Hello,
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely removed an insult on their religious belief.
I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
One of those self-proclaimed free speech proponents deleted that page, filed a report on the Administrators' noticeboard and threatend to block me indefinitely should I recreate that article in any fashion. After some fruitless discussion on WP:AN/I, where I consented to change the title, I decided to file a Deletion review
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldi...
which itself got removed after administrators commented "Keep this shit deleted" respectively "Why are we discussing this unspeakable crap?" merely 9 hours after I created it. It truely lets me doubt the "free speech" motives of administrators, if they have to censor people they disagree with.
[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims]] Zoe reports the deletion of my critique on 22 May
[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week]] block report by Zoe on 26 May, where he lists diffs where I allegedly personally attacked him.
Btw. I have never claimed, that any administrator is a persecutor of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]], that I consider the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits.
best regards
If you raise enough hell you can get in a mess even when you are right. Next time just express your opinion and let it go if folks don't agree.
Fred
On May 27, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Hello,
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely removed an insult on their religious belief.
I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
One of those self-proclaimed free speech proponents deleted that page, filed a report on the Administrators' noticeboard and threatend to block me indefinitely should I recreate that article in any fashion. After some fruitless discussion on WP:AN/I, where I consented to change the title, I decided to file a Deletion review
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=55213632#User:Raphael1.2FPersecu tion_of_Muslims
which itself got removed after administrators commented "Keep this shit deleted" respectively "Why are we discussing this unspeakable crap?" merely 9 hours after I created it. It truely lets me doubt the "free speech" motives of administrators, if they have to censor people they disagree with.
[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims]] Zoe reports the deletion of my critique on 22 May
[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week]] block report by Zoe on 26 May, where he lists diffs where I allegedly personally attacked him.
Btw. I have never claimed, that any administrator is a persecutor of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]], that I consider the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits.
best regards
Raphael _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Should just plain ban, he's trying to start up "Wikipedians for Decency" all over again
-Selina
On 27/05/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
If you raise enough hell you can get in a mess even when you are right. Next time just express your opinion and let it go if folks don't agree.
Fred
On May 27, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Hello,
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely removed an insult on their religious belief.
I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
One of those self-proclaimed free speech proponents deleted that page, filed a report on the Administrators' noticeboard and threatend to block me indefinitely should I recreate that article in any fashion. After some fruitless discussion on WP:AN/I, where I consented to change the title, I decided to file a Deletion review
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=55213632#User:Raphael1.2FPersecu tion_of_Muslims
which itself got removed after administrators commented "Keep this shit deleted" respectively "Why are we discussing this unspeakable crap?" merely 9 hours after I created it. It truely lets me doubt the "free speech" motives of administrators, if they have to censor people they disagree with.
[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims]] Zoe reports the deletion of my critique on 22 May
[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week]] block report by Zoe on 26 May, where he lists diffs where I allegedly personally attacked him.
Btw. I have never claimed, that any administrator is a persecutor of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]], that I consider the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits.
best regards
Raphael
Raphael, if the images affect you so much, why not use monobook to hide that image?
Will "Sceptre" Noble wrote:
Raphael, if the images affect you so much, why not use monobook to hide that image?
Because it is not the images which affect me, it is the way Wikipedia publishes them. I could certainly close my eyes and pretend they don't exist, but that wouldn't change anything.
@Selina: Yes, I am trying to add decency to this project and (more importantly) I don't want that project to fail in becoming an intercultural encyclopedia. Unfortunately I'm getting the impression, that my efforts aren't appreciated. If you prefer to write an indecent encyclopedia, where editors of a "foreign" faith or culture aren't welcome, just say so and I won't bother you again.
On 29/05/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Will "Sceptre" Noble wrote:
Raphael, if the images affect you so much, why not use monobook to hide
that
image?
Because it is not the images which affect me, it is the way Wikipedia publishes them. I could certainly close my eyes and pretend they don't exist, but that wouldn't change anything.
@Selina: Yes, I am trying to add decency to this project and (more importantly) I don't want that project to fail in becoming an intercultural encyclopedia. Unfortunately I'm getting the impression, that my efforts aren't appreciated. If you prefer to write an indecent encyclopedia, where editors of a "foreign" faith or culture aren't welcome, just say so and I won't bother you again.
