Sorted

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

Re: Sorted

geni
On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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?

To show this particular general/religious leader has been historically depicted.

We don't even mention that say the image in Pope Linus is somewhat
unlikely to be historically accurate (the history of the early popes
is somewhat historically problematicalical). Saul of Tarsus would be
another one who throws up this issue.





--
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 5:47 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> To show this particular general/religious leader has been historically
> depicted.
>
> We don't even mention that say the image in Pope Linus is somewhat
> unlikely to be historically accurate (the history of the early popes
> is somewhat historically problematicalical). Saul of Tarsus would be
> another one who throws up this issue.
>

So, your argument is that because we do it wrong other places, we should do
it wrong here?
_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by geni
On 22/02/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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}}

"The truth? You can't handle the truth!"

[[WP:UNDUE]]

Feel free to check the references from the [[Muhammad]] article
itself, I did and was unable to find any images at all (except for the
references from the images, but I firmly believe that those were found
by begging the question and searching *for* images).

Here's what you get from a google on "Muhammad" (and ignoring articles
on Muhammad Alli and other off-topic links)

*[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMuhammad&ei=s163R6awDoqqwwG6yuTmCg&usg=AFQjCNFj9QY8eHYruomxP6HrtSNuahw97g&sig2=muvryZtIHcpJjGDWibe3rQ
Wikipedia] - ignored, since not a source
*[http://muhammad.net/j/index.php Prophet Muhammad] - no image
*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Muhammad.html
Jewish Virtual library - Muhammad] - no image
*[http://i-cias.com/e.o/muhammad.htm Looxlexia Encyclopedia Muhammad]
- one veiled image (encyclopedia, not a valid source...)
*[http://www.jamaat.org/islam/Muhammad.html Islam - Meaning and
Message - Muhammad] - no image
*[http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/MUHAM.HTM Islam - Muhammad messenger
of God] - no image
*[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/rodinson.html Maxime Rodinson.
Muhammad.] - no image
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9105853/Muhammad Encyclopedia
Brittanica - Muhammad] - one veiled image (encyclopedia)
*[http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ PBS - Muhammad legacy of a prophet] - no image
*[http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/muhammad.htm Muhammad Apologetic
Paper (Joseph Smith) - May 1995] - no image
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/ About the Prophet
Muhammad] - no image
*[http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_muhammad.htm
Agnosticism / Atheism Islam FAQ Who Was Muhammad?] - no image
*[http://www.theprophetmuhammad.org/ The prophet Mohammad.org] - no image
*[http://www.fatwa-online.com/aboutislaam/0020224_04.htm Who is
Muhammad?] - no image
*[http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Life-Based-Earliest-Sources/dp/0892811706
Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources (Paperback)]- no
image (although one of the books icons had an image that might be gold
silhouette)
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7242258.stm Danish Muhammad
cartoon reprinted] - no image
*[http://www.prophetofislam.com/ Muhammad a-z] no image
*[http://www.muhammadspeaks.com/] - no image
...

(I checked a few dozen more at random, found nothing, got bored)

>  --
>
> geni

--
-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
On 23/02/2008, Ian Woollard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 22/02/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  > 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}}
>
>
> "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"
>
>  [[WP:UNDUE]]
>
>  Feel free to check the references from the [[Muhammad]] article
>  itself, I did and was unable to find any images at all (except for the
>  references from the images, but I firmly believe that those were found
>  by begging the question and searching *for* images).

The problem is the way you are defining a minority opinion. Islam is a
minority thus it's POV that you should not have or show  images of
historic people is a minority so lets see what other POVs there are.
To start with lets look to china. Probably the closest equiv in china
would be Confucius. I doubt that any original portraits of him were
made or if there were survived but it appears pretty clear that even
when that is the case there is no reason not to produce and show such
images. So the Chinese POV would appear to support showing such
images.

Next to india. Hinduism is a problematical case due to the lack of a
single founder and the mythical status of say Krishna (images exist).
Still there appear to be no problems with images of Guru Nanak Dev and
I doubt the Sikhs are completely divorced from the rest of indian
culture.

