Sorted

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

Re: Sorted

WJhonson
 
In a message dated 2/23/2008 5:09:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

From a  general historical perspective, depictions of Muhammad have been
quite rare  (User:Grenavitar/mimages).>>


----------------------
Repeating this a hundred times does not make it any more true.
Depictions of Muhammed are not rare, they are  common



**************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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
Fred Bauder 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.
>  
Sounds like an ad for political correctness.

Ec


_______________________________________________
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 David Gerard-2

> (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.)

>
> - d.
>

That's not too bad, although I would opt for no image at all in the
Muhammed article. In the depictions article, I see no problem.

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

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway
 
In a message dated 2/22/2008 5:01:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

But  historically images of Muhammed have been strongly discouraged,
generally,  he has not been depicted.>>


---------------------------------------------------------
And our project is not here to support or deny religious tenets however  
widely or minority supported.
Period.  None of them.  Not one.
 
So what Muslims believe, 200,000, 200 million or one, has no bearing on our  
project.
They have 5 billion pages on which they can display or hide any images they  
feel.
Meanwhile, we should focus on improving the project, without regard to any  
outside feeling.
 
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

Ian Woollard
On 23/02/2008, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  So what Muslims believe, 200,000, 200 million or one, has no bearing on our
>  project.

You evidently wish this.

But since reliable sources describe what they believe, that isn't in
any way accurate, and many of these reliable sources are from Muslims
talking about Islam as well as other topics.

>  Will Johnson

--
-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

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Mathias Schindler-2
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> 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"?

I would certainly say that this is a valid question, and I would be
interested to hear a good answer.  (I.E. an answer by someone who
doesn't really have an axe to grind here.)

That is to say, is there any "loophole" which would satisfy the more
intelligent and thoughtful of the protestors.  (Obviously some people
are just spoiling for a fight, and nothing will satisfy them.)

Or is any depiction at all going to end up offending just as much.

If there is something about *how* we are displaying the image which is
offensive, then there is hope for a mutually beneficial compromise.

--Jimbo


_______________________________________________
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 WJhonson
>
> In a message dated 2/22/2008 5:01:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> [hidden email] writes:
>
> But  historically images of Muhammed have been strongly discouraged,
> generally,  he has not been depicted.>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> And our project is not here to support or deny religious tenets however
> widely or minority supported.
> Period.  None of them.  Not one.
>
> So what Muslims believe, 200,000, 200 million or one, has no bearing on
> our
> project.
> They have 5 billion pages on which they can display or hide any images
> they
> feel.
> Meanwhile, we should focus on improving the project, without regard to
> any
> outside feeling.
>
> Will Johnson

But they ARE us, as are those such as myself who would avoid needless
offense. There are sharp criticism to be made of Islam, that is
unavoidable, displaying imaginary images 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

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 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...

I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary
debate and look for interestingly creative solutions.  I suspect
actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up
with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.

Let me explain what I mean.  In any situation where it is impossible to
make every person completely happy, we are not at a complete and total
loss about how to make things better.  Instead, we can look for
solutions that make everyone better off than they would be under some
alternative.

If we restrict ourselves to binary choice here (INCLUDE or DON'T
INCLUDE) then we will have one side or the other fairly miserable.

If we better understand the objections (and I think we are having a
problem with this, due to insufficient participation by the objectors in
our processes) then we can look for solution that at least help them a
bit, while hopefully *also* helping the other side a little bit as well.

--Jimbo


_______________________________________________
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 2/23/2008 1:12:35 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

But  since reliable sources describe what they believe, that isn't in
any way  accurate, and many of these reliable sources are from Muslims
talking about  Islam as well as other topics.>>



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right and has already been pointed out several times, there are entire  
Muslim communities who have no problem with the image, and there are reliable  
sources like EB which already display the images.
 
Can we move on please?  This circular argument isn't going  anywhere.
We do not cater to the whims of each religious dogma, and this won't be the  
first time.
We need to move on from this insistence that we should.
We should not.
 
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

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway
 
In a message dated 2/23/2008 1:32:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

But they  ARE us, as are those such as myself who would avoid needless
offense. There  are sharp criticism to be made of Islam, that is
unavoidable, displaying  imaginary images is.>>


------------------------------------
Our project is not here to support or criticize a religion.
We do not remove images based on religious dogma.
 
Next problem.



**************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
On 23/02/2008, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  Our project is not here to support or criticize a religion.
>  We do not remove images based on religious dogma.

I find it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist
viewpoints demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as
extremist viewpoints demanding their removal. We can't just say that
one side is evil, so should be ignored, and that the other is justice
and light.

