Hi all,
Only wanted to notify you that the Acehnese Wikipedia < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%ABhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB> have plans about boycotting Wikipedia, as they say in this statement < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pola:Lhi_gamba_peukabeh_Nabi_Muhammad_saw%3E in their Main page.
--Manuelt15
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Manuelt15 Wiki manuelt15.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Only wanted to notify you that the Acehnese Wikipedia < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%ABhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB> have plans about boycotting Wikipedia, as they say in this statement < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pola:Lhi_gamba_peukabeh_Nabi_Muhammad_saw%3E in their Main page.
The template seems to be used by four of their editors - all four in the top-ten: http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Emijrp/List_of_Wikipedians_b...
-Palnatoke
On 16 July 2010 13:17, Manuelt15 Wiki manuelt15.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Only wanted to notify you that the Acehnese Wikipedia < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%ABhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB> have plans about boycotting Wikipedia, as they say in this statement < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pola:Lhi_gamba_peukabeh_Nabi_Muhammad_saw%3E in their Main page.
Is there some way this isn't a blatant repudiation of NPOV?
- d.
David wrote: Is there some way this isn't a blatant repudiation of NPOV?
According to an administrator on his talkpage, the site bans anything that violates Islamic law. I suspect the Acehnese Wikipedia isn't the only project with this rule. It would be difficult to obey it without violating NPOV at some point.
Nathan
Manuelt15 Wiki, 16/07/2010 14:17:
Only wanted to notify you that the Acehnese Wikipedia < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%ABhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB> have plans about boycotting Wikipedia, as they say in this statement < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pola:Lhi_gamba_peukabeh_Nabi_Muhammad_saw%3E in their Main page.
«boycott Wikipedia if there is fatwa from competent ulama». That's ok, we have also Cathopedia. So: bye, bye, bring your POV elsewhere.
Nemo
Simples, then. If a project refuses to enforce NPOV and "bans" itself, we remove it.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Manuelt15 Wiki, 16/07/2010 14:17:
Only wanted to notify you that the Acehnese Wikipedia < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%ABhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB>
have plans about boycotting Wikipedia, as they say in this statement < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pola:Lhi_gamba_peukabeh_Nabi_Muhammad_saw%3E
in
their Main page.
«boycott Wikipedia if there is fatwa from competent ulama». That's ok, we have also Cathopedia. So: bye, bye, bring your POV elsewhere.
Nemo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them about what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what they are to do.
The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to positive results. It is similar as if I were to say to the English language community that they have to change their way because their community consensus is incompatible with WMF official board sanctioned policies. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 July 2010 14:17, Manuelt15 Wiki manuelt15.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Only wanted to notify you that the Acehnese Wikipedia < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%ABhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB> have plans about boycotting Wikipedia, as they say in this statement < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pola:Lhi_gamba_peukabeh_Nabi_Muhammad_saw%3E in their Main page.
--Manuelt15 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them about what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what they are to do.
The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to positive results.
+1
-Chad
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them about what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what they are to do.
The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to positive results.
Yes! Talk WITH not TO. That's what collaboration is all about.
Marc Riddell
On 16 July 2010 14:44, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them about what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what they are to do. The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to positive results. It is similar as if I were to say to the English language community that they have to change their way because their community consensus is incompatible with WMF official board sanctioned policies.
All of this is quite true. Discuss, don't tell.
However: so far it hasn't even gotten to "talking to". It's just been noting that this is a blatant violation of NPOV and is highly problematic.
And ultimately, NPOV is non-negotiable if the current contributors to ace:wp want it to stay a Wikimedia project.
Do you have a problem with even noting this? Do you dispute this?
- d.
Hoi, First of all, the problem is with this template being on the main page. There is room for people to be of the opinion that insults to Muslims or Islam is not acceptable. I agree with them on this however I do not agree with them what they protest against. If they make their opinions known on their profile pages, I do not consider that there is a problem.
It is also neither their call nor your call if the Acehenese Wikipedia is to be closed. When a majority of the ace community are of this opinion they have the options to leave, not to show pictures that depict Mohammed, fork the project and continue localise MediaWiki for the Acehnese language. They can not force a closure of the ace.wikipedia nor can they prevent people from editing it.
As to querying my position with regards to the NPOV, that is first of all beside the point and secondly it can easily be considered a personal attack. I care about the values of our community and I care about this particular policy. Apparent violation of the NPOV is however no excuse for knee jerk reactions. It is no excuse for refusing to converse about such issues. Such a refusal is how you make enemies out of people who are the closest we have to friends in societies that are foreign to us. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 July 2010 16:48, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 July 2010 14:44, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them
about
what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what
they
are to do. The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to positive results. It is similar as if I were to say to the English language
community
that they have to change their way because their community consensus is incompatible with WMF official board sanctioned policies.
All of this is quite true. Discuss, don't tell.
However: so far it hasn't even gotten to "talking to". It's just been noting that this is a blatant violation of NPOV and is highly problematic.
And ultimately, NPOV is non-negotiable if the current contributors to ace:wp want it to stay a Wikimedia project.
Do you have a problem with even noting this? Do you dispute this?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
No, you seem to be misunderstanding. Let me make a clear that me questioning you on your beliefs and opinions in a respectful and neutral manner is not in any sense a personal attack. Also note that I specifically said I agree, we need to have conversations. I am not using any NPOV violations for "knee jerk reactions [and] refusing to converse about such issues". What I was pointing out is that to undermine the "action should be undertaken" argument, you used the example of en-wiki violating board-set policies, implying that en-wiki would somehow be exempt from any attempt to force it on the issue. That is categorically and obviously wrong.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, First of all, the problem is with this template being on the main page. There is room for people to be of the opinion that insults to Muslims or Islam is not acceptable. I agree with them on this however I do not agree with them what they protest against. If they make their opinions known on their profile pages, I do not consider that there is a problem.
It is also neither their call nor your call if the Acehenese Wikipedia is to be closed. When a majority of the ace community are of this opinion they have the options to leave, not to show pictures that depict Mohammed, fork the project and continue localise MediaWiki for the Acehnese language. They can not force a closure of the ace.wikipedia nor can they prevent people from editing it.
As to querying my position with regards to the NPOV, that is first of all beside the point and secondly it can easily be considered a personal attack. I care about the values of our community and I care about this particular policy. Apparent violation of the NPOV is however no excuse for knee jerk reactions. It is no excuse for refusing to converse about such issues. Such a refusal is how you make enemies out of people who are the closest we have to friends in societies that are foreign to us. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 July 2010 16:48, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 July 2010 14:44, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them
about
what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what
they
are to do. The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to positive results. It is similar as if I were to say to the English language
community
that they have to change their way because their community consensus is incompatible with WMF official board sanctioned policies.
All of this is quite true. Discuss, don't tell.
However: so far it hasn't even gotten to "talking to". It's just been noting that this is a blatant violation of NPOV and is highly problematic.
And ultimately, NPOV is non-negotiable if the current contributors to ace:wp want it to stay a Wikimedia project.
Do you have a problem with even noting this? Do you dispute this?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, I reacted in my previous mail to David Gerard.
To me it is not obvious nor categorical that board-set policies will necessarily be welcomed or accepted. I assume that new policies will be formulated that will not have the power of tradition behind them. Given that our community is rather traditionalist nowadays I expect an outcry whatever such a policy consists off. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 July 2010 17:24, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
No, you seem to be misunderstanding. Let me make a clear that me questioning you on your beliefs and opinions in a respectful and neutral manner is not in any sense a personal attack. Also note that I specifically said I agree, we need to have conversations. I am not using any NPOV violations for "knee jerk reactions [and] refusing to converse about such issues". What I was pointing out is that to undermine the "action should be undertaken" argument, you used the example of en-wiki violating board-set policies, implying that en-wiki would somehow be exempt from any attempt to force it on the issue. That is categorically and obviously wrong.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, First of all, the problem is with this template being on the main page. There is room for people to be of the opinion that insults to Muslims or Islam is not acceptable. I agree with them on this however I do not agree with them what they protest against. If they make their opinions known on their profile pages, I do not consider that there is a problem.
It is also neither their call nor your call if the Acehenese Wikipedia is to be closed. When a majority of the ace community are of this opinion they have the options to leave, not to show pictures that depict Mohammed,
fork
the project and continue localise MediaWiki for the Acehnese language.
They
can not force a closure of the ace.wikipedia nor can they prevent people from editing it.
As to querying my position with regards to the NPOV, that is first of all beside the point and secondly it can easily be considered a personal attack. I care about the values of our community and I care about this particular policy. Apparent violation of the NPOV is however no excuse for knee jerk reactions. It is no excuse for refusing to converse about such issues.
Such
a refusal is how you make enemies out of people who are the closest we
have
to friends in societies that are foreign to us. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 July 2010 16:48, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 July 2010 14:44, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with
them
about
what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about
what
they
are to do. The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to
positive
results. It is similar as if I were to say to the English language
community
that they have to change their way because their community consensus
is
incompatible with WMF official board sanctioned policies.
All of this is quite true. Discuss, don't tell.
However: so far it hasn't even gotten to "talking to". It's just been noting that this is a blatant violation of NPOV and is highly problematic.
And ultimately, NPOV is non-negotiable if the current contributors to ace:wp want it to stay a Wikimedia project.
Do you have a problem with even noting this? Do you dispute this?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them about what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what they are to do.
The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to positive results. It is similar as if I were to say to the English language community that they have to change their way because their community consensus is incompatible with WMF official board sanctioned policies.
I agree completely with Gerard, and also want to ask that we extend the same standard to this discussion on the mailing list.
We can look at this issue and say "stupid fundamentalists," but that's hardly productive, and very quickly devolves into a thread with posts that are, at best, pretty darn rude. I really don't want to have to moderate five people this weekend when it finally gets to the point of outright Muslim-bashing.
Austin
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
I agree completely with Gerard, and also want to ask that we extend the same standard to this discussion on the mailing list.
We can look at this issue and say "stupid fundamentalists," but that's hardly productive, and very quickly devolves into a thread with posts that are, at best, pretty darn rude. I really don't want to have to moderate five people this weekend when it finally gets to the point of outright Muslim-bashing.
Austin
Have a little faith. I don't think anything like outright Muslim-bashing has ever happened on this list by regular participants. Suggestions of closing the Aceh Wikipedia are obviously premature and not helpful; discussing whether the rule violates NPOV, and alerting others to facts about the situation, seems fine. It looks like the administrators involved on ace.wp speak English and other languages, anyone inclined to do so should feel welcome to approach them.
It's worth noting the template does not currently appear on the Main Page, and there is something of a discussion about it here: http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Hercule#Wikipedia_and_...
Nathan
(not responding to anyone in particular)
I agree with most of what Gerard said: we should talk with them, and be polite. What does it bring you to be right, but to scare away a community in the process? Some people might find comfort in that, I don't.
Now lets try to follow this from their point of view. The English Wikipedia adheres to US law, and probably some more. People editing any Wikipedia have to adhere to the law they are in. Now apparently these people feel that they should follow Islamitic law. So far, I guess everybody can agree that they are OK to do so. The problem comes when they try to force that onto other people. But... if the majority of a project is in a certain country - would we disallow that project to align the rules to that countries law? And if the majority feels it has to follow Islamitic law, would we say they can't add in their local rules "pictures of Mohammed are not allowed"? To be honest, if that would be what the community wants, and beliefs to be the best, who are we to tell them they can't? I can imagine that if these people have such big problems with it, also the intended audience might be insulted with those images.
So, there is one other problem: the template. I have seen worse statements on user pages, so I would not worry too much about the template itself, as long as it is restricted to that. I dont see a problem with discussion. However, using it on the main page does pose a problem. We should not be bothering our readers with internal conflicts of whatever nature. So hopefully we can talk to them about that specifically.
Is anyone in conversation with them now?
Lodewijk
2010/7/16 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
I agree completely with Gerard, and also want to ask that we extend the same standard to this discussion on the mailing list.
We can look at this issue and say "stupid fundamentalists," but that's hardly productive, and very quickly devolves into a thread with posts that are, at best, pretty darn rude. I really don't want to have to moderate five people this weekend when it finally gets to the point of outright Muslim-bashing.