-- Raphael
If people feel unable to read or contribute to a project that has things that don't agree with the theology of their own personal religion, they're not suitable for working on ANY secular project.
Having things critical of religion on Wikipedia is not the same as " "foreign" faiths or cultures aren't welcome" at all.
If people simply cannot cope and have a temper tantrum when they see anything in their religion criticised (ala. the Mohammed cartoons), maybe they should set up a strictly religious Wiki where the thin-skinned and reactionary can "safely" contribute.
-Selina
Selina . wrote:
If people feel unable to read or contribute to a project that has things that don't agree with the theology of their own personal religion, they're not suitable for working on ANY secular project.
Agree
Having things critical of religion on Wikipedia is not the same as " "foreign" faiths or cultures aren't welcome" at all.
Agree
If people simply cannot cope and have a temper tantrum when they see anything in their religion criticised (ala. the Mohammed cartoons), maybe they should set up a strictly religious Wiki where the thin-skinned and reactionary can "safely" contribute.
I wonder how you can expect people not to feel at least irritated, if their religion gets criticized. Calling them reactionary is the kind of arrogance, which unnecessarily heats up the debate.
I strongly disagree, that the Mohammed cartoons are merely a critique on Islam. Instead they consist of mockery on Mohammed, an insult (one of the cartoons states: "Prophet, you crazy bloke!") and insinuate Mohammed an his followers to be terrorists.
You might prefer only unreligious people to contribute to Wikipedia, but that would result in a big loss too, since religious topics wouldn't be covered a quarter as good. Furthermore is it especially bad to write a one-sided article on a controversy.
Yes, critique on religions should be included in Wikipedia, but WP:NPOV does not mean to call those who disagree vandals and block them, if they deem the "critique" a respectless insult and remove it. This is what I was refering to, when I wrote "foreign faiths or cultures aren't welcome".
On 5/30/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote: <snip>
Yes, critique on religions should be included in Wikipedia, but WP:NPOV does not mean to call those who disagree vandals and block them, if they deem the "critique" a respectless insult and remove it. This is what I was refering to, when I wrote "foreign faiths or cultures aren't welcome".
You say "critique on religions should be included in Wikipedia", then immediately afterwards say those people that remove it should not be called vandals. Removal of appropriate material is considered vandalism, and repeatedly doing so may result in a block. Do you not think it should be so? I don't really want to get into *this* specific debate, I was just a little confused about what you wrote. Thanks. --LV
Lord Voldemort wrote:
On 5/30/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
<snip> > Yes, critique on religions should be included in Wikipedia, > but WP:NPOV does not mean to call those who disagree vandals > and block them, if they deem the "critique" a respectless > insult and remove it. This is what I was refering to, when > I wrote "foreign faiths or cultures aren't welcome".
You say "critique on religions should be included in Wikipedia", then immediately afterwards say those people that remove it should not be called vandals. Removal of appropriate material is considered vandalism, and repeatedly doing so may result in a block. Do you not think it should be so? I don't really want to get into *this* specific debate, I was just a little confused about what you wrote. Thanks.
There's a difference between fair, accurate and reasonable critique and stereotyped hostility. The former should be included, the latter should be removed. It's not always easy to differenciate between the two, but you can easily see, that it's the latter, if it is itself not subject to critique respectively if people who disagree are blocked before even discussing their issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
What do you mean by "even when you are right"? Aren't you interested to find out, whether I am right?
If I am right, letting those admins go on blocking editors would be very bad for Wikipedia as it would shift the bias even more. To be honest the english Wikipedia would have to change it's NPOV policy and explicitly state, that it is "purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an American POV" (which seems to be very anti-Muslim nowadays).
You are right that putting insulting pictures on Wikipedia was a bad idea. Why so many of our users have a blind spot regarding this issue I don't know, but there is a consensus that the pictures ought to be shown. When a consensus develops, it is best to simply register your dissent and move on. You do not need to ever agree, but you are not entitled to keep agitating over the issue.