If we're going to flaunt the extremist demands, we would be just as
justified to remove them now.

But, you know, guess what? We are capable of making decisions not
driven by what the extremists *on either side of this debate* are
demanding. Your constant, insistent, repetitive statement that
everyone should just stop discussing it is not, in any way, helpful.

It has been pointed out above that, for quite some time, the generally
accepted approach was to have no illustrations. If we were having this
debate *then*, when someone first insisted on their inclusion, would
you be loudly arguing for them to be kept out on the grounds that we
don't mess around with articles on religion-based grounds?

--
- 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

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway
 
In a message dated 2/23/2008 2:53:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

I find  it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist
viewpoints  demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as
extremist viewpoints  demanding their removal.>>


-----------------------------------------
 
No this doesn't represent my point-of-view.
My point-of-view is, we have images of each major religious figure.
That is standard, consistent, and neutral, from *our internal*  point-of-view.
That point has been made clear cross-wiki, it's not new.  In general,  we add
images to any article, we are encouraged to do so because readers like  
images.
 
The *extremists for*, are arguing, that images are standard, helpful, and  
informative.  That we include them, regardless of whether they are  photographs,
paintings or drawings.  That they do not necessarily represent  the actual
truth of what a person looked like.
 
The *extremists against* are arguing from the point of their own religious  
dogma, asking us to support that dogma.  They are, in general, only  here to
argue against the images, and have very little to no edits in other  articles.
 
Those two positions are in no way the same.
All right-thinking, enlightened, torch-bearers of justice, truth and other  
things, agree with me :)
 
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
On 23/02/2008, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  The *extremists for*, are arguing, that images are standard, helpful, and
>  informative.  That we include them, regardless of whether they are  photographs,
>  paintings or drawings.  That they do not necessarily represent  the actual
>  truth of what a person looked like.
>
>  The *extremists against* are arguing from the point of their own religious
>  dogma, asking us to support that dogma.  They are, in general, only  here to
>  argue against the images, and have very little to no edits in other  articles.

Aha, here's the problem. The ones you've quoted as "for" are the
people making rational points and trying to engage in discussion,
certainly not the extremist end of the argument.

Both sides have basically two groups of proponents, and you're
comparing the *rational* position for, with the *extremist* position
against.

The rational position[s] against the images are "these images aren't
really helpful or informative; the small benefit they provide in this
case is outweighed by the fact they are idiosyncratic, or by the fact
that they cause a lot of annoyance"

The extremist position for the images can basically be summed up as
"fuck the Muslims, we should include them because we can" - believe,
me there are some who are basically asserting that - and really
doesn't bother having any viewpoint on the encyclopedic merits (or
otherwise) of the images; or "we're not censored, we can include what
we damned well like regardless of what anyone thinks".


--
- 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

Oldak
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23/02/2008, Andrew Gray  wrote:

> On 23/02/2008, [hidden email]  wrote:
>
>
> >  Our project is not here to support or criticize a religion.
>  >  We do not remove images based on religious dogma.
>
>
> I find it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist
>  viewpoints demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as
>  extremist viewpoints demanding their removal. We can't just say that
>  one side is evil, so should be ignored, and that the other is justice
>  and light.
>
>  If we're going to flaunt the extremist demands, we would be just as
>  justified to remove them now.
>
>  But, you know, guess what? We are capable of making decisions not
>  driven by what the extremists *on either side of this debate* are
>  demanding. Your constant, insistent, repetitive statement that
>  everyone should just stop discussing it is not, in any way, helpful.
>
>  It has been pointed out above that, for quite some time, the generally
>  accepted approach was to have no illustrations. If we were having this
>  debate *then*, when someone first insisted on their inclusion, would
>  you be loudly arguing for them to be kept out on the grounds that we
>  don't mess around with articles on religion-based grounds?

I don't think the term "extremist" applies to either side with any
accuracy, and the use of the term implies impotence of the position
without giving any good reasons why. The term just marginalises
anything which isn't some form of difficult half-way solution. I'm yet
to see a compromise which appeases both sides (i.e. the protestor's
notion that no one can see the Prophet's face and Wikipedia
community's wish to remain neutral, informative and educational), and
I doubt there will be one.

