I think "shitism" is the wrong word. Perhaps you meant "shi'a"?
On 20/02/2008, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
"Not sure if..." I think exactly because you know both worlds, islam and wikipedia, you are highly qualified to comment. And of course you are biased, to some extent we probably all are biased - but without realizing it.
" Because they consider (muslims) and believe "
I assume that you mean sunni muslims, as from further up in this discussion i understood that in shitism opinions slightly differ on this topic.
"increase its educational value, null."
May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of the illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008 4:34 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
What I think would be most useful at this point is to try and compile an informational resource about this topic, so that we can see all points of view at a glance, and try to educate people better about this topic. More information and education will help to guide more informed decisions on this topic.
Some kinds of information that we should obtain and make public are:
Not sure if I should reply considering that I'm a muslim and might be biased, but here is a reply:
- Who exactly is offended by this and why?
Who: I can say that most (not all) egyptian muslims would be offended by these pictures, either the pictures on [[Muhammed]] or the ones on jyllands posten article. Why: Because they consider (muslims) and believe that muhammed isn't like any other person whom could be depicted in a picture and humiliated by some artists. they consider him as a holy figure, like the best person ever born and the one who guided them to a better life etc. So when people start to show paintings and even worse, cartoons insulting him, they get upset and offended. they don't view it from 'free speech' 'freedom of expression' or 'freedom to write' points but rather as an insult and disrespect to them and to their religion.
- Is there a prohibition on simply having these images, or are they
only offensive when viewed by certain people? Ie, is it possible to have these images, but hold them on a page where they are not readily viewable, or only viewable after a warning?
On jyllands posten's article on arabic wikipedia, there is a warning and a link to the images.
- What are the specific uses and values of the images currently on
display? Is there significant historical context to these images, and are they closely integrated into the article?
imho, they are just there as test or challenge of wikipedia's freedom of expression and a source for (false) feel good that wikipedia is free. beside that, as a helpful illustrations that add to the articles and increase its educational value, null.
<censored> :P
--Andrew Whitworth
--user:alnokta _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- test
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l