The need to block a whole bunch of outraged users who would try to remove the cartoons is one of the consequences of what I think was a bad decision, but once made, the decision is going to be enforced. Those who are enforcing the decision are just enforcing a community decision.
There is a point of view issue, but it is not so much American as one of free expression, really a part of the zeitgeist, of which Wikipedia is an expression. While I may not wish to publish the cartoons because I can anticipate the pain of those who may be hurt by it, the authority of Islam to forbid expression is generally rejected.
Fred
On May 27, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
What do you mean by "even when you are right"? Aren't you interested to find out, whether I am right?
If I am right, letting those admins go on blocking editors would be very bad for Wikipedia as it would shift the bias even more. To be honest the english Wikipedia would have to change it's NPOV policy and explicitly state, that it is "purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an American POV" (which seems to be very anti-Muslim nowadays).
-- Raphael
Fred Bauder wrote:
If you raise enough hell you can get in a mess even when you are right. Next time just express your opinion and let it go if folks don't agree.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
You are right that putting insulting pictures on Wikipedia was a bad idea. Why so many of our users have a blind spot regarding this issue I don't know, but there is a consensus that the pictures ought to be shown. When a consensus develops, it is best to simply register your dissent and move on. You do not need to ever agree, but you are not entitled to keep agitating over the issue.
Many of "our users" never showed up again after that poll: http://www.dartblog.com/data/004950.html http://penumbra604.livejournal.com/25659.html ...
The need to block a whole bunch of outraged users who would try to remove the cartoons is one of the consequences of what I think was a bad decision, but once made, the decision is going to be enforced. Those who are enforcing the decision are just enforcing a community decision.
What about WP:NBD and "WP:NOT a democracy" policies? Are we now an Ochlocracy resp. Mobocracy instead, and the admins are supposed to enforce the "mobs" decision?
There is a point of view issue, but it is not so much American as one of free expression, really a part of the zeitgeist, of which Wikipedia is an expression. While I may not wish to publish the cartoons because I can anticipate the pain of those who may be hurt by it, the authority of Islam to forbid expression is generally rejected.
Isn't there some kind of logical fallacy (non sequitur) here?
A => B Since Islam limits free speech, Muslims refrain from
insulting any of their prophets.
reject A: We value free expression and reject any authority which limits free speech.
=> reject B: We have to insult Muhammad.
What about this example:
Laws in the country, where I live, limit free speech. For example it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust.
I value free expression and reject any authority which limits free speech.
=> I have to deny the Holocaust.
Or an example from the U.S.:
In 1992, the US Supreme Court ruled that the burning of crosses is not generally protected by the First Amendment. If we value free expression, are we now supposed to join the KKK?
On 5/28/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Laws in the country, where I live, limit free speech. For example it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust.
And if that prevented us from writing about holocaust denial then we would have a problem in your country.
geni wrote:
On 5/28/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Laws in the country, where I live, limit free speech. For example it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust.
And if that prevented us from writing about holocaust denial then we would have a problem in your country.
IANAL, but I don't think that this law would prevent me from writing *about* Holocaust denial, as long as it is clear, that I don't deny the Holocaust myself.
The same should IMHO apply to the J-P cartoon article:
There's no problem to write *about* insulting cartoons and the controversy following it, as long as we distance ourself from the publishing of the cartoons by i.e. moving them one click away instead of re-publishing them as we do right now.
On 5/29/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
IANAL, but I don't think that this law would prevent me from writing *about* Holocaust denial, as long as it is clear, that I don't deny the Holocaust myself.
The same should IMHO apply to the J-P cartoon article:
There's no problem to write *about* insulting cartoons and the controversy following it, as long as we distance ourself from the publishing of the cartoons by i.e. moving them one click away instead of re-publishing them as we do right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Questions_Raised_by_Holocaust_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bahaullah_from_miller.jpg
The cartoons are infomation. The information adds to the article. simular to [[Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima]].
Raphael Wegmann wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/28/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Laws in the country, where I live, limit free speech. For example it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust.
And if that prevented us from writing about holocaust denial then we would have a problem in your country.
IANAL, but I don't think that this law would prevent me from writing *about* Holocaust denial, as long as it is clear, that I don't deny the Holocaust myself.
