We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad". Illustrations are greatly overrated in my opinion.
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions" article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
On 22/02/2008, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad". Illustrations are greatly overrated in my opinion.
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions" article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
Because there is no reason to remove them from the Muhammad article.
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.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:14 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad". Illustrations are greatly overrated in my opinion.
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions" article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
Because there is no reason to remove them from the Muhammad article.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com 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"?
Mathias
On 22/02/2008, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com 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.
Mathias
-- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
Ian Woollard schrieb:
On 22/02/2008, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com 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]].
Ian Woollard schrieb:
On 22/02/2008, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com 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
On 23/02/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net 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.
On 23/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com 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 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.
On 23/02/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
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.
Actually, it's a Pillar.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:23 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com 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.
On 23/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:23 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com 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.
(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
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
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com 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
On 22/02/2008, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
And by the same strong argument there is no reason to keep them there.
They are educational.
Sure, we're not censored, but that doesn't mean we need to be stubborn when a (sort of) uncensored solution exists.
"(Sort of) uncensored" is impossible.
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.
Removing them from the article would be an editorial decision, not "censorship" by any reasonable definition of the word.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:27 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
And by the same strong argument there is no reason to keep them there.
They are educational.
Sure, we're not censored, but that doesn't mean we need to be stubborn when a (sort of) uncensored solution exists.
"(Sort of) uncensored" is impossible.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com 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.
Removing them from the article would be an editorial decision, not "censorship" by any reasonable definition of the word.
Only if it could be editorially justified.
On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com 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.
Removing them from the article would be an editorial decision, not "censorship" by any reasonable definition of the word.
Only if it could be editorially justified.
Removing information we know to be false is not censorship.
Fred
On 22/02/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com 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.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com 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?
On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com 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.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:47 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com 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?
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
On 23/02/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net 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.
On 23/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com 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.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net 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
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net 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]]
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.
Removing them from the article would be an editorial decision, not "censorship" by any reasonable definition of the word.
No, none of them are. They are works of imagination and that's part of why they are offensive. They give definite material form to what is unknown. If they have value it is as art or as information about those Muslims who have accepted such representations.
One thing that is not understood, it is not just radical Islamists who object to representations of the Prophet, but nearly all mainstream Muslims. I don't think much of Islam, but I can relate to the falseness and, indeed evil, of making things up about Muhammad, which is what all these images amount to, unsourced information from unreliable sources.
Fred
On 22/02/2008, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions" article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
I have absolutely no idea. It's been suggested in the past and doesn't seem to have got anywhere...
I suggested somewhere along in here that this seems a reasonable approach, as long as the main article says the truth about such depictions in summary, and that it gives a reasonable enough hint/statement that the images are in the other article.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions" article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
I have absolutely no idea. It's been suggested in the past and doesn't seem to have got anywhere...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad". Illustrations are greatly overrated in my opinion.
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions" article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
That's what I suggested early on in the initial thread. Since then, I have realized that the petition doesn't mean that these people don't want to see the image; it means we shouldn't have one at all. So, all move-to-other-article, hide-with-opt-in suggestions are moot.
Magnus
On 22/02/2008, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad". Illustrations are greatly overrated in my opinion.
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions" article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
That's what I suggested early on in the initial thread. Since then, I have realized that the petition doesn't mean that these people don't want to see the image; it means we shouldn't have one at all. So, all move-to-other-article, hide-with-opt-in suggestions are moot.
This does not completely anull the value of it as a compromise, though - it does mean we are taking the decision to say "we will not force this on you", which is something.
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...
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
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
Nice idea. I'm thinking we should try and go ahead with this...if images are showing by default, there really isn't much "bad" about this solution.
AFAIK this would go in sitewide monobook.js, correct? We could also add a Special:Prefs option to have the images default showing/default hiding.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
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 WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The *real* problem though, is that some Muslims are offended by the very publishing of the images. I don't think we should go so far as to remove them entirely, instead, we should satisfy the more realistic request to make them "hidable."
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
Nice idea. I'm thinking we should try and go ahead with this...if images are showing by default, there really isn't much "bad" about this solution.
AFAIK this would go in sitewide monobook.js, correct? We could also add a Special:Prefs option to have the images default showing/default hiding.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
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 WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Include a link on the "show/hide" button the WP:NOT#CENSORED (or wherever our policy on that is nowadays) should satisfy those who are offended by publishing the images. And if it doesn't...tough.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list) < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com> wrote:
The *real* problem though, is that some Muslims are offended by the very publishing of the images. I don't think we should go so far as to remove them entirely, instead, we should satisfy the more realistic request to make them "hidable."
