> *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* > As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic > images > which display any god or prophet?
Yes, there are photographs of Joseph Smith, Jr. and of Bahá'u'lláh a prophet of the Bahá'í Faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h#Photograph Of gods, no, unless you count Hindu deities. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haidakhandefwary.JPG > *Second: You know millions of Muslims find images of Mohammad extremely > offensive. * > Christians (And then i am mostly talking about fundamental Christians) > are > offended by our page on evolution which they deem absolute nonsense and > heresy. Hardline atheists are offended by any religions, arguing that > people > who follow them are deluded. And did i already mention that some people > are > extremely offended by our images placed on sexual topics? And so we can > go > on and on, as there are many groups of people who deem something > offensive > or gross. > > One course of action would be abiding to each groups whims, and removing > all > content that they deem offensive. We would end up with something entirely > child friendly, which would also be entirely useless as it is severely > lacking in multiple area's. We could also take an impartial stance and > add > as much content as we can, so long as it serves some educational value. > If > someone doesn't want to see or read a subject they can block the images, > or > they can evade it altogether. This way people who DO wish to know more > about > a subject can learn about it, without having to worry that another group > has > been censoring it. Of course we should apply the exact same rules to > every > group, and walk with care when deciding on these kind of issues to > prevent > needless insulting. Yes, there are alternatives to religious beliefs. In this case the alternative is the view that offensive bogus images should be displayed. Saying that is fine; doing it another. > > *So we are talking about whether it is OK to exclude offensive nonsenses, > not about excluding valid information. And yeh, God said not to display > false images. In what way does that commandment differ from > Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Is it wrong because God said it? You would be > all over them if they had articles that said New York City was in Finland > but you seem to have no problem with images of a man whose appearance is > unknown, and unknowable.* > > Are you arguing that the images don't contain valid information? We have > an > entire article describing the "Depictions of Muhammed" trough the ages, > and > i think it is an entirely valid topic to include in an encyclopedia. The > rest of the analogy you are making is simply besides the point. We can > easily verify that New York is in the USA, so it would be a clear error > that > is easy to correct. The images of Muhammad are as they are described, > mere > depictions of a person / prophet made in later centuries. We don't know > his > appearance any better then we know the appearance of > Zeus<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus>, > Loki <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki>or > Wodan<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wodan>. > Still, the depiction of Gods, Prophets and other religious figures is a > valid enough topic to include in an encyclopedia. Would you argue that we > should remove all images from religion related article's because there is > no > certainty what someone or something looked like? We might as well extend > it > to area's outside religion then, as many images are artist impressions > made > in later ages. Yes, there are even depictions of God as an angry grey-haired old man. And we do illustrate our article about God with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Conceptions_of_God It's no different from an image of Paris that includes the Chrysler Building. > > *In what way does that commandment differ from Wikipedia:Reliable > sources? > Is it wrong because God said it*? > The difference is that WP:RS is a Wikipedia policy that has to be > followed > by everyone editing the encyclopedia, while the commandment is a rule > that > applies to a limited group of people outside the encyclopedia. As i said, > we > shouldn't be following every groups whims simply because they don't like > something. To put it like this: If the pastafarians (Worshipers of the > flying spaghetti monster) suddenly decide that each page concerning their > god should contain a plate of spaghetti, would be abide to them? In other > words, our role is to be impartial and provide encyclopedic information > in > the broadest sense of the word, with no influence from politics, religion > or > personal bias. Wikipeia:Reliable sources IS policy. There are no authentic images of Muhammad. Including one outside the realm of art is a violation of the policy. > > *They should have common sense and not put images up in a reference work > which are both offensive and false.* > If you care to check the article title it says "Depictions" which are, i > cite out article on "depiction": *Pictures may be factual or fictional, > literal or metaphorical, realistic or idealised and in various > combination.* > * *There is a many topics which rely on artist impressions drawn in later > ages - the images aren't false, they are just impressions with historical > significance. I can repeat myself over and over, but the path of common > sense is allowing people to choose whether or not they wish to view > certain > content. Bottom line: Made up stuff is being included. > > But to get back to the ACE topic: I agree they may decide that they do > not > wish to include these depictions; Not including it isn't a NPOV problem > in > my eyes so they are free to decide what they wish on that regard. But > that > does not give them the right to demand the same for other Wiki's who had > extensive talks on this subject. And equally placing "Boycot" notices on > the > mainpage with biased content is against everything Wikipedia stands for. > > ~Excirial Wikipedia operates by consensus, not "We are the imperial powers which control world culture" Fred Bauder > > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > >> > So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not >> > acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that >> > certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it >> > not acceptable that they use the morality of the nationality or other >> > group that most of them belong to in doing so? >> > >> > -- >> > André Engels, [email protected] >> >> >> >> Fred Bauder >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