The same should IMHO apply to the J-P cartoon article:
There's no problem to write *about* insulting cartoons and the controversy following it, as long as we distance ourself from the publishing of the cartoons by i.e. moving them one click away instead of re-publishing them as we do right now.
Indeed the law doesn't prevent us from doing so, which is why it isn't a problem for Wikipedia (whether it's a good law or not is another matter, but one that doesn't affect us). But your suggestion of not publishing the J-P cartoons isn't analogous to what we do with holocaust denial at all. Our articles *do* republish statements, cartoons, posters, and other material denying that the Holocaust occurred, as part of a general encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The article would be quite a bit worse if we were prohibited from republishing any material that could be considered Holocaust-denying, and had to just talk about it without showing any examples. I would say the same goes of the J-P cartoons.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Raphael Wegmann wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/28/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Laws in the country, where I live, limit free speech. For example it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust.
And if that prevented us from writing about holocaust denial then we would have a problem in your country.
IANAL, but I don't think that this law would prevent me from writing *about* Holocaust denial, as long as it is clear, that I don't deny the Holocaust myself.
The same should IMHO apply to the J-P cartoon article:
There's no problem to write *about* insulting cartoons and the controversy following it, as long as we distance ourself from the publishing of the cartoons by i.e. moving them one click away instead of re-publishing them as we do right now.
Indeed the law doesn't prevent us from doing so, which is why it isn't a problem for Wikipedia (whether it's a good law or not is another matter, but one that doesn't affect us). But your suggestion of not publishing the J-P cartoons isn't analogous to what we do with holocaust denial at all. Our articles *do* republish statements, cartoons, posters, and other material denying that the Holocaust occurred, as part of a general encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The article would be quite a bit worse if we were prohibited from republishing any material that could be considered Holocaust-denying, and had to just talk about it without showing any examples. I would say the same goes of the J-P cartoons.
Are you serious? Why do you think we have a separate article called Holocaust *denial*?
We don't merge those articles and state in the intro:
Supporters of the Holocaust theory have described it to be the end product of the Nazi anti-Semitic policy and argue that the Germans deliberately killed between five and six million Jews.
Critics of the Holocaust theory claim that the Nazi government had no policy of deliberately targeting Jews and deny that over five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies.
Instead we even state in the "Holocaust denial" article, that Holocaust denial is generally considered an anti-semitic conspiracy theory.
Yes, Wikipedia publishes anti-Semitic cartoons as well, but they are published on the article about "anti-Semitism" resp. "new anti-Semitism". I wouldn't complain about publishing the J-P cartoons on the Islamophobia article.
On May 29, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Yes, Wikipedia publishes anti-Semitic cartoons as well, but they are published on the article about "anti-Semitism" resp. "new anti-Semitism". I wouldn't complain about publishing the J-P cartoons on the Islamophobia article.
Wait a sec. We are talking about putting the cartoons in an article *on the J-P cartoons*, right? AFAIK, no-one is suggesting the cartoons be included in the [[Islam]] article, or even [[2005 Islamic events]] (if we have such an article). So, you think it's utterly wrong to include the cartoons in an article * devoted solely to them *, but it would be fine to include them in an article on a general subject of which they are an (arguable) example? Does this make any sense to anyone else?
Jesse Weinstein
Jesse W wrote:
On May 29, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Yes, Wikipedia publishes anti-Semitic cartoons as well, but they are published on the article about "anti-Semitism" resp. "new anti-Semitism". I wouldn't complain about publishing the J-P cartoons on the Islamophobia article.
Wait a sec. We are talking about putting the cartoons in an article *on the J-P cartoons*, right? AFAIK, no-one is suggesting the cartoons be included in the [[Islam]] article, or even [[2005 Islamic events]] (if we have such an article). So, you think it's utterly wrong to include the cartoons in an article * devoted solely to them *, but it would be fine to include them in an article on a general subject of which they are an (arguable) example? Does this make any sense to anyone else?
The article is called "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" and should report about the *controversy* surrounding the cartoons. How are we supposed to write a neutral report on this controversy, if we block the editors who feel insulted by the cartoons?