Okey japan. Shinto would make a direct comparison rather tricky.
Depictions of Jimmu certainly exist although of course his own
existiance is highly doubtful.

Africa. The destruction of much of African culture by both European
and Islamic groups means it is a bit hard to tell.

South America. Highly stylized images of various Huey tlatoani exist.

Europe. Doesn't appear to have been a problem.
>  Here's what you get from a google on "Muhammad" (and ignoring articles
>  on Muhammad Alli and other off-topic links)
>

You are aware that appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy yes?

--
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 geni

>> Then why is it there? What actual purpose does it fill?
>
> To show this particular general/religious leader has been historically
> depicted.
>
> We don't even mention that say the image in Pope Linus is somewhat
> unlikely to be historically accurate (the history of the early popes
> is somewhat historically problematicalical). Saul of Tarsus would be
> another one who throws up this issue.
>
> --
> geni

But historically images of Muhammed have been strongly discouraged,
generally, he has not been depicted. Examples from Christianity and
Europe are not to the point. Christian culture has not focused on this
issue while Muslim culture has (at most times and places). Images of Mary
and Jesus are common. That they bear little or no relationship to the
historical figures is generally not an issue. A phony image of the
Prophet of Islam is.

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

David Gerard-2
On 23/02/2008, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> But historically images of Muhammed have been strongly discouraged,
>  generally, he has not been depicted. Examples from Christianity and
>  Europe are not to the point. Christian culture has not focused on this
>  issue while Muslim culture has (at most times and places). Images of Mary
>  and Jesus are common. That they bear little or no relationship to the
>  historical figures is generally not an issue. A phony image of the
>  Prophet of Islam is.


As has been pointed out, he's notable for more than being a prophet.
That's like requiring depictions of L. Ron Hubbard to be from the
Scientologist point of view only.


- d.

_______________________________________________
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

> Next to india. Hinduism is a problematical case due to the lack of a
> single founder and the mythical status of say Krishna (images exist).
> Still there appear to be no problems with images of Guru Nanak Dev and
> I doubt the Sikhs are completely divorced from the rest of indian
> culture.

> geni

Hinduism is the last remnant of the old Indo-European faith that relished
images of the deities. If we applied the principles of Islam to the
article on Hinduism to to articles on Hindu deities, it would be grossly
inappropriate. What is being asked for is application of Islamic
principles to the key articles about Islam. I think it is a matter of
respect, of avoiding offense, of authenticity.

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 23/02/2008, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>  > Next to india. Hinduism is a problematical case due to the lack of a
>  > single founder and the mythical status of say Krishna (images exist).
>  > Still there appear to be no problems with images of Guru Nanak Dev and
>  > I doubt the Sikhs are completely divorced from the rest of indian
>  > culture.
>
>
> > geni
>
>  Hinduism is the last remnant of the old Indo-European faith

That is disputed.

> that relished
>  images of the deities.

Mohamed isn't a deity.

> If we applied the principles of Islam to the
>  article on Hinduism to to articles on Hindu deities, it would be grossly
>  inappropriate. What is being asked for is application of Islamic
>  principles to the key articles about Islam. I think it is a matter of
>  respect, of avoiding offense, of authenticity.

NPOV is universal on wikipedia.  If someone wants and IPOV
encyclopedia they are free to create one or use Wikinfo's SPOV I
suppose.

--
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

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  But historically images of Muhammed have been strongly discouraged,
>  generally, he has not been depicted.

Which means there is no commonly accepted depiction of him - which
makes putting an image in a prominent place problematic, since it is
giving any depiction undue weight.

Personally I feel that what depictions there are should be in a
section (and possibly break-out article) about such, but not at the
head of the article.  However, I'm certainly not going to go there and
do that; I have sufficient arguments already.

-Matt

_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by geni
On 23/02/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"
> >
> > [[WP:UNDUE]]
> >
> > Feel free to check the references from the [[Muhammad]] article
> > itself, I did and was unable to find any images at all (except for the
> > references from the images, but I firmly believe that those were found
> > by begging the question and searching *for* images).
>
> The problem is the way you are defining a minority opinion.

But that's the thing. I'M not defining a minority opinion.