Austin
Have a little faith. I don't think anything like outright Muslim-bashing has ever happened on this list by regular participants. Suggestions of closing the Aceh Wikipedia are obviously premature and not helpful; discussing whether the rule violates NPOV, and alerting others to facts about the situation, seems fine. It looks like the administrators involved on ace.wp speak English and other languages, anyone inclined to do so should feel welcome to approach them.
It's worth noting the template does not currently appear on the Main Page, and there is something of a discussion about it here:
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Hercule#Wikipedia_and_...
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*"if the majority feels it has to follow Islamitic law, would we say they can't add in their local rules "pictures of Mohammed are not allowed"*
If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a rule, as long as it remained in their local Wiki, with no attempts to force it on other wikipedia's. Every culture has its own inherent bias towards certain topics, and i don't believe that we should try to enforce a certain "Morale" on other people - in other words, country specific Wikipedia's should be granted some lenience in setting their own rules.
The limitation here should be that A) Content may not be illegal in the USA due to hosting locations, and B) Policies should not conflict with Wikipedia's goal, which is the creation of a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia.
In other words, if the ACE community (Or any other community for that matter) would suddenly start banning every user adding criticism on the Islam (or any other topic), there would be a need for intervention. We aren't trying to create another conservapedia after all.
~Excirial
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
(not responding to anyone in particular)
I agree with most of what Gerard said: we should talk with them, and be polite. What does it bring you to be right, but to scare away a community in the process? Some people might find comfort in that, I don't.
Now lets try to follow this from their point of view. The English Wikipedia adheres to US law, and probably some more. People editing any Wikipedia have to adhere to the law they are in. Now apparently these people feel that they should follow Islamitic law. So far, I guess everybody can agree that they are OK to do so. The problem comes when they try to force that onto other people. But... if the majority of a project is in a certain country - would we disallow that project to align the rules to that countries law? And if the majority feels it has to follow Islamitic law, would we say they can't add in their local rules "pictures of Mohammed are not allowed"? To be honest, if that would be what the community wants, and beliefs to be the best, who are we to tell them they can't? I can imagine that if these people have such big problems with it, also the intended audience might be insulted with those images.
So, there is one other problem: the template. I have seen worse statements on user pages, so I would not worry too much about the template itself, as long as it is restricted to that. I dont see a problem with discussion. However, using it on the main page does pose a problem. We should not be bothering our readers with internal conflicts of whatever nature. So hopefully we can talk to them about that specifically.
Is anyone in conversation with them now?
Lodewijk
2010/7/16 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
I agree completely with Gerard, and also want to ask that we extend the same standard to this discussion on the mailing list.
We can look at this issue and say "stupid fundamentalists," but that's hardly productive, and very quickly devolves into a thread with posts that are, at best, pretty darn rude. I really don't want to have to moderate five people this weekend when it finally gets to the point of outright Muslim-bashing.
Austin
Have a little faith. I don't think anything like outright Muslim-bashing has ever happened on this list by regular participants. Suggestions of closing the Aceh Wikipedia are obviously premature and not helpful; discussing whether the rule violates NPOV, and alerting others to facts about the situation, seems fine. It looks like the administrators involved on ace.wp speak English and other languages, anyone inclined to do so should feel welcome to approach them.
It's worth noting the template does not currently appear on the Main Page, and there is something of a discussion about it here:
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Hercule#Wikipedia_and_...
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wp.excirial@gmail.com wrote:
If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a rule, as long as it remained in their local Wiki, with no attempts to force it on other wikipedia's. Every culture has its own inherent bias towards certain topics, and i don't believe that we should try to enforce a certain "Morale" on other people - in other words, country specific Wikipedia's should be granted some lenience in setting their own rules.
No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. Neutral point of view is not local point of view.
- d.
No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per country, and no country owns the wiki in its language.
I'm completely agree on that and would add (to make it closer to context of Excirial wording):
... nor per country neither per culture, and no culture own no Wikipedia in no language.
I'm talking about matter of fact (see [[WP:5P]]), without any connection to whether I like that or not.
If somebody need another situation he/she should start another wiki (on Wikimedia platform or not) with different "pillars".
Sincerely,
Pavlo
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wp.excirial@gmail.com wrote:
If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a rule, as long as it remained in their local Wiki, with no attempts to force it on other wikipedia's. Every culture has its own inherent bias towards certain topics, and i don't believe that we should try to enforce a certain "Morale" on other people - in other words, country specific Wikipedia's should be granted some lenience in setting their own rules.
No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. Neutral point of view is not local point of view.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per country, and no country owns the wiki in its language.
I'm completely agree on that and would add (to make it closer to context of Excirial wording):
... nor per country neither per culture, and no culture own no Wikipedia in no language.
Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly "owned" by the Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe.
It's what makes us able to show pictures that those of another culture might be willing to kill someone for.
I think that's fine. More than fine, I would go on a march for those rights. Had I been born into a muslim family I would probably think completely differently. I don't see how the fact of my birth in one or the other can make me any more or less "neutral".
en.User:Bodnotbod
Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly "owned" by the Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe.
Well in that meaning it's true to the extent how well WP:5P reflects "Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe".
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per country, and no country owns the wiki in its language.
I'm completely agree on that and would add (to make it closer to context of Excirial wording):
... nor per country neither per culture, and no culture own no Wikipedia in no language.
Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly "owned" by the Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe.
It's what makes us able to show pictures that those of another culture might be willing to kill someone for.
I think that's fine. More than fine, I would go on a march for those rights. Had I been born into a muslim family I would probably think completely differently. I don't see how the fact of my birth in one or the other can make me any more or less "neutral".
en.User:Bodnotbod
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 16 July 2010 19:14, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly "owned" by the Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe. It's what makes us able to show pictures that those of another culture might be willing to kill someone for.
They do, however, have extensive usage from people who use them only because English is the current international auxiliary language. This has already done *wonders* to alleviate possible NPOV problems on en:wp.
- d.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:21 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly "owned" by the Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe. It's what makes us able to show pictures that those of another culture might be willing to kill someone for.
They do, however, have extensive usage from people who use them only because English is the current international auxiliary language. This has already done *wonders* to alleviate possible NPOV problems on en:wp.
Explain to me how one of these statements is neutral while the other isn't:
1. This is forbidden.
2. This is not forbidden.
It seems to me that either both are neutral or both are not neutral.
en.User:Bodnotbod
What definition of "neutral" are people using when they say the boycott template violates NPOV?
I'm struggling with this.
Where the WP servers are located, clearly it is acceptable to show pictures of Mohammed both legally and culturally.
Amongst (some of, most of?) the speakers of the language wiki it is not.
I'm not sure questions of "neutrality" are the best way to frame this argument. The two viewpoints are in direct contradiction to each other, so can it not be argued that we are not neutral because we are pushing our Western POV which says "sure, go ahead and show images of Mohammed"?
Don't misunderstand; I am hostile to pretty much all religions and would find it mildly amusing that anyone could consider murderous activity because someone published a picture if it were not that people do actually get killed over this nonsense.
My argument would be that the language wiki is supported by the WMF and that it would be absurd of the WMF to support a boycott of itself; communicate that to them as a starting point for dialogue. I need convincing that an argument from a neutrality standpoint can work.
en.User:Bodnotbod
On 16 July 2010 18:25, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. Neutral point of view is not local point of view.
The problem is not the country in this case but the ethnic group. It is unlikely that they would ever write an article on Muhammad that contained pics but I don't feel this presents a problem. That does not challenge NPOV. Subjects such as Israel, pigs and what do do about PBUH are likely to present a greater challange. However is is a common problem with most small language wikipedias since they tend to by tied to a single culture or geographic area. I suspect KW and CY have issues although probably not to the same extent.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:25 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wp.excirial@gmail.com wrote:
If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a rule, as long as it remained in their local Wiki, with no attempts to force it on other wikipedia's. Every culture has its own inherent bias towards certain topics, and i don't believe that we should try to enforce a certain "Morale" on other people - in other words, country specific Wikipedia's should be granted some lenience in setting their own rules.
No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. Neutral point of view is not local point of view.
So? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV? If not, then there apparently is some leeway, some possibility of having different rules. And if that is the case, then isn't the Wikipedia thing to do to have those be decided by the local community?
On 16 July 2010 19:08, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
Sod? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV? If not, then there apparently is some leeway, some possibility of having different rules. And if that is the case, then isn't the Wikipedia thing to do to have those be decided by the local community?
That there is ambiguity at the edges does not disprove NPOV. Day fades into night, but they're different things. This template is blatant advocacy to violate NPOV, and indeed to do so across all Wikimedia sites. They had it up on the main page, too.
It's reasonably clear that there is a deep and serious discussion very much needed regarding neutral point of view on ace:wp.
- d.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That there is ambiguity at the edges does not disprove NPOV. Day fades into night, but they're different things. This template is blatant advocacy to violate NPOV, and indeed to do so across all Wikimedia sites. They had it up on the main page, too.
So? Apparently the fact that there exists some template that is not NPOV means that we should be forcing our morals on others and not give them any leniency?
It's reasonably clear that there is a deep and serious discussion very much needed regarding neutral point of view on ace:wp.
And because there is a problem with neutral point of view somewhere we should forbid everyone to make a choice for their own?
Andre, I personally don't have a problem with the mere existence of the template. I have a huge problem with it appearing at the top of the mainpage of a Wikipedia.
-m skype: node.ue
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That there is ambiguity at the edges does not disprove NPOV. Day fades into night, but they're different things. This template is blatant advocacy to violate NPOV, and indeed to do so across all Wikimedia sites. They had it up on the main page, too.
So? Apparently the fact that there exists some template that is not NPOV means that we should be forcing our morals on others and not give them any leniency?
It's reasonably clear that there is a deep and serious discussion very much needed regarding neutral point of view on ace:wp.
And because there is a problem with neutral point of view somewhere we should forbid everyone to make a choice for their own?
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Andre, I personally don't have a problem with the mere existence of the template. I have a huge problem with it appearing at the top of the mainpage of a Wikipedia.
And the reason for telling this to me is what?
Because I felt like it? I understand this may be a disturbing issue for some, but that seemed unnecessarily hostile.
-m
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Andre, I personally don't have a problem with the mere existence of the template. I have a huge problem with it appearing at the top of the mainpage of a Wikipedia.
And the reason for telling this to me is what?
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
So? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV?
As to the best of my understanding Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may contradict to 5P.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:25 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wp.excirial@gmail.com wrote:
If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a rule, as long as it remained in their local Wiki, with no attempts to force it on other wikipedia's. Every culture has its own inherent bias towards certain topics, and i don't believe that we should try to enforce a certain "Morale" on other people - in other words, country specific Wikipedia's should be granted some lenience in setting their own rules.
No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. Neutral point of view is not local point of view.
So? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV? If not, then there apparently is some leeway, some possibility of having different rules. And if that is the case, then isn't the Wikipedia thing to do to have those be decided by the local community?
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
So? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV?
As to the best of my understanding Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may contradict to 5P.
May not contradict. That's something far different from being completely determined by it. Apparently accordingly to you and others in this thread, not just a rule to not include Mohammed depiction but any rule in Wikipedia whatsoever that is based on morality would go coutner NPOV. I disagree with that.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
As to the best of my understanding Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may contradict to 5P.
May not contradict. That's something far different from being completely determined by it.
I disagree, although it depends on your definition of "may". My reading of "no rule may contradict" is that contradiction is unacceptable in which case you are indeed "completely determined by it".
Apparently accordingly to you and others > in this thread, not just a rule to not include Mohammed depiction but any rule in Wikipedia whatsoever that is based on morality would go
But this I agree with. Whether something is forbidden or not is a product of time and place. In the UK (where I live) it was once acceptable to burn people alive. In modern Britain that would get you into trouble. If I were to travel back in time I'm not sure I could argue that my position on witches was "neutral" and therefore they should put down that flaming torch. I think I would have to seek a different form of reasoning.
en:User:Bodnotbod
coutner NPOV. I disagree with that.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
As to the best of my understanding Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may contradict to 5P.
May not contradict. That's something far different from being completely determined by it.
I disagree, although it depends on your definition of "may". My reading of "no rule may contradict" is that contradiction is unacceptable in which case you are indeed "completely determined by it".
We agree on the definition of "may", but we disagree on the definition of "determined". When I said "completely determined by NPOV", I meant that NPOV decides on exactly how the rule should look. That there would be only one decision in each case covered by the rule that conforms to NPOV. What you are talking about is not determination but compliance. Every rule has to be compliant with NPOV - but some rules could be different, or even completely opposite, without causing serious problems with it.