On May 30, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
The article is called "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" and should report about the *controversy* surrounding the cartoons. How are we supposed to write a neutral report on this controversy, if we block the editors who feel insulted by the cartoons?
Raphael,
The blocks may not have been against the editor(s) who felt insulted, but against the editors that disrupted the editing process by editwarring, violating the 3RR rule, etc. Was not this the case?
-- Jossi
jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On May 30, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
The article is called "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" and should report about the *controversy* surrounding the cartoons. How are we supposed to write a neutral report on this controversy, if we block the editors who feel insulted by the cartoons?
Raphael,
The blocks may not have been against the editor(s) who felt insulted, but against the editors that disrupted the editing process by editwarring, violating the 3RR rule, etc. Was not this the case?
Take a look yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/148.81.117.224 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.173.27.37 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.135.119.144
A single contribution can't be much of editwarring, can it? At least you definitely can't violate the 3RR by it.
Admins that block a users for 24 hrs without placing warning notices (minimum one, better three, have done so outside of the blocking policy. All editors, including anons, need to be warned before blocking. I would argue that Cyde Weys, could have been reminded of the procedure by placing a notice at [[WP:ANI]]
-- Jossi
On May 30, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Take a look yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/148.81.117.224 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.173.27.37 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.135.119.144
On 5/31/06, jf_wikipedia@mac.com jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
Admins that block a users for 24 hrs without placing warning notices (minimum one, better three, have done so outside of the blocking policy.
Not quite true. Other than new editors no warning is required for a 3RR block.
On 5/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/06, jf_wikipedia@mac.com jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
Admins that block a users for 24 hrs without placing warning notices (minimum one, better three, have done so outside of the blocking policy.
Not quite true. Other than new editors no warning is required for a 3RR block.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's why I block 31 and not 24 hours without warnings (chuckle)
The policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy doens't say you must warn an user, however.
Fred Bauder wrote:
You are right that putting insulting pictures on Wikipedia was a bad idea. Why so many of our users have a blind spot regarding this issue I don't know, but there is a consensus that the pictures ought to be shown.
It's hardly the case that pictures insulting to Muslims are being singled out for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if anyone still remembers, but there was a bit of an uproar in the United States a few years ago about anti-Christian artwork, and we have a photo of the piece that triggered that uproar included in the article, [[Piss Christ]].
-Mark
On 28/05/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
You are right that putting insulting pictures on Wikipedia was a bad idea. Why so many of our users have a blind spot regarding this issue I don't know, but there is a consensus that the pictures ought to be shown.
It's hardly the case that pictures insulting to Muslims are being singled out for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if anyone still remembers, but there was a bit of an uproar in the United States a few years ago about anti-Christian artwork, and we have a photo of the piece that triggered that uproar included in the article, [[Piss Christ]].
...and, indeed, this image has been used in a sustained vandalism campaign recently.
For the record, info-en has receieved complaints about the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, but it has also - at least, since the in-the-news-controversy died down - recieved about as many complaints that I've noticed about the fact that our article on Bahá'u'lláh includes a picture of him.
Delirium wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
You are right that putting insulting pictures on Wikipedia was a bad idea. Why so many of our users have a blind spot regarding this issue I don't know, but there is a consensus that the pictures ought to be shown.
It's hardly the case that pictures insulting to Muslims are being singled out for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if anyone still remembers, but there was a bit of an uproar in the United States a few years ago about anti-Christian artwork, and we have a photo of the piece that triggered that uproar included in the article, [[Piss Christ]].
IMHO you are comparing apples with oranges:
Serrano, who created this photograph, considers his work religious, not sacrilegious (or anti-Christian). He thinks, that the best place for that image is a church and states, that it had been shown in an actual church in Marseilles.
Do you think, that the cartoons would ever be shown in a mosque?
http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2002/09/shooting_the_k... http://www.slate.com/id/74144/
ACTUALLY, historically speaking and in most islamic traditions, it's no big deal. There have been many and varied portrayals of Mohammed through the centuries. Some have no problem with his portrayal, some insist that portrayals must either blank or shield his face, some insist that only Mohammed may not be depicted, and some - like the nutjobs who love to throw paint over billboards advertising women's cosmetics - insist that the portrayal of ANY human face is blasphemy.
