On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:42:34 +0100, wikien-l-request@lists.wikime wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll schrieb:
Daniel R. Tobias schreef:
Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran: http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0802179464180019.htm
Note that this is unrelated to the online petition discussed in the other thread; this is about the Danish Muhammad cartoons at [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]], where there is no question if the image is encyclopedic or not.
Is that a reliable reference for adding Wikipedia's [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] to the list of [[Islamophobia]] incidences? They don't even write about how many Muslims have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, because they removed the cartoons from [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]].
I wouldn't think so, given that "Islamophobia" is an inherently POV designation, and is Original Research when applied to a situation where the word wasn't actually used directly in the original source. The link is probably a reliable reference for an assertion that some officials claiming to speak for some Muslims are still critical of Wikipedia for the cartoon controversy issue (in addition to the current flap over Muhammad images), but that's still a long stretch from declaring Wikipedia to be "Islamophobic".
Incidentally, the set of Muslims who are disturbed at Wikipedia including the cartoon images and the set of Muslims disturbed at Wikipedia including the Muhammad images are different sets; the Iranians apparently don't mind depictions of Muhammad (if tasteful and respectful), since they have some such images in their own museums.
http://harryzzz.blogspot.com/2007/08/in-teheran-unsuspected-cartoon- of.html
Daniel R. Tobias schrieb:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:42:34 +0100, wikien-l-request@lists.wikime wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll schrieb:
Daniel R. Tobias schreef:
Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran: http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0802179464180019.htm
Note that this is unrelated to the online petition discussed in the other thread; this is about the Danish Muhammad cartoons at [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]], where there is no question if the image is encyclopedic or not.
Is that a reliable reference for adding Wikipedia's [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] to the list of [[Islamophobia]] incidences? They don't even write about how many Muslims have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, because they removed the cartoons from [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]].
I wouldn't think so, given that "Islamophobia" is an inherently POV designation, and is Original Research when applied to a situation where the word wasn't actually used directly in the original source.
"He urged officials of Iranian and other Muslim states to restrict their citizens' access to the website and take action against the desecrating, divisive and Islamphobic move."
The link is probably a reliable reference for an assertion that some officials claiming to speak for some Muslims are still critical of Wikipedia for the cartoon controversy issue (in addition to the current flap over Muhammad images), but that's still a long stretch from declaring Wikipedia to be "Islamophobic".
It is a source for an assertion that an Iranian cultural official considers the inclusion of the Muhammad cartoon images a desecrating, divisive and Islamophobic move.
Incidentally, the set of Muslims who are disturbed at Wikipedia including the cartoon images and the set of Muslims disturbed at Wikipedia including the Muhammad images are different sets;
Different sets with a large intersection I assume.
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
It is a source for an assertion that an Iranian cultural official considers the inclusion of the Muhammad cartoon images a desecrating, divisive and Islamophobic move.
i.e., it's a useful word to use against people who say something you don't like, and gets less meaningful with expanded use, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237663.stm - a minister raising concern with health issues caused by inbreeding in the British Pakistani community (where first-cousin marriage is common) is told that noticing this issue "verges on Islamophobia." What?
- d.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:46:56PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
It is a source for an assertion that an Iranian cultural official considers the inclusion of the Muhammad cartoon images a desecrating, divisive and Islamophobic move.
i.e., it's a useful word to use against people who say something you don't like, and gets less meaningful with expanded use, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237663.stm - a minister raising concern with health issues caused by inbreeding in the British Pakistani community (where first-cousin marriage is common) is told that noticing this issue "verges on Islamophobia." What?
"Minister warns of in-breeding risk for Christians" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/ninbreds210....
I guess Christians wouldn't be amused about that Telegraph headline either.
br
"Minister warns of in-breeding risk for Christians" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/ninbreds210....
I guess Christians wouldn't be amused about that Telegraph headline either.
That's sensationalist journalism, you shouldn't read anything into it. I don't think the MP in question actually said "Muslims", I think he said "the Asian community", which is much more factually accurate. It's very much a cultural, not religious, issue.
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:46:56PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
It is a source for an assertion that an Iranian cultural official considers the inclusion of the Muhammad cartoon images a desecrating, divisive and Islamophobic move.
i.e., it's a useful word to use against people who say something you don't like, and gets less meaningful with expanded use, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237663.stm - a minister raising concern with health issues caused by inbreeding in the British Pakistani community (where first-cousin marriage is common) is told that noticing this issue "verges on Islamophobia." What?
