charlemagne counter
> >  > argument. Dito Macbeth of Scotland.
> >
> >
> > Images of those men are simply false, they do not give form to the
> sacred
> > as an image of Muhammad does.
>
> Muhammad is sacred? Doesn't that rather run into the do not worship
> prohibition? You also appear to be rejecting the divine right of kings
> thing.
>
> Still if you want a more exact equiv
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster#Place
>
>
> > Removing information we know to be false is not censorship.
> >
>
> We don't pretend the image is historically accurate.
>

Then why is it there? What actual purpose does it fill?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234