What I think would be most useful at this point is to try and compile an informational resource about this topic, so that we can see all points of view at a glance, and try to educate people better about this topic. More information and education will help to guide more informed decisions on this topic. Some kinds of information that we should obtain and make public are: 1) Who exactly is offended by this and why? 2) Is there a prohibition on simply having these images, or are they only offensive when viewed by certain people? Ie, is it possible to have these images, but hold them on a page where they are not readily viewable, or only viewable after a warning? 3) What are the specific uses and values of the images currently on display? Is there significant historical context to these images, and are they closely integrated into the article? 4) How does the presence or non-presence of these images impact the POV of the article? That is, is removing them truly an NPOV offense? If the content is neutral, does the presentation matter? I'm really of the opinion here that the best thing we can do is try to compile the important information into some kind of a primer, and then use that text as the basis for a rational discussion on the matter. What we don't need is to continue this disjoint argument with some people saying (in caricature) "these muslims don't respect my freedom of speech and NPOV", and others saying "these english and americans are islamophobic hateful bigots". --Andrew Whitworth _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Great idea. Let's sit down and discuss the issue some more. I'm sure polite civil discussion and a reassurance of NPOV will certainly make Iran feel better about the issue.

It should be noted that Egypt has just banned 2 German Newspapers (Die Welt, and Frankfurter Allgemaine), the Wall Street Journal, and The Observer over posting the Muhammad cartoons, which was followed with demonstrations by university professors, deans, and students chanting "Jews, Jews, watch out, the army of Muhammad will return!". http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_conten… This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity. -Dan On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.

Or perhaps, refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union because smuggling Bibles is illegal by fiat of an intolerant government, and people who do it run the risk of being beaten or worse. Fail analogy is full of fail. -Dan On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l

Aphaia: We are not talking about the Orthodox Church of Russia, nor are we talking about Russia.

We are talking about the former Soviet Union,

which was notoriously intolerant of religions, including Christianity and its related sects.

Your offense is misplaced.

-Dan On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Aphaia wrote: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l

"increase its educational value, null." May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of the illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.

While it may not be educationally necessary in a literate society, in a pre-literate society representational images can be very powerful. In illustrating some activity of Muhammed some representation of that activity can be a powerful educational tool for those who cannot read. Unfortunately, the power of abstraction comes from reading. The Qur'an certainly speaks of Muhammed, and thus creates pictures of him in words. Logical consistency would suggest the absurdity that these word pictures should also be forbidden. Abstract reasoning allows readers to understand that any representations of Muhammed or Jesus are not based on original photographs. We cannot underestimate the power of images, symbols and myths as entities in their own right. These powers make no scientific sense at all, but that does not diminish their influence. Many Americans can be very upset when they see their flag being abused, yet to the strictly logical mind it is just a piece of cloth.

On Feb 20, 2008 4:34 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote: Not sure if I should reply considering that I'm a muslim and might be biased, but here is a reply: Who: I can say that most (not all) egyptian muslims would be offended by these pictures, either the pictures on [[Muhammed]] or the ones on jyllands posten article. Why: Because they consider (muslims) and believe that muhammed isn't like any other person whom could be depicted in a picture and humiliated by some artists. they consider him as a holy figure, like the best person ever born and the one who guided them to a better life etc. So when people start to show paintings and even worse, cartoons insulting him, they get upset and offended. they don't view it from 'free speech' 'freedom of expression' or 'freedom to write' points but rather as an insult and disrespect to them and to their religion. On jyllands posten's article on arabic wikipedia, there is a warning and a link to the images. imho, they are just there as test or challenge of wikipedia's freedom of expression and a source for (false) feel good that wikipedia is free. beside that, as a helpful illustrations that add to the articles and increase its educational value, null. > > --Andrew Whitworth --user:alnokta _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l