But little things like the truth rarely get in the way of the ravings of religious nutjobs, of course.
A. Nony Mouse
On 5/28/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, they won't be, creating an image of Mohammed is generally prohibited and sacrilegious.
Fred
On May 28, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Do you think, that the cartoons would ever be shown in a mosque?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'd say, that there is a little thing you overlooked: The cartoons are not just portrayals of Mohammed, they are a pejorative portrayals.
On Sat, 27 May 2006 13:29:58 -0600, you wrote:
If you raise enough hell you can get in a mess even when you are right. Next time just express your opinion and let it go if folks don't agree.
I thought that was what we said last time?
Guy (JzG)
On May 27, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Hello,
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely removed an insult on their religious belief.
I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
Wikipedia is not a place to post lengthy tracts denouncing Wikipedia and its administrators. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia. I'm sorry this didn't seem obvious to you when you started, but it's not exactly prudent to go around attacking the people you're supposed to work with.
On 5/27/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 27, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Hello,
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely removed an insult on their religious belief.
I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
Wikipedia is not a place to post lengthy tracts denouncing Wikipedia and its administrators. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia. I'm sorry this didn't seem obvious to you when you started, but it's not exactly prudent to go around attacking the people you're supposed to work with.
Making a list of people who took an action you disagree with shouldn't be grounds for blocking, though.
Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed) consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist points of view.
Fred
On May 30, 2006, at 3:26 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
Making a list of people who took an action you disagree with shouldn't be grounds for blocking, though.
On 5/31/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed) consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist points of view.
Why should "users who have strong Islamist points of view" be treated any differently than anyone else? As long as these user follow the rules and work within the model of NPOV, etc., why should there be a problem. How do we deal with people that have stong <insert other belief system here> point of view?
I do think we should always be open to reconsideration of a decision on any particular issue. Consensus once does not mean consensus always. --LV
Lord Voldemort wrote:
On 5/31/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed) consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist points of view.
Why should "users who have strong Islamist points of view" be treated any differently than anyone else?
That's a very good question indeed. Currently they *are* treated differently, because they get blocked even if they follow the rules. You want an evidence? Please ask Zoe to restore the list I've compiled.
The fact that Raphae1 (Wegmann) spammed an almost exclusive list of Muslims about his "Persecution of Muslims" list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikipidian&diff=prev... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BhaiSaab&diff=prev&a... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arno&diff=prev&o... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rgulerdem&diff=prev&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle&diff=prev&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeremygbyrne&diff=pr... Without ever informing the actual admins on his list of his having created it, make the "hit list" comparison particularly accurate. After this "hit list" was deleted, rather than accept the deciscion to do so (which other than himself and User:Striver no one rejected) he continued on strongly trying to resurrect it (without ever having acknowledged that his initial actions were wrong). This is "bad". Raphael Wegmann, I honestly believe that you could be a positive influence on Wikipedia (particularly with regard to editing on computer/internet related topics as I've noticed you do on occassion). Your droning on is really beating on a dead horse over this and if you continue to conduct yourself as you have been and do not follow the advice of your fellow contributors as far as trying to form a consensus for your actions then it is safe to say that the likelyhood for your eventually becoming permanently blocked is very good. Sincerely, -Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
On 5/31/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed) consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist points of view.
Fred
On May 30, 2006, at 3:26 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
Making a list of people who took an action you disagree with shouldn't be grounds for blocking, though.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Scott Stevenson wrote:
The fact that Raphae1 (Wegmann) spammed an almost exclusive list of Muslims about his "Persecution of Muslims" list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikipidian&diff=prev... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BhaiSaab&diff=prev&a... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arno&diff=prev&o... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rgulerdem&diff=prev&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle&diff=prev&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeremygbyrne&diff=pr... Without ever informing the actual admins on his list of his having created it, make the "hit list" comparison particularly accurate.
Well, you did that already for me, didn't you?
After this "hit list" was deleted, rather than accept the deciscion to do so (which other than himself and User:Striver no one rejected) he continued on strongly trying to resurrect it (without ever having acknowledged that his initial actions were wrong).