"Minister warns of in-breeding risk for Christians" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/ninbreds210....
I guess Christians wouldn't be amused about that Telegraph headline either.
br
Raphael
Eh? well established historical fact that the family of the head of the church of england has issues with in breeding. Doesn't seem to cause much fuss.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 06:10:44PM +0000, geni wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:46:56PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
It is a source for an assertion that an Iranian cultural official considers the inclusion of the Muhammad cartoon images a desecrating, divisive and Islamophobic move.
i.e., it's a useful word to use against people who say something you don't like, and gets less meaningful with expanded use, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237663.stm - a minister raising concern with health issues caused by inbreeding in the British Pakistani community (where first-cousin marriage is common) is told that noticing this issue "verges on Islamophobia." What?
"Minister warns of in-breeding risk for Christians" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/ninbreds210....
I guess Christians wouldn't be amused about that Telegraph headline either.
br
Raphael
Eh? well established historical fact that the family of the head of the church of england has issues with in breeding. Doesn't seem to cause much fuss.
Did you ever read headlines like "Minister warns of 'inbred' Christians"?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece
You seem to have a lot of sensationalist journalism in the UK. Do they all lie?
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
Did you ever read headlines like "Minister warns of 'inbred' Christians"? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece You seem to have a lot of sensationalist journalism in the UK. Do they all lie?
Yes, they all lie. Well done. You've certainly advanced the discussion here.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
Did you ever read headlines like "Minister warns of 'inbred' Christians"? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece You seem to have a lot of sensationalist journalism in the UK. Do they all lie?
Yes, they all lie. Well done. You've certainly advanced the discussion here.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
hah. ./screamer
On Feb 18, 2008 10:05 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
Did you ever read headlines like "Minister warns of 'inbred'
Christians"?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece You seem to have a lot of sensationalist journalism in the UK. Do they all lie?
Yes, they all lie. Well done. You've certainly advanced the discussion here.
Oh I don't know, I see Raphael's statement as an encouraging one that not every nation's press is as bad as ours.
Seriously on the images of Mohammed issue, I think we should take all reasonable steps to remove barriers to people using Wikipedia within our policies, which include that Wikipedia is not censored. If users want to read Wikipedia without seeing certain images, then we should take reasonable steps to help them. That goes whether they are doing so for religious reasons or otherwise.
On Feb 18, 2008 5:15 PM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 10:05 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
Did you ever read headlines like "Minister warns of 'inbred'
Christians"?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece You seem to have a lot of sensationalist journalism in the UK. Do they all lie?
Yes, they all lie. Well done. You've certainly advanced the discussion here.
Oh I don't know, I see Raphael's statement as an encouraging one that not every nation's press is as bad as ours.
Seriously on the images of Mohammed issue, I think we should take all reasonable steps to remove barriers to people using Wikipedia within our policies, which include that Wikipedia is not censored. If users want to read Wikipedia without seeing certain images, then we should take reasonable steps to help them. That goes whether they are doing so for religious reasons or otherwise.
-- Sam Blacketer
At Talk:Muhammad, instructions on how to disable images are linked to for all the technical solutions we know of. If you know of more, or can write MediaWiki patches and convince the devs to include them, please feel invited to participate.
WilyD
On Feb 18, 2008 7:38 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 5:15 PM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 10:05 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
Did you ever read headlines like "Minister warns of 'inbred'
Christians"?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece You seem to have a lot of sensationalist journalism in the UK. Do they all lie?
Yes, they all lie. Well done. You've certainly advanced the discussion here.
Oh I don't know, I see Raphael's statement as an encouraging one that not every nation's press is as bad as ours.
Seriously on the images of Mohammed issue, I think we should take all reasonable steps to remove barriers to people using Wikipedia within our policies, which include that Wikipedia is not censored. If users want to read Wikipedia without seeing certain images, then we should take reasonable steps to help them. That goes whether they are doing so for religious reasons or otherwise.
-- Sam Blacketer
At Talk:Muhammad, instructions on how to disable images are linked to for all the technical solutions we know of. If you know of more, or can write MediaWiki patches and convince the devs to include them, please feel invited to participate.
WilyD
I probably should've included that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_set_your_browser_to_not_see_im... this page details instructions on how not to view images, for anyone who finds any image objection. I'm unaware of any solution for those who find text objectionable.