Apparently accordingly to you and others > in this thread, not just a rule to not include Mohammed depiction but any rule in Wikipedia whatsoever that is based on morality would go
But this I agree with. Whether something is forbidden or not is a product of time and place. In the UK (where I live) it was once acceptable to burn people alive. In modern Britain that would get you into trouble. If I were to travel back in time I'm not sure I could argue that my position on witches was "neutral" and therefore they should put down that flaming torch. I think I would have to seek a different form of reasoning.
So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it not acceptable that they use the morality of the nationality or other group that most of them belong to in doing so?
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it not acceptable that they use the morality of the nationality or other group that most of them belong to in doing so?
I think I would accept that some language wikis decide, by consensus, that they will not show illustrations of Mohammed under any circumstances.
They should not ask for a boycott of another language, though. They could have a protest page with a list of users who want to sign up to it. Sticking a banner on the main page - and worse; as the only content - I disagree with.
Paedophilia is unlawful all around the world; but let's say it were legal in one culture and an associated language wiki hosted pictures of sex acts with minors; I think en:wp would correctly be in uproar. I don't think we would respond by having the issue on our front page in any form and especially not as the single item of content.
en.User:Bodnotbod
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it not acceptable that they use the morality of the nationality or other group that most of them belong to in doing so?
I think I would accept that some language wikis decide, by consensus, that they will not show illustrations of Mohammed under any circumstances.
They should not ask for a boycott of another language, though. They could have a protest page with a list of users who want to sign up to it. Sticking a banner on the main page - and worse; as the only content - I disagree with.
Paedophilia is unlawful all around the world; but let's say it were legal in one culture and an associated language wiki hosted pictures of sex acts with minors; I think en:wp would correctly be in uproar. I don't think we would respond by having the issue on our front page in any form and especially not as the single item of content.
en.User:Bodnotbod
That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big problem, not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're doing something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tough". And you don't possess, and will never possess, an authentic image of Muhammad.
You don't listen.
Fred Bauder
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
...
That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big problem, not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're doing something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tough". And you don't possess, and will never possess, an authentic image of Muhammad.
Are our images of Muhammad any less authentic than our images of St. Paul, Jesus or Krishna?
-- John Vandenberg
+1. While I think there are many good arguments against inclusion of images of Muhammad in Wikipedia, the "false" or "unreliable" does not seem to be such an argument. We have plenty of images of Jesus and lots of other famous people of whom we have no photographic or _primary_ artistic sources...
Also, what's with the venom in some of the posts here?
-m.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:18 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
...
That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big problem, not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're doing something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tough". And you don't possess, and will never possess, an authentic image of Muhammad.
Are our images of Muhammad any less authentic than our images of St. Paul, Jesus or Krishna?
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't know Krishna case, nor Western Church, but according to the Tradition (or the Holy Tradition as the church says), thus not accoding to secular people,
- St. Paul, his portrait is described by Eusebius, who records a 2nd century account in "The History of the Church", and at least Eastern Orthodox Icon strongly has follow. - Jesus left an authentic his image as "Mandylion" ([[w:Image of Edessa]]), The-image-not-to-be-made-with-human hands, and that was main reason the Church accepted icons in the 2nd Council of Constantinople. The original was lost but authorized copies are left elsewhere.
Summarized, icons are a part of the Tradition, authorized of Our Lord Savior, and the Church has preserved or has made her best effort to preserve authentic images of the saints and Lord Himself, hence not only acceptable but worth to venerate. Shortly it's something more than okay - it is something strongly the Church has advocated for centuries.
Of course, it is point of view of Eastern Orthodox, so other people both secular and of other denominations may disagree in some of all points, and I don't want to push my POV, I'd just explain it doesn't matter.
Cheers,
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
...
That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big problem, not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're doing something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tough". And you don't possess, and will never possess, an authentic image of Muhammad.
Are our images of Muhammad any less authentic than our images of St. Paul, Jesus or Krishna?
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
...
That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big problem, not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're doing something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tough". And you don't possess, and will never possess, an authentic image of Muhammad.
Are our images of Muhammad any less authentic than our images of St. Paul, Jesus or Krishna?
-- John Vandenberg
No, they all had two eyes and a nose, but that's about all we know about any of them. Well, no, we don't know if Krishna even had those, let alone being colored blue.
Fred Bauder
I think I would accept that some language wikis decide, by consensus,
that they will not show illustrations of Mohammed under any circumstances.
They should not ask for a boycott of another language, though. They could have a protest page with a list of users who want to sign up to it. Sticking a banner on the main page - and worse; as the only content - I disagree with.
I totally agree with the above. I don't know why the discussion evolved into the rights of individual wikis to not show the images. I thought that was never in question. On the Arabic wp for example, we do not display the images by consensus, we try to describe in detail what's in them in articles pertaining to the subject, this seems to be a compromise accepted by most.
What irritated me originally was the call for boycott on the main page and the fact that the template is worded to be understood as the opinion of the Acehnese wikipedia not a group of editors/admins.
What bothers me also is the mention by someone above that there was a note that Acehnese wikipedia follows islamic law and anything that contradicts with it is not allowed. If this is true, I think this is recipe for disaster. 'Islamic law' is not really a solid law but a large spectrum of interpretation of the holy books and precedence and differs by faction, I strongly doubt that everyone using that wikipedia will have the same views of what constitutes a violation even within the same ethnic group thus it's very hard to call that a 'consensus' that we should respect and not impose 'western values' on. There is an argument on the discussion going on that wiki that all Acehnese are muslim, I can't see how they can verify the validity of such claim, religion is by choice. If someone is an Acehnese-born muslim but not a close practitioner or an atheist or convert to another religion, would his contributions be not welcome if they violate 'islamic law' (they can be as simple as writing articles about alcoholic drinks) ?
-- Best Regards, Muhammad Yahia
I think I would accept that some language wikis decide, by consensus,
that they will not show illustrations of Mohammed under any circumstances.
They should not ask for a boycott of another language, though. They could have a protest page with a list of users who want to sign up to it. Sticking a banner on the main page - and worse; as the only content - I disagree with.
I totally agree with the above. I don't know why the discussion evolved into the rights of individual wikis to not show the images. I thought that was never in question. On the Arabic wp for example, we do not display the images by consensus, we try to describe in detail what's in them in articles pertaining to the subject, this seems to be a compromise accepted by most.
What irritated me originally was the call for boycott on the main page and the fact that the template is worded to be understood as the opinion of the Acehnese wikipedia not a group of editors/admins.
What bothers me also is the mention by someone above that there was a note that Acehnese wikipedia follows islamic law and anything that contradicts with it is not allowed. If this is true, I think this is recipe for disaster. 'Islamic law' is not really a solid law but a large spectrum of interpretation of the holy books and precedence and differs by faction, I strongly doubt that everyone using that wikipedia will have the same views of what constitutes a violation even within the same ethnic group thus it's very hard to call that a 'consensus' that we should respect and not impose 'western values' on. There is an argument on the discussion going on that wiki that all Acehnese are muslim, I can't see how they can verify the validity of such claim, religion is by choice. If someone is an Acehnese-born muslim but not a close practitioner or an atheist or convert to another religion, would his contributions be not welcome if they violate 'islamic law' (they can be as simple as writing articles about alcoholic drinks) ?
-- Best Regards, Muhammad Yahia
Yes, the notion that Sharia controls is troublesome, as is the request for a fatwa. A fatwa that explicitly addresses images of Muhammad in Wikipedia either way would be kind of ridiculous and would not meet with general acceptance. My point is that we don't need to needlessly offend by posting images we know are not authentic.
Fred Bauder
So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it not acceptable that they use the morality of the nationality or other group that most of them belong to in doing so?
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.
Second: You know millions of Muslims find images of Mohammad extremely offensive.
So we are talking about whether it is OK to exclude offensive nonsenses, not about excluding valid information. And yeh, God said not to display false images. In what way does that commandment differ from Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Is it wrong because God said it? You would be all over them if they had articles that said New York City was in Finland but you seem to have no problem with images of a man whose appearance is unknown, and unknowable.
Fred Bauder
*First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images which display any god or prophet?
*Second: You know millions of Muslims find images of Mohammad extremely offensive. * Christians (And then i am mostly talking about fundamental Christians) are offended by our page on evolution which they deem absolute nonsense and heresy. Hardline atheists are offended by any religions, arguing that people who follow them are deluded. And did i already mention that some people are extremely offended by our images placed on sexual topics? And so we can go on and on, as there are many groups of people who deem something offensive or gross.
One course of action would be abiding to each groups whims, and removing all content that they deem offensive. We would end up with something entirely child friendly, which would also be entirely useless as it is severely lacking in multiple area's. We could also take an impartial stance and add as much content as we can, so long as it serves some educational value. If someone doesn't want to see or read a subject they can block the images, or they can evade it altogether. This way people who DO wish to know more about a subject can learn about it, without having to worry that another group has been censoring it. Of course we should apply the exact same rules to every group, and walk with care when deciding on these kind of issues to prevent needless insulting.
*So we are talking about whether it is OK to exclude offensive nonsenses, not about excluding valid information. And yeh, God said not to display false images. In what way does that commandment differ from Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Is it wrong because God said it? You would be all over them if they had articles that said New York City was in Finland but you seem to have no problem with images of a man whose appearance is unknown, and unknowable.*
Are you arguing that the images don't contain valid information? We have an entire article describing the "Depictions of Muhammed" trough the ages, and i think it is an entirely valid topic to include in an encyclopedia. The rest of the analogy you are making is simply besides the point. We can easily verify that New York is in the USA, so it would be a clear error that is easy to correct. The images of Muhammad are as they are described, mere depictions of a person / prophet made in later centuries. We don't know his appearance any better then we know the appearance of Zeushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus, Loki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokior Wodanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wodan. Still, the depiction of Gods, Prophets and other religious figures is a valid enough topic to include in an encyclopedia. Would you argue that we should remove all images from religion related article's because there is no certainty what someone or something looked like? We might as well extend it to area's outside religion then, as many images are artist impressions made in later ages.
*In what way does that commandment differ from Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Is it wrong because God said it*? The difference is that WP:RS is a Wikipedia policy that has to be followed by everyone editing the encyclopedia, while the commandment is a rule that applies to a limited group of people outside the encyclopedia. As i said, we shouldn't be following every groups whims simply because they don't like something. To put it like this: If the pastafarians (Worshipers of the flying spaghetti monster) suddenly decide that each page concerning their god should contain a plate of spaghetti, would be abide to them? In other words, our role is to be impartial and provide encyclopedic information in the broadest sense of the word, with no influence from politics, religion or personal bias.
*They should have common sense and not put images up in a reference work which are both offensive and false.* If you care to check the article title it says "Depictions" which are, i cite out article on "depiction": *Pictures may be factual or fictional, literal or metaphorical, realistic or idealised and in various combination.* * *There is a many topics which rely on artist impressions drawn in later ages - the images aren't false, they are just impressions with historical significance. I can repeat myself over and over, but the path of common sense is allowing people to choose whether or not they wish to view certain content.
But to get back to the ACE topic: I agree they may decide that they do not wish to include these depictions; Not including it isn't a NPOV problem in my eyes so they are free to decide what they wish on that regard. But that does not give them the right to demand the same for other Wiki's who had extensive talks on this subject. And equally placing "Boycot" notices on the mainpage with biased content is against everything Wikipedia stands for.
~Excirial
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it not acceptable that they use the morality of the nationality or other group that most of them belong to in doing so?
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images which display any god or prophet?
Yes, there are photographs of Joseph Smith, Jr. and of Bahá'u'lláh a prophet of the Bahá'í Faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h#Photograph
Of gods, no, unless you count Hindu deities.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haidakhandefwary.JPG
*Second: You know millions of Muslims find images of Mohammad extremely offensive. * Christians (And then i am mostly talking about fundamental Christians) are offended by our page on evolution which they deem absolute nonsense and heresy. Hardline atheists are offended by any religions, arguing that people who follow them are deluded. And did i already mention that some people are extremely offended by our images placed on sexual topics? And so we can go on and on, as there are many groups of people who deem something offensive or gross.