- --
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://firegpg.tuxfamily.org

iD8DBQFHwKm/WNupeezvVkYRApLHAKCZCE6E58fmr3680CyIG+P3TWFntACfSCwa
c9uMlgX5CF8lWW+sgPxhv3E=
=/L3m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
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 2/23/2008 3:13:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

The  rational position[s] against the images are "these images aren't
really  helpful or informative; the small benefit they provide in this
case is  outweighed by the fact they are idiosyncratic, or by the fact
that they  cause a lot of annoyance">>



-------------------
All pictorial representations are idiosyncratic or can be referred-to as  
such, that doesn't seem to be a weighty-enough consideration to change our  
standard approach for this single instance.
 
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

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by WJhonson
>
> In a message dated 2/23/2008 2:53:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> [hidden email] writes:
>
> I find  it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist
> viewpoints  demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as
> extremist viewpoints  demanding their removal.>>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> No this doesn't represent my point-of-view.
> My point-of-view is, we have images of each major religious figure.
> That is standard, consistent, and neutral, from *our internal*
> point-of-view.
> That point has been made clear cross-wiki, it's not new.  In general,  we
> add
> images to any article, we are encouraged to do so because readers like
> images.
>
> The *extremists for*, are arguing, that images are standard, helpful, and
> informative.  That we include them, regardless of whether they are
> photographs,
> paintings or drawings.  That they do not necessarily represent  the
> actual
> truth of what a person looked like.
>
> The *extremists against* are arguing from the point of their own
> religious
> dogma, asking us to support that dogma.  They are, in general, only  here
> to
> argue against the images, and have very little to no edits in other
> articles.
>
> Will Johnson

What you say is not true. I am not a Muslim; I simply counsel avoiding
offense. I have about 20,000 edits, very few to do with Islam.

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

Stephen Bain
In reply to this post by Itaqallah
On 2/23/08, Itaqallah <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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.

Unfortunately everyone here seems more interested in arguing past you
here, Itaqallah. Part of the problem is:

On 23/02/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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.

Geni, you could start by appreciating that there is no single "Islam"
POV just as there is no single "Christianity" POV or "Republican" POV
or any other tradition that you care to mention.

Take a look at the gallery for Muhammad on Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

One example of calligraphy and the rest of the images are medieval
Persian and Ottoman depictions of Muhammad. This doesn't strike me as
a representative selection. Indeed, it seems as if people have simply
uploaded as many of these sorts of images as they could find. We're
representing that this artistic tradition is the primary tradition,
when it is in reality a minority tradition.

For some reason people seem to be forgetting our core content
policies, such as NPOV, the minute images come into play rather than
text.

--
Stephen Bain
[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

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway
 
In a message dated 2/23/2008 10:12:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

We're representing that this artistic tradition is the primary  tradition,
when it is in reality a minority tradition.

For some  reason people seem to be forgetting our core content
policies, such as  NPOV, the minute images come into play rather  than
text.>>>



---------------------------------------
I think this mistakes the issue of the image.  I don't think anyone  has
stated that "this artistic tradition is the primary tradition".  And I  don't
think having a picture states that either.
 
Regardless of that quibble, even within our NPOV policy, we specify that we  
do give voice to significant minority viewpoints.  So how would you address  
the issue that one minority viewpoint, within Islam, is to show Muhammed in a  
pictorial representation, while another, perhaps the main one, is not?  
Silencing one is not the way we generally resolve these issues.
 
So what's your suggestion?
 
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

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

>
>
> In a message dated 2/23/2008 5:09:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>
> [hidden email] writes:
>
> From a  general historical perspective, depictions of Muhammad have been
> quite rare  (User:Grenavitar/mimages).>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> Repeating this a hundred times does not make it any more true.
> Depictions of Muhammed are not rare, they are  common



Are you sure? Bloom and Blair say "Pictures of Muhammad are extremely rare
in Islamic art" (Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair. *Islamic Arts*. London:
Phaidon, 1997 p. 202) That seems quite sound, given that we have only a
handful from 1400 years of history, most of which originate only from
specific periods or locations.

Depictions of Muhammad as a historical tradition outside of Muslim
veneration similarly seems to have been quite rare. Apart from a few
infamous examples like that of Dante's Inferno, not much comes to mind
really.
_______________________________________________
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: new compromise

Raphael Wegmann-2
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
Jimmy Wales schrieb:

> Andrew Gray wrote:
>> 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...
>
> I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary
> debate and look for interestingly creative solutions.  I suspect
> actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up
> with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
>

I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page.
It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents
as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page.
All images stay per default visible.

The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers
to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.

Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image,
those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad
can just click the link in the ambox and read our article
with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.

Unfortunately this solution needs some additional
javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).

If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll
need to copy my
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js

After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload),
you should be able to see my compromise at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad

To implement this compromise, we should think
about a more general approach, something like a
Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).

br
--
Raphael

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

1234