I don't know how you define a "hit list", since according to http://dictionary.reference.com a "hit list" can be both, a list of potential victims and a list of designated targets, but I sincerely hope, that you don't assume I tried to compile a list of admins, who I planned to attack in the future.
<snip/>
Your droning on is really beating on a dead horse over this and if you continue to conduct yourself as you have been and do not follow the advice of your fellow contributors as far as trying to form a consensus for your actions then it is safe to say that the likelyhood for your eventually becoming permanently blocked is very good.
That sentence doesn't really make sense to me. Am I supposed to stop what you call "droning" respectively "beating on a dead horse" or am I supposed to try to form a consensus? Or is the likelyhood for becoming permanently blocked very good either way?
Hi Fred!
How comes that you consider them to be Islamists? It is not political at all, if you disagree to an insult on your personal belief.
Why don't you first consider the question of how to deal with users who compile a list, which "could have been the basis for a legitimate request for reconsideration of the decision", or whether it is correct to censor such a list?
G'day Raphael,
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely removed an insult on their religious belief.
I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
You were not being a legitimate critic. You were building a hit list. This is inappropriate. I don't personally hold the free speech views of many of our American friends, but I *do* agree with them on some important points, in particular: if you even look like you're going to re-create that page, you *will* be banned from Wikipedia. You were abusing your privileges as a Wikipedia editor, and such abuse will not be tolerated.
That is not a controversial view. This is not "censorship", it is an attempt by you to *abuse* our resources, and by Wikipedia administrators to prevent you doing so. Pull your head in and get a bloody Clue.
<snip/>
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Raphael,
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely removed an insult on their religious belief.
I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
You were not being a legitimate critic. You were building a hit list.
I wouldn't call it a hit list. It was more like a list of (virtual) victims of the J-P cartoon controversy article.
This is inappropriate.
Why?
And why isn't it inappropriate for administrators to block editors to "keep Wikipedia from my brand of censorship" (IIRC I haven't removed the cartoons since I created my account, instead I've moved them behind a link) and enforce their brand of censorship instead?
G'day Raphael,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Raphael,
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely removed an insult on their religious belief.
I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
You were not being a legitimate critic. You were building a hit list.
I wouldn't call it a hit list. It was more like a list of (virtual) victims of the J-P cartoon controversy article.
It was a list of blocks performed by administrators just doing their jobs. The list included not merely your "victims", but also the names of the administrators who you thought had abused their powers. That is a hit list.
This is inappropriate.
Why?
You honestly do not understand why a hit list is an inappropriate use of your userspace privileges? You do not know why it is frowned upon to maintain a list of users you dislike?
Whew. Well, it's incivil, disruptive, and a series of personal attacks. All of these things are considered Bad by the community as a whole, and I'm not at all sure how you managed to miss that fact.
And why isn't it inappropriate for administrators to block editors to "keep Wikipedia from my brand of censorship" (IIRC I haven't removed the cartoons since I created my account, instead I've moved them behind a link) and enforce their brand of censorship instead?
You're implying, it seems, a quotation. Who said they were "keep[ing] Wikipedia from [your] brand of censorship"?
By the way, you might have noticed that many of us, when we snip others' text, include a little note about it, like so: <snip/>. This is so that other readers will know that we aren't replying to the other fellow verbatim, when we aren't.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
<snip/>
It was a list of blocks performed by administrators just doing their jobs. The list included not merely your "victims", but also the names of the administrators who you thought had abused their powers. That is a hit list.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
This is inappropriate.
Raphael wrote:
Why?
You honestly do not understand why a hit list is an inappropriate use of your userspace privileges? You do not know why it is frowned upon to maintain a list of users you dislike?
I don't actually dislike them, instead I merely criticize some of the blocks they made to enforce a 3 month old poll result.
<snip/>
And why isn't it inappropriate for administrators to block editors to "keep Wikipedia from my brand of censorship" (IIRC I haven't removed the cartoons since I created my account, instead I've moved them behind a link) and enforce their brand of censorship instead?
You're implying, it seems, a quotation. Who said they were "keep[ing] Wikipedia from [your] brand of censorship"?
The admin who censored my critique and blocked me did: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raphael1&diff=prev&a...
<snip/>