One course of action would be abiding to each groups whims, and removing all content that they deem offensive. We would end up with something entirely child friendly, which would also be entirely useless as it is severely lacking in multiple area's. We could also take an impartial stance and add as much content as we can, so long as it serves some educational value. If someone doesn't want to see or read a subject they can block the images, or they can evade it altogether. This way people who DO wish to know more about a subject can learn about it, without having to worry that another group has been censoring it. Of course we should apply the exact same rules to every group, and walk with care when deciding on these kind of issues to prevent needless insulting.
Yes, there are alternatives to religious beliefs. In this case the alternative is the view that offensive bogus images should be displayed. Saying that is fine; doing it another.
*So we are talking about whether it is OK to exclude offensive nonsenses, not about excluding valid information. And yeh, God said not to display false images. In what way does that commandment differ from Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Is it wrong because God said it? You would be all over them if they had articles that said New York City was in Finland but you seem to have no problem with images of a man whose appearance is unknown, and unknowable.*
Are you arguing that the images don't contain valid information? We have an entire article describing the "Depictions of Muhammed" trough the ages, and i think it is an entirely valid topic to include in an encyclopedia. The rest of the analogy you are making is simply besides the point. We can easily verify that New York is in the USA, so it would be a clear error that is easy to correct. The images of Muhammad are as they are described, mere depictions of a person / prophet made in later centuries. We don't know his appearance any better then we know the appearance of Zeushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus, Loki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokior Wodanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wodan. Still, the depiction of Gods, Prophets and other religious figures is a valid enough topic to include in an encyclopedia. Would you argue that we should remove all images from religion related article's because there is no certainty what someone or something looked like? We might as well extend it to area's outside religion then, as many images are artist impressions made in later ages.
Yes, there are even depictions of God as an angry grey-haired old man. And we do illustrate our article about God with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Conceptions_of_God
It's no different from an image of Paris that includes the Chrysler Building.
*In what way does that commandment differ from Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Is it wrong because God said it*? The difference is that WP:RS is a Wikipedia policy that has to be followed by everyone editing the encyclopedia, while the commandment is a rule that applies to a limited group of people outside the encyclopedia. As i said, we shouldn't be following every groups whims simply because they don't like something. To put it like this: If the pastafarians (Worshipers of the flying spaghetti monster) suddenly decide that each page concerning their god should contain a plate of spaghetti, would be abide to them? In other words, our role is to be impartial and provide encyclopedic information in the broadest sense of the word, with no influence from politics, religion or personal bias.
Wikipeia:Reliable sources IS policy. There are no authentic images of Muhammad. Including one outside the realm of art is a violation of the policy.
*They should have common sense and not put images up in a reference work which are both offensive and false.* If you care to check the article title it says "Depictions" which are, i cite out article on "depiction": *Pictures may be factual or fictional, literal or metaphorical, realistic or idealised and in various combination.*
- *There is a many topics which rely on artist impressions drawn in later
ages - the images aren't false, they are just impressions with historical significance. I can repeat myself over and over, but the path of common sense is allowing people to choose whether or not they wish to view certain content.
Bottom line: Made up stuff is being included.
But to get back to the ACE topic: I agree they may decide that they do not wish to include these depictions; Not including it isn't a NPOV problem in my eyes so they are free to decide what they wish on that regard. But that does not give them the right to demand the same for other Wiki's who had extensive talks on this subject. And equally placing "Boycot" notices on the mainpage with biased content is against everything Wikipedia stands for.
~Excirial
Wikipedia operates by consensus, not "We are the imperial powers which control world culture"
Fred Bauder
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it not acceptable that they use the morality of the nationality or other group that most of them belong to in doing so?
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*Yes, there are alternatives to religious beliefs. In this case the alternative is the view that offensive bogus images should be displayed. Saying that is fine; doing it another.* <SNIP> *Wikipedia:Reliable sources IS policy. There are no authentic images of Muhammad. Including one outside the realm of art is a violation of the policy.* *Yes, there are even depictions of God as an angry grey-haired old man. And we do illustrate our article about God with it.* * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Conceptions_of_God It's no different from an image of Paris that includes the Chrysler Building.*
You are making one crucial mistake in your reasoning here. The core of "Depictions of Muhammed", as well as "God The Father in Western Art" is that they display depictions or artist impressions of a certain concept, in this case gods and prophets. We never claim that these are actual, accurate images of religious people - we claim that this is the way artists have portrayed them over the centuries. The images themselves are not bogus, as we can clearly verify their orgins. For example, the text accompanying ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maome.jpg) says this: "*The Prophet Muhammad http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Muhammad, 17th century Ottoman copy of an early 14th century (Ilkhanate period) manuscript of Northwestern Iran or northern Iraq (the "Edinburgh codex"). Illustration of Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnīhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab%C5%AB_Rayh%C4%81n_al-B%C4%ABr%C5%ABn%C4%AB's **al-Âthâr al-bâqiyahhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/al-%C3%82th%C3%A2r_al-b%C3%A2qiyah( الآثار الباقيةة ; "The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries") *"
All we claim is that in the fourteenth century someone depicted Muhammed like this, while equally adding a warning that this depiction is a copy made at a later date (Which means that colors and so can vary, due to using different dyes and techniques). We do, in no way, claim that these are images of gods and prophets - we claim that this is the way humans depicted them throughout history. That is the crucial difference between bogus and fact; Has we claimed this is the way Muhammed looked we would be spreading a blatant lie as there is no way of knowing this; Instead we show what humans think he looked like.
*Bottom line: Made up stuff is being included.* Exactly; We include data that has historic relevance, whether or not it is accurate. We actually have an entire list of hoaxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hoaxeswhich are all topics made up by humans. However, have a look at WP:Hoax => Hoaxes v. Article's about hoaxeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hoax#Hoaxes_v._articles_about_hoaxes. The difference between a hoax and an article about a hoax is the way it is worded. The same applies to the ages old depictions of muhammed debate, though this isn't exactly a hoax article. We show images that depict Muhammad, and we clearly indicate that these are historical artist impressions, rather then factual representations.
~Excirial
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
*First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images which display any god or prophet?
Yes, there are photographs of Joseph Smith, Jr. and of Bahá'u'lláh a prophet of the Bahá'í Faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h#Photograph
Of gods, no, unless you count Hindu deities.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haidakhandefwary.JPG
*Second: You know millions of Muslims find images of Mohammad extremely offensive. * Christians (And then i am mostly talking about fundamental Christians) are offended by our page on evolution which they deem absolute nonsense and heresy. Hardline atheists are offended by any religions, arguing that people who follow them are deluded. And did i already mention that some people are extremely offended by our images placed on sexual topics? And so we can go on and on, as there are many groups of people who deem something offensive or gross.
One course of action would be abiding to each groups whims, and removing all content that they deem offensive. We would end up with something entirely child friendly, which would also be entirely useless as it is severely lacking in multiple area's. We could also take an impartial stance and add as much content as we can, so long as it serves some educational value. If someone doesn't want to see or read a subject they can block the images, or they can evade it altogether. This way people who DO wish to know more about a subject can learn about it, without having to worry that another group has been censoring it. Of course we should apply the exact same rules to every group, and walk with care when deciding on these kind of issues to prevent needless insulting.
Yes, there are alternatives to religious beliefs. In this case the alternative is the view that offensive bogus images should be displayed. Saying that is fine; doing it another.
*So we are talking about whether it is OK to exclude offensive nonsenses, not about excluding valid information. And yeh, God said not to display false images. In what way does that commandment differ from Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Is it wrong because God said it? You would be all over them if they had articles that said New York City was in Finland but you seem to have no problem with images of a man whose appearance is unknown, and unknowable.*
Are you arguing that the images don't contain valid information? We have an entire article describing the "Depictions of Muhammed" trough the ages, and i think it is an entirely valid topic to include in an encyclopedia. The rest of the analogy you are making is simply besides the point. We can easily verify that New York is in the USA, so it would be a clear error that is easy to correct. The images of Muhammad are as they are described, mere depictions of a person / prophet made in later centuries. We don't know his appearance any better then we know the appearance of Zeushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus, Loki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokior Wodanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wodan. Still, the depiction of Gods, Prophets and other religious figures is a valid enough topic to include in an encyclopedia. Would you argue that we should remove all images from religion related article's because there is no certainty what someone or something looked like? We might as well extend it to area's outside religion then, as many images are artist impressions made in later ages.
Yes, there are even depictions of God as an angry grey-haired old man. And we do illustrate our article about God with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Conceptions_of_God
It's no different from an image of Paris that includes the Chrysler Building.
*In what way does that commandment differ from Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Is it wrong because God said it*? The difference is that WP:RS is a Wikipedia policy that has to be followed by everyone editing the encyclopedia, while the commandment is a rule that applies to a limited group of people outside the encyclopedia. As i said, we shouldn't be following every groups whims simply because they don't like something. To put it like this: If the pastafarians (Worshipers of the flying spaghetti monster) suddenly decide that each page concerning their god should contain a plate of spaghetti, would be abide to them? In other words, our role is to be impartial and provide encyclopedic information in the broadest sense of the word, with no influence from politics, religion or personal bias.
Wikipeia:Reliable sources IS policy. There are no authentic images of Muhammad. Including one outside the realm of art is a violation of the policy.
*They should have common sense and not put images up in a reference work which are both offensive and false.* If you care to check the article title it says "Depictions" which are, i cite out article on "depiction": *Pictures may be factual or fictional, literal or metaphorical, realistic or idealised and in various combination.*
- *There is a many topics which rely on artist impressions drawn in later
ages - the images aren't false, they are just impressions with historical significance. I can repeat myself over and over, but the path of common sense is allowing people to choose whether or not they wish to view certain content.
Bottom line: Made up stuff is being included.
But to get back to the ACE topic: I agree they may decide that they do not wish to include these depictions; Not including it isn't a NPOV problem in my eyes so they are free to decide what they wish on that regard. But that does not give them the right to demand the same for other Wiki's who had extensive talks on this subject. And equally placing "Boycot" notices on the mainpage with biased content is against everything Wikipedia stands for.
~Excirial
Wikipedia operates by consensus, not "We are the imperial powers which control world culture"
Fred Bauder
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it not acceptable that they use the morality of the nationality or other group that most of them belong to in doing so?
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Excirial wrote:
*First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images which display any god or prophet?
Do they not have traditional images that go back millennia? If you depicted images of Shiva as Yoda you'd get a whole load of grief from Hindus, and the Christians were none too pleased about the image of christ being fucked by a Roman Centurian (see Whitehouse v Lemon).
Oh and I'll just mention in passing that wikimedia doesn't have nearly enough photos of 'Baby Jesus Butt Plugs', nor are there anywhere near enough drawings of Western politicians engaging in bestiality. I'm sure that there are oodles of those out there, I know an artist friend of mine draw a number of Ronald Reagun sucking a horses dick and shitting nuclear missiles. Perhaps I'll take some scans and add them to:
Excirial wrote:
*First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images which display any god or prophet?
Do they not have traditional images that go back millennia? If you depicted images of Shiva as Yoda you'd get a whole load of grief from Hindus, and the Christians were none too pleased about the image of christ being fucked by a Roman Centurian (see Whitehouse v Lemon).
Oh and I'll just mention in passing that wikimedia doesn't have nearly enough photos of 'Baby Jesus Butt Plugs', nor are there anywhere near enough drawings of Western politicians engaging in bestiality. I'm sure that there are oodles of those out there, I know an artist friend of mine draw a number of Ronald Reagun sucking a horses dick and shitting nuclear missiles. Perhaps I'll take some scans and add them to:
Yes, indeed.
What is wrong with using photographs of Baby Jesus Butt Plugs to illustrate the article on Jesus? Answer that question and you'll know why offensive images of Muhammad are not a good idea. The thing is, we're saying, "Hey, come off of it, no real harm is done is there are images of Muhammad" Why doesn't the same reasoning apply to the butt plugs? No real harm would be done. Or would there?
Fred Bauder
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:06 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
... I know an artist friend of mine draw a number of Ronald Reagun sucking a horses dick and shitting nuclear missiles. Perhaps I'll take some scans and add them to:
Yes, indeed.
What is wrong with using photographs of Baby Jesus Butt Plugs to illustrate the article on Jesus? Answer that question and you'll know why offensive images of Muhammad are not a good idea. The thing is, we're saying, "Hey, come off of it, no real harm is done is there are images of Muhammad" Why doesn't the same reasoning apply to the butt plugs? No real harm would be done. Or would there?