WilyD
On 2/19/08, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
I probably should've included that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_set_your_browser_to_not_see_im... this page details instructions on how not to view images, for anyone who finds any image objection. I'm unaware of any solution for those who find text objectionable.
I imagine you know this, but the issue is not people inadvertently seeing images that find offensive, but people finding the *publication* of certain images offensive. Images of Mohammed are not some religious form of spoiler. It's a different kind of issue.
Steve
On Feb 19, 2008 6:37 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I imagine you know this, but the issue is not people inadvertently seeing images that find offensive, but people finding the *publication* of certain images offensive. Images of Mohammed are not some religious form of spoiler. It's a different kind of issue.
It is different by intensity, not by the nature of the matter, as long as you focus on the effect, not the motivation.
On Feb 19, 2008 12:37 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/19/08, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
I probably should've included that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_set_your_browser_to_not_see_im... this page details instructions on how not to view images, for anyone who finds any image objection. I'm unaware of any solution for those who find text objectionable.
I imagine you know this, but the issue is not people inadvertently seeing images that find offensive, but people finding the *publication* of certain images offensive. Images of Mohammed are not some religious form of spoiler. It's a different kind of issue.
Steve
Err, this isn't really true. There are a number of interrelated things people find offensive, including both the publication of the images and the exposure to the images (as well as a host of other things). While the publication of the images isn't really up for negotiation (for instance, they'll remain on commons (where there are currently at least 37 historic images of Muhammad)) the various levels of exposure can be addressed more to people's satisfactions. For instance, someone genuinely offended by the images who nonetheless wants to work on/read the Wikipedia article can use the solutions offered there.
Cheers WilyD
On 19/02/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Err, this isn't really true. There are a number of interrelated things people find offensive, including both the publication of the images and the exposure to the images (as well as a host of other things). While the publication of the images isn't really up for negotiation (for instance, they'll remain on commons (where there are currently at least 37 historic images of Muhammad)) the various levels of exposure can be addressed more to people's satisfactions. For instance, someone genuinely offended by the images who nonetheless wants to work on/read the Wikipedia article can use the solutions offered there.
So you suggest rejecting out of hand demands that such images be removed from entirely?
On Feb 19, 2008 10:35 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Err, this isn't really true. There are a number of interrelated things people find offensive, including both the publication of the images and the exposure to the images (as well as a host of other things). While the publication of the images isn't really up for negotiation (for instance, they'll remain on commons (where there are currently at least 37 historic images of Muhammad)) the various levels of exposure can be addressed more to people's satisfactions. For instance, someone genuinely offended by the images who nonetheless wants to work on/read the Wikipedia article can use the solutions offered there.
So you suggest rejecting out of hand demands that such images be removed from entirely?
In the specific instance of Commons that I cite? I suspect I'm in no position to single-handedly make such a rejection, but I would argue at some point our mission statement has to kick in.
As I understand the situation at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, which has a hidden hatnote that reads: NOTE ABOUT THE IMAGE: For many days, discussions occurred and polls were conducted on this article's talk pages. In February 2006 the supermajority (over 80% of contributing editors) decision was to keep the image displayed as it currently is without a "linkimage" and with no added warning template or text. Based upon this result, unilateral (without general consensus) removal, hiding, relocation or resizing of this image (particularly in a repetitive fashion) will be considered disruptive editing, detrimental to Wikipedia, and may result in a block of your account and/or IP address.
Additionally, polls were taken regarding adding image warnings to this article, with the polls deciding that, as with the rest of Wikipedia's articles, no warning shall be added to this one. If you wish to discuss aspects of the display of the image of the cartoons, please do so in a civil manner by posting in the image discussion area of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controve...
Do not unilaterally remove images or add image warnings. Thanks!
If you wish to avoid seeing the image of the cartoons on this article, follow these steps: * Create an account * Go to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mypage/monobook.css?action=edit * Add #mi{display: none;}
Afterwards the image will not show. Following these steps does not edit the article itself, just how it is presented to you personally. However there is a slight risk of disrupting your browser's presentation of other articles which contain similar code. Further details are available on the above Image-Display Talk Page.
It's more or less decided those will stay there "for some indefinite future".
Ultimately on the various foundation sites, everything remains negotiable in perpetuity. But "in the forseeable future, where no substantial change to the foundation's goals & purpose takes place", yes I'd reject the idea of removing them from Commons, for instance
WilyD