By searching google I get IT to give me what google thinks are
representative. By looking at the existing references in the article I
get the ARTICLE to say what the wikipedia's editors think are
representative.

However, I cut it, I get the same answer; these kinds of images are
not very notable at all, in fact, I was unable to find exactly how not
notable, because no usable sources for the Muhammad topic I ever found
had these kinds of images.

> Islam is a
> minority thus it's POV that you should not have or show images of
> historic people is a minority so lets see what other POVs there are.

Sure, it's POV. But as you well know, NPOV is when you have all POVs
in the article, in representative amounts.

The point is, that the representative amount of these images is one or
less. I was unable to find the images via any straightforward means,
short of actually explicitly searching for them.

<bunch of irrelevant comparisons to entirely different subjects deleted>

> You are aware that appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy yes?

The term 'popularity' usually refers to popularity among *people*; but
I'm referring to a form of popularity among *references*; otherwise
known as 'NPOV'.

Are you really referring to NPOV as a logical fallacy?

> --
> geni

--
-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

Tony Sidaway
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 23/02/2008, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> As has been pointed out, he's notable for more than being a prophet.
>  That's like requiring depictions of L. Ron Hubbard to be from the
>  Scientologist point of view only.

Come to that, our "Douglas DC-8" article has a photo.

I don't want anybody to look at that picture.  Wouldn't want to kill
anybody by pneumonia.

_______________________________________________
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

Raphael Wegmann-2
In reply to this post by Ian Woollard
Ian Woollard schrieb:

> 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.
>

OK, but how do you plan to get this through?
There are already admins protecting the images in the article
using blocks and protection as necessary.

I guess they wouldn't even tolerate, if one would try to
add a question like "Why we still should consider to change
the image display?" in [[WP:OWN|their]] [[Talk:Muhammad/FAQ]].

--
Raphael

_______________________________________________
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

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Matthew Brown-5
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Matthew Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  >  But historically images of Muhammed have been strongly discouraged,
>  >  generally, he has not been depicted.
>
>  Which means there is no commonly accepted depiction of him - which
>  makes putting an image in a prominent place problematic, since it is
>  giving any depiction undue weight.
>
>  Personally I feel that what depictions there are should be in a
>  section (and possibly break-out article) about such, but not at the
>  head of the article.  However, I'm certainly not going to go there and
>  do that; I have sufficient arguments already.
>
>  -Matt
>

An interesting data point is our article on [[Bigfoot]]. Despite
the dearth of usable images of the creature, there has been
quite a concerted effort to keep all "artistic renderings" out
from the article.


Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
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

Itaqallah
In reply to this post by Ian Woollard
On 23/02/2008, Ian Woollard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 23/02/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"
> > >
> > > [[WP:UNDUE]]
> > >
> > > Feel free to check the references from the [[Muhammad]] article
> > > itself, I did and was unable to find any images at all (except for the
> > > references from the images, but I firmly believe that those were found
> > > by begging the question and searching *for* images).
> >
> > The problem is the way you are defining a minority opinion.
>
>
> But that's the thing. I'M not defining a minority opinion.
>
> By searching google I get IT to give me what google thinks are
> representative. By looking at the existing references in the article I
> get the ARTICLE to say what the wikipedia's editors think are
> representative.
>
> However, I cut it, I get the same answer; these kinds of images are
> not very notable at all, in fact, I was unable to find exactly how not
> notable, because no usable sources for the Muhammad topic I ever found
> had these kinds of images.
>
>
> > Islam is a
> > minority thus it's POV that you should not have or show images of
> > historic people is a minority so lets see what other POVs there are.
>
>
> Sure, it's POV. But as you well know, NPOV is when you have all POVs
> in the article, in representative amounts.
>
> The point is, that the representative amount of these images is one or
> less. I was unable to find the images via any straightforward means,
> short of actually explicitly searching for them.
>
> <bunch of irrelevant comparisons to entirely different subjects deleted>
>
>
> > You are aware that appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy yes?
>
>
> The term 'popularity' usually refers to popularity among *people*; but
> I'm referring to a form of popularity among *references*; otherwise
> known as 'NPOV'.
>
> Are you really referring to NPOV as a logical fallacy?
>
>
The role WP:UNDUE plays here is important.