Fred, how about you write an article about Baby Jesus Butt Plugs, and then you can try to justify the importance of including images of them in the article about Jesus.
If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are images of an object which is held in a university library or museum, _because_they_are_important_.
-- John Vandenberg
John Vandenberg wrote:
in the article about Jesus.
If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are images of an object which is held in a university library or museum, _because_they_are_important_.
Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
in the article about Jesus.
If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are images of an object which is held in a university library or museum, _because_they_are_important_.
Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the references in that article actually display the image and are far more informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The wikipedia article also does not address the image in any way which would necessitate displaying it. There is no discussion on the lighting, or anything else about the photograph.
One is left wondering why it is that the article [[Goatse.cx]] article does not actually show the goatse image.
Mark Williamson wrote:
Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
in the article about Jesus.
If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are images of an object which is held in a university library or museum, _because_they_are_important_.
Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
I'm not sure what's so unreasonable about including an image of an art work in the article about it. I would not be against the use of the goatse.cx image in that article, although we'd have to make sure to not allow it to be used outside of that page (to prevent vandalism).
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 5:54 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the references in that article actually display the image and are far more informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The wikipedia article also does not address the image in any way which would necessitate displaying it. There is no discussion on the lighting, or anything else about the photograph.
One is left wondering why it is that the article [[Goatse.cx]] article does not actually show the goatse image.
Mark Williamson wrote:
Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
in the article about Jesus.
If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are images of an object which is held in a university library or museum, _because_they_are_important_.
Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17 July 2010 14:13, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what's so unreasonable about including an image of an art work in the article about it. I would not be against the use of the goatse.cx image in that article, although we'd have to make sure to not allow it to be used outside of that page (to prevent vandalism).
Indeed. The main reason it's not there (on the restricted list for the reason you describe) is its unknown copyright status. (It's widely used by people, but Wikimedia demands rather more.) We could arguably make it fair use, as the most famous shock image, but for some reason no-one can really be bothered to push it through ...
- d.
*The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the references in that article actually display the image and are far more informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The wikipedia article also does not address the image in any way which would necessitate displaying it. There is no discussion on the lighting, or anything else about the photograph.*
The image in question, or rather the "piece of art" it depicts is the reason that sparked the entire controversy around it. Ergo: Without that piece of art there would have been no controversy, and thus no need at all for an article so it would say it is quite relevant at least. That doesn't mean that i am a fan of this image; Frankly, i believe that calling a glass of pee with a plastic crucifix "art" is an insult to all the historical works that have been considered art - it certainly doesn't belong into the category of masterpieces classical painters made. * One is left wondering why it is that the article [[Goatse.cx]] article does not actually show the goatse image.* See this discussionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png, though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx. In essence the image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)
*The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to display an image that is known to offend* The purpose of an encyclopedia is to record history, which means that significant subjects are included. We are not here to cast a judgment on subjects that are recorded, nor are we here to write or rewrite history itself. Some aspects of this recording duty will be deemed unpleasant by some people, such as this piece of art, the depictions of Muhammad, the monkey-darwin in the evolution article and so on. However, keep the historical perspective in mind; if everything does correctly Wikipedia will still be here in 50, 100 years (And perhaps even much longer). After all that time we will likely still have documentation that covers the outrage Muhammed's cartoon page sparked; However, around that time no one would have seen the original images without the images themselves the contextual significance could be lost.
As said before, we should merely document relevant data, without casting a personal judgment onto them. Not liking image or page XYZ is not a reason to remove them, provided there is historical significance attached to them. As said before - it we delete everything that could insult someone we would have little content left. The better course of action is to handle such content responsibly.
~Excirial
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:54 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the references in that article actually display the image and are far more informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The wikipedia article also does not address the image in any way which would necessitate displaying it. There is no discussion on the lighting, or anything else about the photograph.
One is left wondering why it is that the article [[Goatse.cx]] article does not actually show the goatse image.
Mark Williamson wrote:
Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
in the article about Jesus.
If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are images of an object which is held in a university library or museum, _because_they_are_important_.
Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?
Piss Christ was an artistic-political controversy.
Fred Bauder
*There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an encyclopedia. 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't erase them from history. 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked.
As said before, we should be careful with content that could be deemed offensive, to prevent needless friction - For example we shouldn't be placing images of Muhammad on article's that have only a partial relation with him, such as "Prophets of Islam". In other words, the are in which they are posted should be contained, but not exterminated.
~Excirial
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?
Piss Christ was an artistic-political controversy.
Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
- We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If
we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on.
It's the very core of the whole this issue. That's why it's so ...mission critical to stay very firm with WP:5P with all due respect to all and every particular group.
Sincerely,
Pavlo
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Excirial wp.excirial@gmail.com wrote:
*There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
- It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
encyclopedia. 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't erase them from history. 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked.
As said before, we should be careful with content that could be deemed offensive, to prevent needless friction - For example we shouldn't be placing images of Muhammad on article's that have only a partial relation with him, such as "Prophets of Islam". In other words, the are in which they are posted should be contained, but not exterminated.
~Excirial
Seconded, particularly (2). The line I use with OTRS and other complainants about muhammad images is simply that; that we cannot favour one particular group, because we'd have to favour a second, and so on - the end result is removing everything anyone could ever find offensive.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Excirial wp.excirial@gmail.com wrote:
*There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
- It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
encyclopedia. 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't erase them from history. 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked.
As said before, we should be careful with content that could be deemed offensive, to prevent needless friction - For example we shouldn't be placing images of Muhammad on article's that have only a partial relation with him, such as "Prophets of Islam". In other words, the are in which they are posted should be contained, but not exterminated.
~Excirial
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?
Piss Christ was an artistic-political controversy.
Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Excirial wrote:
*There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
- It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
encyclopedia.
By all means do so. But there is no reason to include the image. Others managed to convey the controversy without doing so. In addition being a web page you have the option to provide a link to the image rather than embedding it. Its not as if the wikipage actually needs the image at all.
- We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If
we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't erase them from history.
Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of all images?
- The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't
offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked.
So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-200... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg
using those images has been declared fair-use. Even The Piss Christ images is similarly 'fair-used'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.j...
So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.
Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You could call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki decides not to show some particular image then so be it. There is no problem with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article wording, image inclusion, style guidelines... The only problem I see is that the main page of a WMF site being used to make a statement about another site (which happens to also be a WMF site). This I do not consider to be acceptable. It is outside the scope of "the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content" that the WMF claims to be about. Regardless of if acewiki has a problem with another site, they should not be using the main page of Wikipedia to air their grievances.
Prodego
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Excirial wrote:
*There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact
it
is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider
it a
mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
- It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
encyclopedia.
By all means do so. But there is no reason to include the image. Others managed to convey the controversy without doing so. In addition being a web page you have the option to provide a link to the image rather than embedding it. Its not as if the wikipage actually needs the image at all.
- We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception.
If
we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't erase them from history.
Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of all images?
- The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who
aren't
offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger
group
outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be
blocked.
So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-200... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg
using those images has been declared fair-use. Even The Piss Christ images is similarly 'fair-used'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.j...
So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
There is no problem with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article wording
Is that really so?
... and please don't mix that with personal, by own choice made editorial decision(s)
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Prodego prodego@gmail.com wrote:
Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You could call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki decides not to show some particular image then so be it. There is no problem with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article wording, image inclusion, style guidelines... The only problem I see is that the main page of a WMF site being used to make a statement about another site (which happens to also be a WMF site). This I do not consider to be acceptable. It is outside the scope of "the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content" that the WMF claims to be about. Regardless of if acewiki has a problem with another site, they should not be using the main page of Wikipedia to air their grievances.
Prodego
There are some constraints on what is written - it is supposed to be a neutrally presented encyclopedia. But if a particular wiki's community comes to a different conclusion than another on what is neutral than another, who is to say which one is "right"? 'What is neutral?' is one of the things collaborative editing is supposed to determine.
Prodego
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.comwrote:
There is no problem with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article wording
Is that really so?
... and please don't mix that with personal, by own choice made editorial decision(s)
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Prodego prodego@gmail.com wrote:
Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You
could
call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki decides not to show some particular image then so be it. There is no
problem
with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article wording, image inclusion, style guidelines... The only problem I see is
that
the main page of a WMF site being used to make a statement about another site (which happens to also be a WMF site). This I do not consider to be acceptable. It is outside the scope of "the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content" that the WMF claims to be
about.
Regardless of if acewiki has a problem with another site, they should not
be
using the main page of Wikipedia to air their grievances.
Prodego
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Oh well, if any community is completely free to define what is neutral... :(
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Prodego prodego@gmail.com wrote:
There are some constraints on what is written - it is supposed to be a neutrally presented encyclopedia. But if a particular wiki's community comes to a different conclusion than another on what is neutral than another, who is to say which one is "right"? 'What is neutral?' is one of the things collaborative editing is supposed to determine.
Prodego
I don't think any community, even one from a majority Muslim nation, could reasonably consider following the doctrine of a particular Islamic sect with no other considerations "neutral". Anyone who things "neutral point of view" means "consider the ONE ACCEPTABLE POINT OF VIEW TO US AS INDIVIDUALS" is barking.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.comwrote:
Oh well, if any community is completely free to define what is neutral... :(
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Prodego prodego@gmail.com wrote:
There are some constraints on what is written - it is supposed to be a neutrally presented encyclopedia. But if a particular wiki's community
comes
to a different conclusion than another on what is neutral than another,
who
is to say which one is "right"? 'What is neutral?' is one of the things collaborative editing is supposed to determine.
Prodego
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The community of each wiki can decide which illustrations are best for a certain article, true.
Using foundation resources (banner, cpu, bandwidth) to campaign against other foundation projects should be avoided. Protest against decisions of WMF is one thing, lobbying against a whole WMF project is something else.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Prodego prodego@gmail.com wrote:
Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You could call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki decides not to show some particular image then so be it. There is no problem with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article wording, image inclusion, style guidelines... The only problem I see is that the main page of a WMF site being used to make a statement about another site (which happens to also be a WMF site). This I do not consider to be acceptable. It is outside the scope of "the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content" that the WMF claims to be about. Regardless of if acewiki has a problem with another site, they should not be using the main page of Wikipedia to air their grievances.
Prodego
*Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of all images?*
See the FAQ section on Talk:Muhammadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad, which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing that exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is quite prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.
*So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:*
I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally commented on it. To quote myself: "See this discussionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png, though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx. In essence the image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.
*So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.* If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you make, please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that such comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity between other parties, and because they scream "AGF" Besides this you might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx images, so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.
Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you keep it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the previous one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more "Digging one's heels in the soil".
~Excirial
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:01 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Excirial wrote:
*There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact
it
is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider
it a
mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
- It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
encyclopedia.
By all means do so. But there is no reason to include the image. Others managed to convey the controversy without doing so. In addition being a web page you have the option to provide a link to the image rather than embedding it. Its not as if the wikipage actually needs the image at all.
- We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception.
If
we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't erase them from history.
Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of all images?
- The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who
aren't
offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger
group
outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be
blocked.
So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-200... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg
using those images has been declared fair-use. Even The Piss Christ images is similarly 'fair-used'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.j...
So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Excirial wrote:
*Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of all images?*
See the FAQ section on Talk:Muhammadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad, which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing that exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is quite prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.
That only works for people with accounts that have already been offended, that speak English, that have managed to find the FAQ, and that are computer literate. IOW out of the billion or so target audience for offense, about zero.
*So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:*
I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally commented on it. To quote myself: "See this discussionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png, though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx. In essence the image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.
What a complete load of twaddle. NFCC has not stopped the use of Piss Christ, nor has it stopped the use of any of the controversial Mohammed images. In all those cases a textural description of the image would suffice. The person in the goatse image is unidentifiable, and the image has been on the web for 10 years. Where are the privacy concerns? So I'm still calling bullshit, as it looks that thin justification was simply found to remove that image.
*So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.* If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you make, please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that such comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity between other parties, and because they scream "AGF"
And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except that you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File...
Besides this you might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx images, so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.
The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.
Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you keep it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the previous one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more "Digging one's heels in the soil".
And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?
