The point is, we have the Mohammad Cartoons are for an article. It is crucial for the context of the article, and it's a better article for it. We have plenty of other very offensive images illustrating articles that are equally crucial, for instance the images depicted in [[Hogtie bondage]] are very disturbing to me, and I imagine to a large number of other people. They do however illustrate the concepts very clearly and the articles are much better for them. The same with the Muhammad Cartoons-image, the article simply wouldn't be as good without it.
However this wasn't for an article. This was for a userbox. This was mocking for mockings sake, the only purpose it served was to make fun of a belief shared by a huge number of wikipedians, and indeed to the largest religion in the world. It is simply not ok to act like that on wikipedia.
All of us wants the best encyclopedia possible. We are all working towards the same goal. We need to show respect for our peers, no matter if we disagree with them. This kind of school-yard bully behaviour is not worthy of a Wikipedian.
--Oskar
PS. Don't worry about not responding right away, that's no problem. We all have real lifes too, and it's perfectly reasonable that not everyone can spend all their time on the mailinglist :P
On 5/14/06, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/12/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Ben wrote:
I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just
not
seeing it. How is it offensive? All of the Christians I personally know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or
annoying,
but not offensive.
Mocking the cross? You can't see what's wrong with that?
I don't worship icons, so no, I really don't see what's wrong with it.
<snip> > Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
I don't worship icons either. I'm completely atheist, but I would never DREAM of mocking it. It's simple human decency not to mock something that many people love, and worship. It is, at the very least, a massive breach of WP:CIVIL.
And even if I'm not religious and don't get personally offended by mockery of religious symbols, there are many things that if mocked I would get enourmously offended by. For instance, I'm swedish, and if anyone says a cross word about Anna Lindh (our Minister of Foreign Affairs, who were murdered a couple of years ago), I'm gonna punch him out. I'm sure americans say the same thing about, for instance, the people who died on 9/11. I'm sure you have a number of things to that you wouldn't want mocked, but that other people may not care about.
Also, as Mark Gallagher said, there is a HUGE difference between this and the Mohammad Cartoons. Those were for an article on a very notable event that demanded that the images were displayed for context. You were mocking the worlds largest religion, just for fun.
We're talking simple human decency and civility here. You need to apologise.
--Oskar _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm sorry Oskar but I don't see a difference. The muhammed cartoons were offensive because they depicted Muhammed. That's what I've always heard the controversy to be about: any graphic depiction is blasphemous. The cross is as well a religious symbol. in this case, a slightly modified picture is being considered "blasphemous". I think there is a difference between "mocking" and "satire", but it's very slight. Perhaps I'm viewing this all wrong, I don't know. Oh and if anyone is going to reply to this, odds are I won't be able to respond until tuesday, sorry.
-Swatjester _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l