From a general historical perspective, depictions of Muhammad have been
quite rare (User:Grenavitar/mimages).  There are only few periods in which
they were actually of any significance, such as under the Ilkhanids (later
Safawids) or some periods of Ottoman rule. Undue focus upon a minority
tradition in the manner the article currently does isn't particularly
balanced. There's been a tendancy to compare this article with others like
[[Buddha]], [[Jesus]], [[Krishna]] etc. who all have had substantial and
diverse traditions of depiction throughout most of history. Such comparison
is not sensible, however, for that very reason.
_______________________________________________
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 Raphael Wegmann-2
> Ian Woollard schrieb:
>> 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.
>>
>
> OK, but how do you plan to get this through?
> There are already admins protecting the images in the article
> using blocks and protection as necessary.
>
> I guess they wouldn't even tolerate, if one would try to
> add a question like "Why we still should consider to change
> the image display?" in [[WP:OWN|their]] [[Talk:Muhammad/FAQ]].
>
> --
> Raphael

A small band of Spartans is not a problem if we have a consensus to avoid
needless offense. The images have some utility in articles on art or in
an article on depictions of Muhammed, but add nothing useful to the
article Muhammed. They only give needless offense, and not just to
religious kooks, but to mainstream Muslims.

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

David Gerard-2
On 23/02/2008, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A small band of Spartans is not a problem if we have a consensus to avoid
>  needless offense. The images have some utility in articles on art or in
>  an article on depictions of Muhammed, but add nothing useful to the
>  article Muhammed. They only give needless offense, and not just to
>  religious kooks, but to mainstream Muslims.


You appear to have mistaken your personal viewpoint for a neutral
viewpoint. This is of course an eternal hazard.


- d.

_______________________________________________
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 23/02/2008, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You appear to have mistaken your personal viewpoint for a neutral
>  viewpoint. This is of course an eternal hazard.

Neutrality is very hard here... our normal "talk around the issue"
approach doesn't quite work for a binary "include or don't include"
question.

A lot of the problems with invoking NPOV here are that we're treating
"our" viewpoint (the status quo ante bellum) as by definition neutral,
and I'm not sold on that.

--
- 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

Steve Summit
Andrew Gray wrote:
> A lot of the problems with invoking NPOV here are that we're treating
> "our" viewpoint (the status quo ante bellum) as by definition neutral,
> and I'm not sold on that.

Unquestionably.  "All information must be free" is a POV.
So is, "being circumspect about including potentially-offensive
material is Censorship, and is therefore Wrong".  Moreover,
saying "If you're offended, you're wrong, and it's your problem
to deal with, not ours" isn't just POV, it's POV-pushing.

_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:23 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  You appear to have mistaken your personal viewpoint for a neutral
>  viewpoint. This is of course an eternal hazard.

And perhaps you, yours. It seems to me that we cannot achieve a
reasonable simulacrum of neutrality (for it is probably impossible to
be entirely neutral in the face of aniconic/anit-censorship dogmatism)
without accepting that some compromise has to be made.

_______________________________________________
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

David Gerard-2
On 23/02/2008, The Mangoe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:23 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  >  You appear to have mistaken your personal viewpoint for a neutral
>  >  viewpoint. This is of course an eternal hazard.

> And perhaps you, yours.


Definitely. It's a hazard for any of us.

(Personally, in [[Muhammad]] I'd put a current representative
calligraphic depiction at the top and maybe one veiled picture in the
subsection on representations. Then put a full representative
selection of depictions in [[Depictions of Muhammad]]. I expect this
is one of the options hashed out over the past year as well.)

The hard part is for everyone to realise even the apparent idiots have
to be worked with. "Assume good faith" is written over the gates of
WikiHell.


> It seems to me that we cannot achieve a
>  reasonable simulacrum of neutrality (for it is probably impossible to
>  be entirely neutral in the face of aniconic/anit-censorship dogmatism)
>  without accepting that some compromise has to be made.


Ignore the censorship and anti-censorship arguments. Ignore the upset
petitioners. Think only of the articles.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234