*And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except that you do.*
Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out. Would you argue that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious figures throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose? Why is the external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason against including them? Man could equally argue that their broad availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start pre-filtering topics and content on a WP:ITBOTHERSMEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITBOTHERSME basis we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense from many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is the borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"?
And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as they serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend for me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal attacks? But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value, there is no way to compromise.
*The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.* Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria? If those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be taken - simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic - be it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action after all. * And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?*
My intention here is to have a friendly, sensible argument that may or may not reach some form of agreement (Its a mailing list, so consensus cannot really be formed here). It is natural that one defends his own stance, but trough friendly conversation at least some compromise should be reachable.
As for the image on "Piss Christ": I would argue that if something sparks controversy, we should be detailing what the controversy is about. The inclusion of the image gives the reader an impression as to whether something was deemed offensive. Also, keep in mind that we are not filtering content simply because it is deemed offensive - after all, who defines what is offensive? Offensiveness inherently relies upon a judgment, and judgments are inherently PoV. As i said again and again - we should thread lightly with such images, and make sure that they are *only* in article's where a reader should expect such an illustration. If Muhammed would be on the Islam page the image should be removed. If Piss-Christ would be on a christianity article, it should be removed.
As for the image size - i didn't exactly decide it should be that large, but i agree there is no reason at all to size it up. I believe that it might origionally have been upsized for layout reasons, so that the "reception" section would be entirely next to it. Since it is preferable to allow the selection of thumbnail sizes trough "My preferences" i simply shrunk the image to its preferred size. But tell me - why didn't you simply do this yourself when you made that observation? Thumb's are certainly preferable, so i don't think that changing it would count as controversial.
~Excirial
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:36 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Excirial wrote:
*Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of
selected
images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking
of
all images?*
See the FAQ section on Talk:Muhammadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad, which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing
that
exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is
quite
prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.
That only works for people with accounts that have already been offended, that speak English, that have managed to find the FAQ, and that are computer literate. IOW out of the billion or so target audience for offense, about zero.
*So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says
that
its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a
problem
in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining
about:*
I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally
commented
on it. To quote myself: "See this discussion<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File...
, though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the
article
talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx. In essence the image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not
reliably
determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.
What a complete load of twaddle. NFCC has not stopped the use of Piss Christ, nor has it stopped the use of any of the controversial Mohammed images. In all those cases a textural description of the image would suffice. The person in the goatse image is unidentifiable, and the image has been on the web for 10 years. Where are the privacy concerns? So I'm still calling bullshit, as it looks that thin justification was simply found to remove that image.
*So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the
issue
of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.* If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you
make,
please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that
such
comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity between other parties, and because they scream "AGF"
And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except that you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File...
Besides this you might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx
images,
so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.
The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.
Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you
keep
it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the
previous
one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up
a
flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm
interested
to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more
"Digging
one's heels in the soil".
And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Excirial wrote:
*And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except that you do.*
Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out.
Explain what historic value reposting offensive images has? Just because someone creates an image that causes a fuss, is no reason to reproduce that image in order to document the fuss. Especially when one can simply describe the image.
Would you argue that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious figures throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose? Why is the external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason against including them?
Why no screencap images from the Nick Berg video? Is that of less importance than the "Draw mohammed day" image?
Man could equally argue that their broad availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start pre-filtering topics and content on a WP:ITBOTHERSMEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITBOTHERSME basis we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense from many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is the borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"?
And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as they serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend for me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal attacks? But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value, there is no way to compromise.
Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words, taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others religious beliefs.
*The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.* Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria? If those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be taken
- simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic - be
it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action after all.
And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?*
No cartoon images of Olmert?
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/anti_se...
It appears that about the only images on wikimedia are those by Latuff. Are such images not of equal importance as images of Mohammed?
*Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words, taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others religious beliefs.*
I see the irony that someone speaks out against personal attacks, while at the same time deeming that he himself has a right to make them. I just wonder what the bigger irony is - someone speaking out against all perceived personal attacks while *granting himself* an exemption to do as he pleases, or someone speaking out against censorship while applying the same rules and thoughts indiscriminate.
*No cartoon images of Olmert? http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/anti_se... appears that about the only images on wikimedia are those by Latuff. Are such images not of equal importance as images of Mohammed? Why no screencap images from the Nick Berg video? Is that of less importance than the "Draw mohammed day" image?*
WP:SOFIXIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. If those received similar press coverage in reliable sources, and if they fit under NFCC or another license, do go ahead and add them, as long as they meet BLP and other respective guidelines. What is the point of complaining about those - or about the image size on piss christ - if you are also discussion Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *that everyone can edit*?
Either way, i believe i am done discussing this issue with you. There is no indication that this discussion will end up in anything else then a string of personal attacks and accusations of hypocrisy, favor-ism and whatnot. If you firmly believe that my only inclusion goal for those images is offending people, then there is no way - nor reason - to convince you otherwise, nor is there a reason to argue about the merits and risks of including these images if my arguments will simply be filed under "Hypocrite defending personal attacks, not worth considering".
~Excirial
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Excirial wrote:
*And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any
one
of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling.
Except
that you do.*
Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out.
Explain what historic value reposting offensive images has? Just because someone creates an image that causes a fuss, is no reason to reproduce that image in order to document the fuss. Especially when one can simply describe the image.
Would you argue that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious
figures
throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose? Why is the external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason against including them?
Why no screencap images from the Nick Berg video? Is that of less importance than the "Draw mohammed day" image?
Man could equally argue that their broad availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start pre-filtering topics and content on a WP:ITBOTHERSMEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITBOTHERSME basis we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense
from
many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is
the
borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"?
And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as
they
serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend
for
me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal
attacks?
But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value, there is no way to compromise.
Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words, taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others religious beliefs.
*The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons
aren't
applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.* Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria?
If
those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be
taken
- simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic -
be
it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action after all.
And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the
muslim
connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display
the
"Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar
of
urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain
why
the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it
is
so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?*
No cartoon images of Olmert?
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/anti_se...
It appears that about the only images on wikimedia are those by Latuff. Are such images not of equal importance as images of Mohammed?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Excirial wrote:
*Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words, taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others religious beliefs.*
I see the irony that someone speaks out against personal attacks, while at the same time deeming that he himself has a right to make them. I just wonder what the bigger irony is - someone speaking out against all perceived personal attacks while *granting himself* an exemption to do as he pleases, or someone speaking out against censorship while applying the same rules and thoughts indiscriminate.
Have you not worked out that you are being give a taste of your own dog food. That you find it slightly unpleasant is not really surprising.
As another update to this situation, all admins on acewiki have now been desysoped, and the template removed.
Prodego
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:41 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Excirial wrote:
*Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words, taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others religious beliefs.*
I see the irony that someone speaks out against personal attacks, while
at
the same time deeming that he himself has a right to make them. I just wonder what the bigger irony is - someone speaking out against all
perceived
personal attacks while *granting himself* an exemption to do as he
pleases,
or someone speaking out against censorship while applying the same rules
and
thoughts indiscriminate.
Have you not worked out that you are being give a taste of your own dog food. That you find it slightly unpleasant is not really surprising.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
For those interested:
There is currently a centralized discussion on meta regarding this issue: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/ace.wikipedia_and_Prophe...
I don't think that anyone has linked it here so far, but its its redundant i apologize for wasting people's time.
~Excirial
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:35 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Prodego wrote:
As another update to this situation, all admins on acewiki have now been desysoped, and the template removed.
Well done that will certainly show the natives who wears the boots.
Prodego forgot to mention that that was after an edit war and the blocking of a few stewards and global sysops. *That's* why they were desysoped, not because they had a view conflicting with ours.
Yes, that had been mentioned in Excirial's update though. In addition to being for edit warring, they are also expected to be temporary.
Prodego
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:35 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Prodego wrote:
As another update to this situation, all admins on acewiki have now been desysoped, and the template removed.
Well done that will certainly show the natives who wears the boots.
Prodego forgot to mention that that was after an edit war and the blocking of a few stewards and global sysops. *That's* why they were desysoped, not because they had a view conflicting with ours.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:35 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Prodego wrote:
As another update to this situation, all admins on acewiki have now been desysoped, and the template removed.
Well done that will certainly show the natives who wears the boots.
Prodego forgot to mention that that was after an edit war and the blocking of a few stewards and global sysops. *That's* why they were desysoped, not because they had a view conflicting with ours.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
To be fair the original "emergency" desysop of the project proposer and probably most active user Si_Gam_Acèh was done for the edit warring on the main page http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB&action=hist...http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB&action=history last night.
There were no blocks of stewards or global sysops etc before that desysop. I'm going to be honest when I say I think the other sysops responses were more reactions to THAT desysop then anything else. I posted on the RfC right after I saw that last night and was very worried it would only go downhill after it :/. The only thing I see coming out of this at the moment is "proof" that we are indeed pushing our own opinion on the local community and as many problems I see with the template I'm not sure this is being handled well :(.
James
If you think about it, one could interpret consensus as pushing one groups opinion on another. Doesn't make it wrong.
-Dan
On Jul 18, 2010, at 5:21 PM, James Alexander wrote:
The only thing I see coming out of this at the moment is "proof" that we are indeed pushing our own opinion on the local community and as many problems I see with the template I'm not sure this is being handled well :(.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
If you think about it, one could interpret consensus as pushing one groups opinion on another. Doesn't make it wrong.
-Dan
I agree, that is exactly what consensus is :) I just don't we want to
pretend otherwise.
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.comwrote:
I agree, that is exactly what consensus is :) I just don't we want to
pretend otherwise.
James, you just made my cerebellum fuse.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM, James Alexander <jamesofur@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree, that is exactly what consensus is :) I just don't we want to
pretend otherwise.
James, you just made my cerebellum fuse.
-- ~Keegan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*want us to pretend? /me sighs and kicks iphone
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com
On 18 July 2010 10:10, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Excirial wrote:
*And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except that you do.*
Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out.
Explain what historic value reposting offensive images has? Just because someone creates an image that causes a fuss, is no reason to reproduce that image in order to document the fuss. Especially when one can simply describe the image.
Would you argue that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious figures throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose? Why is the external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason against including them?
Why no screencap images from the Nick Berg video? Is that of less importance than the "Draw mohammed day" image?
Man could equally argue that their broad availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start pre-filtering topics and content on a WP:ITBOTHERSMEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITBOTHERSME basis we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense from many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is the borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"?
And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as they serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend for me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal attacks? But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value, there is no way to compromise.
Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words, taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others religious beliefs.
*The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.* Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria? If those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be taken
- simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic - be
it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action after all.
And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?*
No cartoon images of Olmert?
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/anti_se...
It appears that about the only images on wikimedia are those by Latuff. Are such images not of equal importance as images of Mohammed?
You are arguing in the wrong place. A very large debate has already taken place on this issue and consensus has been reached. Nothing you can say on this mailing list will impact that. If you really think you have something new to bring to the debate the correct place to raise the matter is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images
You are arguing in the wrong place. A very large debate has already taken place on this issue and consensus has been reached. Nothing you can say on this mailing list will impact that. If you really think you have something new to bring to the debate the correct place to raise the matter is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images
-- geni
If something is wrong there is never consensus about it.
Fred
Don't censor except when "you" do? That's one of the problems with this thread, it seems everything's been made personal. I don't censor anything. I was not involved in the debate about deleting the goatse image, nor have I been much involved in the Muhammad debate, but I am a firm believer in non-censorship on WP. It's not as if I saw the goatse image and said "I need to find a reason for this to be deleted"; I'd rather it be there than not.
-m
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:36 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Excirial wrote:
*Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of all images?*
See the FAQ section on Talk:Muhammadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad, which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing that exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is quite prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.
That only works for people with accounts that have already been offended, that speak English, that have managed to find the FAQ, and that are computer literate. IOW out of the billion or so target audience for offense, about zero.
*So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:*
I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally commented on it. To quote myself: "See this discussionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png, though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx. In essence the image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.
What a complete load of twaddle. NFCC has not stopped the use of Piss Christ, nor has it stopped the use of any of the controversial Mohammed images. In all those cases a textural description of the image would suffice. The person in the goatse image is unidentifiable, and the image has been on the web for 10 years. Where are the privacy concerns? So I'm still calling bullshit, as it looks that thin justification was simply found to remove that image.