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
Nice idea. I'm thinking we should try and go ahead with this...if
images
are showing by default, there really isn't much "bad" about this
solution.
AFAIK this would go in sitewide monobook.js, correct? We could also
add a
Special:Prefs option to have the images default showing/default hiding.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at
wrote:
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 WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Sincerely, [[User:Thinboy00]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How about multiple links, like one to the content disclaimer (it says there may be "disturbing content" in giant bold letters) in addition to your suggestion?
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
Include a link on the "show/hide" button the WP:NOT#CENSORED (or wherever our policy on that is nowadays) should satisfy those who are offended by publishing the images. And if it doesn't...tough.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list) < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com> wrote:
The *real* problem though, is that some Muslims are offended by the very publishing of the images. I don't think we should go so far as to remove them entirely, instead, we should satisfy the more realistic request to make them "hidable."
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
Nice idea. I'm thinking we should try and go ahead with this...if
images
are showing by default, there really isn't much "bad" about this
solution.
AFAIK this would go in sitewide monobook.js, correct? We could also
add a
Special:Prefs option to have the images default showing/default hiding.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at
wrote:
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 WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Sincerely, [[User:Thinboy00]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If we restrict ourselves to binary choice here (INCLUDE or DON'T INCLUDE) then we will have one side or the other fairly miserable.
While I do agree with the spirit of your message, the content disclaimer makes it pretty clear that Wikipedia can make you "miserable." I would argue that preventing people from being miserable, while nice, is not our most important goal.
This does not preclude any action to make Wikipedia "less miserable" for the protesters, but if not offending people and building a free content encyclopedia are actually at direct odds with one another then I think we all know which one should win.
On 25/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
This does not preclude any action to make Wikipedia "less miserable" for the protesters, but if not offending people and building a free content encyclopedia are actually at direct odds with one another then I think we all know which one should win.
But isn't Chris Howie, aka "User:Crazycomputers", a member of 'Campus Crusade for Christ' whose stated aim is:
"to win people to Christ, build them in their faith, and send them out to win, build and send others."
and wouldn't that, as a potentially competing religious group make you, by any chance, less willing to be nice to Islamic people anyway and thus be more interested in gaming the wikipedia system to ensure that end???
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
^^^^ guess so
p.s. rhetorical question ;-)
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
This does not preclude any action to make Wikipedia "less miserable" for the protesters, but if not offending people and building a free content encyclopedia are actually at direct odds with one another then I think we all know which one should win.
But isn't Chris Howie, aka "User:Crazycomputers", a member of 'Campus Crusade for Christ' whose stated aim is:
"to win people to Christ, build them in their faith, and send them out to win, build and send others."
and wouldn't that, as a potentially competing religious group make you, by any chance, less willing to be nice to Islamic people anyway and thus be more interested in gaming the wikipedia system to ensure that end???
First, I really, really hope you are not being serious here.
Second (if you are being serious) I am not a member of that group. Do your research before attempting to harass me out of a discussion.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad". Illustrations are greatly overrated in my opinion.
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions" article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
As someone who's been following the debate on images in the Muhammad article for the last year or so, it's my definite impression that few editors from either side are likely to find this an acceptable comprimise.
But feel free to suggest it at [[Talk:Muhammad/images]]
Cheers WilyD
I personally think that this should be done. Even if it doesn't solve the problem entirely, it will help, it's proportionate and consistent with the sources for that article, as well as the goals and policies of the wikipedia.
On 22/02/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad". Illustrations are greatly overrated in my opinion.
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions" article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
As someone who's been following the debate on images in the Muhammad article for the last year or so, it's my definite impression that few editors from either side are likely to find this an acceptable comprimise.
But feel free to suggest it at [[Talk:Muhammad/images]]
Cheers WilyD
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/02/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com 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}}
On 22/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
I personally think that this should be done. Even if it doesn't solve the problem entirely, it will help,
- 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.w... 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
On 23/02/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
I personally think that this should be done. Even if it doesn't solve the problem entirely, it will help,
- 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?
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
On 23/02/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net 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.
On 23/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com 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.
On 23/02/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com 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.
On 2/23/08, Itaqallah itq.wiki@googlemail.com 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 geniice@gmail.com 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 stephen.bain@gmail.com