*So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.* If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you make, please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that such comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity between other parties, and because they scream "AGF"
And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except that you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File...
Besides this you might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx images, so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.
The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.
Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you keep it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the previous one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more "Digging one's heels in the soil".
And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Just another general update/comment.
It seems that the template is back once again at the ace.wiki mainpage, after another removal by a steward earlier. This time it is accompanied by a "Wheel-warring" notice, with a request that removal of the template is discussed prior to doing so. The reason for adding this additional template is posted herehttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h#Wheel_war_on_main_page .
Besides this, there are several other area's where the issue is currently being discussed. - This areahttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A8dia:B%C3%A8k_peuhina_Islamseems to be a vote where people discuss the inclusion of the template on the main page. Since Google cannot handle the language used i am not certain though. - This section on a talk pagehttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h#Please_do_not_revert_the_main_page_statediscusses the issue (In english). However, it seems to be a somewhat circular discussion where group A says that the template shouldn't be placed there for NPOV reasons, while the other group says that the addition of those images on En.Wiki is not NPOV. - The last discussionhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit:%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB#DELETE_IMAGES_INSULTING_PROPHET_MUHAMMAD_PBUH_FROM_WIKIPEDIAseems to be mainly inactive, as it contains only one or two posts detailing whether or not the template should be there.
I believe that we are currently left with two issues: A) May a wiki main page be used to suggest the boycott of another Wikimedia project if there is on-wiki concensus on adding such a template? B) If this isn't allowed, what should be done about it, since it would appear that we currently have a wheel war back and forth. Based on the three votes currently cast and the total size of the community, i would equally say that we can be sure that disallowing it would override local consensus.
Note that B is an optional issue. If the template is allowed there is no secondary concern.
~Excirial
"Wiki-list", the huge glaring difference is that the goatse.cx image is a pornographic image and we were unable to identify the subject of it, which raises potential privacy concerns. Please don't accuse me of hypocrisy as I am personally in favor of including that image in that article.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Excirial wrote:
*There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
- It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
encyclopedia.
By all means do so. But there is no reason to include the image. Others managed to convey the controversy without doing so. In addition being a web page you have the option to provide a link to the image rather than embedding it. Its not as if the wikipage actually needs the image at all.
- We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If
we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't erase them from history.
Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of all images?
- The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't
offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked.
So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-200... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg
using those images has been declared fair-use. Even The Piss Christ images is similarly 'fair-used'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.j...
So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
"Wiki-list", the huge glaring difference is that the goatse.cx image is a pornographic image and we were unable to identify the subject of it, which raises potential privacy concerns. Please don't accuse me of hypocrisy as I am personally in favor of including that image in that article.
And you have identified all the subjects here? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_%28male%29
I think not.
"You" - again, this is not (or at least it should not) be about ME and YOU. I did not upload any of those images, I did not vote for (or against - I didn't know the vote was taking place) the deletion of the Goatse image, I'm merely stating the reason it was deleted. We have rules, some of our pages may break those rules, but all that means is they should be fixed so the rules are applied more consistently.
-m
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 5:14 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
"Wiki-list", the huge glaring difference is that the goatse.cx image is a pornographic image and we were unable to identify the subject of it, which raises potential privacy concerns. Please don't accuse me of hypocrisy as I am personally in favor of including that image in that article.
And you have identified all the subjects here? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_%28male%29
I think not.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
"You" - again, this is not (or at least it should not) be about ME and YOU. I did not upload any of those images, I did not vote for (or against - I didn't know the vote was taking place) the deletion of the Goatse image, I'm merely stating the reason it was deleted. We have rules, some of our pages may break those rules, but all that means is they should be fixed so the rules are applied more consistently.
I'm not messing about with pronouns and butchering sense. But if it makes one feel better *You* as in the hegemony that decided to justify the goatse deletion for reasons, that if applied consistently would dictate the deletion of most of the other porn images too.
Now go and be equally insistent in the application of rules being applied to those images, as you are in your insistence that other offensive non-porn images are kept.
On 17 July 2010 12:40, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
in the article about Jesus.
If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are images of an object which is held in a university library or museum, _because_they_are_important_.
Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
This turns out not to be the case. In practice, anything that is even *purported* to be an image of Mohammed is condemned.
(And, as the article on the history of such images notes - this is a modern POV of one particularly noisy and violent group rather than a constant over the history of Islam.)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 17 July 2010 12:40, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
in the article about Jesus.
If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are images of an object which is held in a university library or museum, _because_they_are_important_.
Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
This turns out not to be the case. In practice, anything that is even *purported* to be an image of Mohammed is condemned.
When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell?
Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell?
Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity.
The first link goes to the "depictions of Muhammad" article, which includes all kinds of images and not just obviously offensive ones. The idea of banning images of Muhammad is not limited to just this template on Aceh Wikipedia - they didn't invent it, it's an article of Islamic faith that *all* images of Muhammad are prohibited. On the English Wikipedia there have been many, many debates (and protests, boycotts, online petitions, etc.) about whether and how the [[Muhammad]] article should be illustrated with images of its subject.
Nathan
Actually, to clarify; it's a particular Islamic sect which has a problem. A lot of the smaller groups really don't care.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell?
Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of
dignity.
The first link goes to the "depictions of Muhammad" article, which includes all kinds of images and not just obviously offensive ones. The idea of banning images of Muhammad is not limited to just this template on Aceh Wikipedia - they didn't invent it, it's an article of Islamic faith that *all* images of Muhammad are prohibited. On the English Wikipedia there have been many, many debates (and protests, boycotts, online petitions, etc.) about whether and how the [[Muhammad]] article should be illustrated with images of its subject.
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell?
Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity.
The first link goes to the "depictions of Muhammad" article, which includes all kinds of images and not just obviously offensive ones. The idea of banning images of Muhammad is not limited to just this template on Aceh Wikipedia - they didn't invent it, it's an article of Islamic faith that *all* images of Muhammad are prohibited. On the English Wikipedia there have been many, many debates (and protests, boycotts, online petitions, etc.) about whether and how the [[Muhammad]] article should be illustrated with images of its subject.
They link to example pages that *contain insulting* images they do not say that each and every image on those pages is insulting. Also they do not link to the main article on Muhammad which does contain images but not insulting ones. You'd think would have singled out the main article if it was *every* image.
This turns out not to be the case. In practice, anything that is even *purported* to be an image of Mohammed is condemned.
(And, as the article on the history of such images notes - this is a modern POV of one particularly noisy and violent group rather than a constant over the history of Islam.)
- d.
Well, we should not bow before noise and violence. However, there is a substantial body of Muslim public opinion that holds this view today.
Fred Bauder
I was raised areligious and I see a clear difference there. On the one hand, you're talking about portraying a religious figure on a sex toy; on the other hand you're just talking about portraying a religious figure. Just on the grounds of being offensive, I don't think either should be excluded from WP (we have a page about and an image of Piss Christ and I'd not be against things far more offensive than that, so long as they serve an illustrative purpose and their inclusion can be justified). However, while I think it's perfectly reasonable to include later depictions (many, though not all, of them from _within_ that particular religious tradition itself in the case of Muhammad) in the main article on the religious figure, I don't think it's reasonable to include the buttplugs. I'd have no problem with them going in the article [[Baby Jesus Buttplugs]], but I can't see how they can be considered to be more notable than the hundreds of far more famous depictions of that particular individual. Similarly, I wouldn't support the inclusion of many of the more recent images of Muhammad - such as some of the more controversial ones from Jyllands-Posten - because rather than simply depicting the individual, they go far beyond that. Many people around the world are offended (including for religious reasons) by sexual immodesty, yet we have lots of images of nude people and images demonstrating sexual acts. Images of certain animals are offensive to certain cultures. Wikipedia is not censored; to me, that means we use any non-illegal images that serve to illustrate an article. Despite my lack of reverence for Jesus, however, I don't think those two cases are analogous.
-m skype: node.ue
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Excirial wrote:
*First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images which display any god or prophet?
Do they not have traditional images that go back millennia? If you depicted images of Shiva as Yoda you'd get a whole load of grief from Hindus, and the Christians were none too pleased about the image of christ being fucked by a Roman Centurian (see Whitehouse v Lemon).
Oh and I'll just mention in passing that wikimedia doesn't have nearly enough photos of 'Baby Jesus Butt Plugs', nor are there anywhere near enough drawings of Western politicians engaging in bestiality. I'm sure that there are oodles of those out there, I know an artist friend of mine draw a number of Ronald Reagun sucking a horses dick and shitting nuclear missiles. Perhaps I'll take some scans and add them to:
Yes, indeed.
What is wrong with using photographs of Baby Jesus Butt Plugs to illustrate the article on Jesus? Answer that question and you'll know why offensive images of Muhammad are not a good idea. The thing is, we're saying, "Hey, come off of it, no real harm is done is there are images of Muhammad" Why doesn't the same reasoning apply to the butt plugs? No real harm would be done. Or would there?
Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 07/17/2010 04:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.
There are no authentic images of most characters from the Bible. Yet I believe at least 1 % of works of art on Commons contain them.
--vvv
There is a difference between using an image of Charlton Heston to illustrate The Ten Commandments (1956 film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ten_Commandments_%281956_film%29
and Moses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses
You say it all when you say "works of art"
Additionally, no one riots in the streets when you illustrate the article on Moses with all sorts of made up images.
Fred Bauder
Except the problem is that at no point do they mention law; it's entirely personal opinions. If they said "oh btw, the law in our nation creates problems with images of Muhammad" then cool, fine, it's justified. Arguing that images should be deleted not because of the law but because they find it personally offensive, and stating that all Muslim wikipedians should follow the same rules, is inappropriate.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
(not responding to anyone in particular)
I agree with most of what Gerard said: we should talk with them, and be polite. What does it bring you to be right, but to scare away a community in the process? Some people might find comfort in that, I don't.
Now lets try to follow this from their point of view. The English Wikipedia adheres to US law, and probably some more. People editing any Wikipedia have to adhere to the law they are in. Now apparently these people feel that they should follow Islamitic law. So far, I guess everybody can agree that they are OK to do so. The problem comes when they try to force that onto other people. But... if the majority of a project is in a certain country - would we disallow that project to align the rules to that countries law? And if the majority feels it has to follow Islamitic law, would we say they can't add in their local rules "pictures of Mohammed are not allowed"? To be honest, if that would be what the community wants, and beliefs to be the best, who are we to tell them they can't? I can imagine that if these people have such big problems with it, also the intended audience might be insulted with those images.
So, there is one other problem: the template. I have seen worse statements on user pages, so I would not worry too much about the template itself, as long as it is restricted to that. I dont see a problem with discussion. However, using it on the main page does pose a problem. We should not be bothering our readers with internal conflicts of whatever nature. So hopefully we can talk to them about that specifically.
Is anyone in conversation with them now?
Lodewijk
2010/7/16 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
I agree completely with Gerard, and also want to ask that we extend the same standard to this discussion on the mailing list.
We can look at this issue and say "stupid fundamentalists," but that's hardly productive, and very quickly devolves into a thread with posts that are, at best, pretty darn rude. I really don't want to have to moderate five people this weekend when it finally gets to the point of outright Muslim-bashing.
Austin
Have a little faith. I don't think anything like outright Muslim-bashing has ever happened on this list by regular participants. Suggestions of closing the Aceh Wikipedia are obviously premature and not helpful; discussing whether the rule violates NPOV, and alerting others to facts about the situation, seems fine. It looks like the administrators involved on ace.wp speak English and other languages, anyone inclined to do so should feel welcome to approach them.
It's worth noting the template does not currently appear on the Main Page, and there is something of a discussion about it here:
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Hercule#Wikipedia_and_...
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Except the problem is that at no point do they mention law; it's entirely personal opinions.
The prohibition against illustrating Mohammed in (some?) muslim culture is no more a "personal opinion" than a decision we would make not to show, for example, certain sexual imagery or images of violence; there's certainly imagery in those realms that wouldn't be illegal to show but the community would agree that we shouldn't.
On 16 July 2010 22:57, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
The prohibition against illustrating Mohammed in (some?) muslim culture is no more a "personal opinion" than a decision we would make not to show, for example, certain sexual imagery or images of violence; there's certainly imagery in those realms that wouldn't be illegal to show but the community would agree that we shouldn't.
It turns out this is actually quite historically inaccurate. I understand there is a popular online encyclopedia with an extensive article on the topic, enumerating and describing the various points of view on the topic.
- d.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:02 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The prohibition against illustrating Mohammed in (some?) muslim culture is no more a "personal opinion" than a decision we would make not to show, for example, certain sexual imagery or images of violence; there's certainly imagery in those realms that wouldn't be illegal to show but the community would agree that we shouldn't.
It turns out this is actually quite historically inaccurate.
You're asserting that the prohibition against showing an image of Mohammed can be adequately described as a "personal opinion"?
understand there is a popular online encyclopedia
It's very well to get cute. I'll put it down to Friday night festivities. But I'd accept it with more grace if you're able, since you're here, to answer my question earlier. If we are taking this argument on as an NPOV issue; which of these is neutral and which is not:
1. This is forbidden.
2. This is not forbidden.
As I say, I think if one is regarded as neutral then so must the other. And if one is regarded as a POV then so must the other.
I don't say this to brow beat you. I think it's an interesting and relevant question and I'd be interested to know what people think. . We're all aware that Wikimedia is now a global organisation and we all hope that it continues to expand. I would assume that issues like this one are going to crop up more often in various forms. So, since we are confronted with the Mohammed issue today I think it's well worth thinking how we are to approach these things.
My personal view is that a language community should decide on its content provided, of course, that the law is not broken.
Others will say that the 5 Pillars must be adhered to in all languages. And I might agree with that, but haven't yet given it much thought.
If we, primarily as en:wp people as we are on this list, tell other language cultures what they can and can't do could we not be charged with cultural imperialism? And, if we go that route, are we not going to be expending way too much energy on that? Note; I'm not suggesting that anyone would act in Bad Faith... I'm suggesting that it is the logical result of dictating to language wikis what they should do.
It is not a WMF goal, as far as I'm aware, to spread Western - often secular - cultural values. I think we will by accident, and that's great, because I like Western values and have a distaste for much of what happens within the Islamic world. But I don't think it should be an explicit goal. Yet.
So, I repeat; treating this as a neutrality issue is fundamentally flawed and anyone who approaches that language wiki with that as their weapon should get pwned. I suggest we figure out a better approach.
en.User:Bodnotbod
Except the problem is that at no point do they mention law; it's entirely personal opinions. If they said "oh btw, the law in our nation creates problems with images of Muhammad" then cool, fine, it's justified. Arguing that images should be deleted not because of the law but because they find it personally offensive, and stating that all Muslim wikipedians should follow the same rules, is inappropriate.
Muslim Wikipedians who do not object to images of Muhammad are in the same position as Western users. They know there are no authentic images; they know it is extremely offensive to millions of people. They should have common sense and not put images up in a reference work which are both offensive and false.
There might be an exception for Persian art, but such images certainly don't belong in an article on Muhammad or Islam in any language.
Fred Bauder
This template now also exists on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:No_Prophet_Muhammad_Images
As an en.wiki admin, my first instinct would be to nominate it for deletion, as this template is outside of scope, a violation of NPOV, and potentially disruptive. Then the discussion concerning it could be had at the TfD page. Would nominating it for deletion be a good idea or a bad idea? Are there any alternatives that make sense in this situation?
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/16/10 8:41 AM, Austin Hair wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them about what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what they are to do.
The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to positive results. It is similar as if I were to say to the English language community that they have to change their way because their community consensus is incompatible with WMF official board sanctioned policies.
I agree completely with Gerard, and also want to ask that we extend the same standard to this discussion on the mailing list.
We can look at this issue and say "stupid fundamentalists," but that's hardly productive, and very quickly devolves into a thread with posts that are, at best, pretty darn rude. I really don't want to have to moderate five people this weekend when it finally gets to the point of outright Muslim-bashing.
Austin
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*This template now also exists on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:No_Prophet_Muhammad_Images
As an en.wiki admin, my first instinct would be to nominate it for deletion, as this template is outside of scope, a violation of NPOV, and potentially disruptive. Then the discussion concerning it could be had at the TfD page. Would nominating it for deletion be a good idea or a bad idea? Are there any alternatives that make sense in this situation?*
I would argue that in its current form the template is a violation of the campaigning policy, as it is a clearly biased message being redirected at other users, along with a call to boycot Wikipedia. I think that such a template is not tolerable from any group regardless of faith, geographic area and so on. If the template stated "This user believes that there should be no images of Muhammad on Wikipedia" i would be fine with it, but in its current form this is little more then a serious NPOV violation.
Besides, allowing this template would set a bad precedent. I don't think that allowing users to create "<Objectionable X> is placed <ThereandHere> All <Group> Wikipedians must boycot Wikipedia. This template will never be removed" is a positive way to start communication between editors in a diversified ethnological group such as Wikipedia. To be honest i can think of a lot of ethnic groups that would use such templates to taunt each other.
As a final note i would point out that this template is only transcluded on two pages, and that the creator is the same admin that made it on ACE. Seeing this new template i am affraid that i now seriously question that user's fitness for adminship. An admin should be impartial and unbiased, with at least a basic acceptance of NPOV so that they can mediate between users that believe different things. In this case the words "PoV pushing and "Tedious editing" come to mind which is never a good thing, but if those words arise when i think of an admin, i find it outright worrisome.
~Excirial
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
This template now also exists on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:No_Prophet_Muhammad_Images
As an en.wiki admin, my first instinct would be to nominate it for deletion, as this template is outside of scope, a violation of NPOV, and potentially disruptive. Then the discussion concerning it could be had at the TfD page. Would nominating it for deletion be a good idea or a bad idea? Are there any alternatives that make sense in this situation?
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/16/10 8:41 AM, Austin Hair wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them
about
what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what
they
are to do.
The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to positive results. It is similar as if I were to say to the English language
community
that they have to change their way because their community consensus is incompatible with WMF official board sanctioned policies.
I agree completely with Gerard, and also want to ask that we extend the same standard to this discussion on the mailing list.
We can look at this issue and say "stupid fundamentalists," but that's hardly productive, and very quickly devolves into a thread with posts that are, at best, pretty darn rude. I really don't want to have to moderate five people this weekend when it finally gets to the point of outright Muslim-bashing.
Austin
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I know that every project's allowed to create its own guidelines and policies, but this seems to go against the freedom of information principle that Wikipedia stands for. I could accept this "No images" rule if it were present on a Wiki where the bulk of the editors are legally restricted from making such edits (Though it wouldn't be illegal per se, as the servers aren't located in the country in question), but i am a bit baffled that they feel the need to complain about the English Wiki, rather then worrying about their own Wiki instead. Equally i am non to fond of sysops who so blatantly advance their own point of view, as this signals that the sysop cannot handle conflicts in a neutral and impartial sense.
I agree that a dialog needs to be started with this Wiki, in order to discuss this issue. It is probably best to do so quickly, before an ulama indeed decides to declare this a fatw -. In that case we would be discussing under a religious pretext, which is rarely the best way to fix issues such as these.
~Excirial
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Manuelt15 Wiki manuelt15.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all,
Only wanted to notify you that the Acehnese Wikipedia < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%ABhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB> have plans about boycotting Wikipedia, as they say in this statement < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pola:Lhi_gamba_peukabeh_Nabi_Muhammad_saw%3E in their Main page.
--Manuelt15 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Agreed. I don't particularly agree with Gerard's point that " It is similar as if I were to say to the English language community that they have to change their way because their community consensus is incompatible with WMF official board sanctioned policies." - in that situation, yes, I'd expect en-wiki to change. If en-wiki was to leave its collective brain home one day and get rid of the BLP policy, would we shrug our shoulders and go "well, yes, it's a board-sanctioned policy, but they can make their own decisions"? NPOV isn't just a board-sanctioned policy - it's one of the fundamental principles and pillars the wiki is built on.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Excirial wp.excirial@gmail.com wrote:
I know that every project's allowed to create its own guidelines and policies, but this seems to go against the freedom of information principle that Wikipedia stands for. I could accept this "No images" rule if it were present on a Wiki where the bulk of the editors are legally restricted from making such edits (Though it wouldn't be illegal per se, as the servers aren't located in the country in question), but i am a bit baffled that they feel the need to complain about the English Wiki, rather then worrying about their own Wiki instead. Equally i am non to fond of sysops who so blatantly advance their own point of view, as this signals that the sysop cannot handle conflicts in a neutral and impartial sense.
I agree that a dialog needs to be started with this Wiki, in order to discuss this issue. It is probably best to do so quickly, before an ulama indeed decides to declare this a fatw -. In that case we would be discussing under a religious pretext, which is rarely the best way to fix issues such as these.
~Excirial
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Manuelt15 Wiki <manuelt15.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
Only wanted to notify you that the Acehnese Wikipedia < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%ABhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB> have plans about boycotting Wikipedia, as they say in this statement < http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pola:Lhi_gamba_peukabeh_Nabi_Muhammad_saw%3E in their Main page.
--Manuelt15 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Acehnese Wikipedia is ready to boycott Wikipedia if there is fatwa from competent ulama.
In addition to trying to have a dialog with them and explain NPOV and the rest of the pillars, I think someone should explain that the money that made it possible for them to post such a notice actually comes from Wikipedia and its volunteers...
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Muhammad Yahia shipmaster@gmail.com wrote:
Acehnese Wikipedia is ready to boycott Wikipedia if there is fatwa from competent ulama.
In addition to trying to have a dialog with them and explain NPOV and the rest of the pillars, I think someone should explain that the money that made it possible for them to post such a notice actually comes from Wikipedia and its volunteers...
Wouldn't it be better to explain to them that they are part of Wikipedia, so they cannot boycott Wikipedia without boycotting themselves? Although of course if they stick to their point, they have the right to fork.
I removed the template from the main page after a short discussion among stewards. If they don't want the images to be on Wikipedia; advertising where the images can be found on the main page is not the best way of doing it... I've also informed them on how the bad image list works, so that (if they want to) they can block the images from beeing used on that wiki, as long as they agree that they should do it; something they are free to do.
/Laaknor
On 16 July 2010 18:51, Lars Åge Kamfjord lars.age@kamfjord.org wrote:
I removed the template from the main page after a short discussion among stewards. If they don't want the images to be on Wikipedia; advertising where the images can be found on the main page is not the best way of doing it... I've also informed them on how the bad image list works, so that (if they want to) they can block the images from beeing used on that wiki, as long as they agree that they should do it; something they are free to do.
I've nominated the copy on en:wp for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_Jul...
- d.
And a reply to no one in specific: It seems that Si Gam Acèhhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8hhas reverted the steward removal of the template from the ACE mainpage, causing it to be displayed again.
~Excirial
Hoi, Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?
The notion that what somebody does who holds a title like steward is not that firm in our community. The recent fracas about problematic images at Commons is a clear indication of that. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 July 2010 11:56, Excirial wp.excirial@gmail.com wrote:
And a reply to no one in specific: It seems that Si Gam Acèhhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8hhas reverted the steward removal of the template from the ACE mainpage, causing it to be displayed again.
~Excirial _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*Hoi, Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?*
I have no idea to be honest, as i only just noticed it myself. The steward in question (Laaknor) is also subscribed to this mailing list and present in this specific thread, so i think we can await his answer on this. Based upon his contributions i would say there has been no real on-wiki contact as there was only a reversal on the main page, and a general message to another user detailing the usage of the blocklist to filter such images (It doesn't mention the removal of the template at all though).
~Excirial
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?
The notion that what somebody does who holds a title like steward is not that firm in our community. The recent fracas about problematic images at Commons is a clear indication of that. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 July 2010 11:56, Excirial wp.excirial@gmail.com wrote:
And a reply to no one in specific: It seems that Si Gam Acèh<http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h has reverted the steward removal of the template from the ACE mainpage, causing it to be displayed again.
~Excirial _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen, 17/07/2010 12:01:
Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?
Yes: http://ace.wikipedia.org/?diff=19301 http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h#Don.2... Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing with ace.wiki users somewhere?
Nemo
*Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing with ace.wiki users somewhere?*
I have tried to determine if this was the case, but so far i see no real indication of this. I tried to check some recent contributions from the involved parties, but none seem to be no internal dialog (on-wiki that is). This is something to be expected though, as ACE is a relatively small wiki. The En.Wiki has many more editors, and even with so many people or centralized discussion don't attract to much attention.
There are a few comments here and there, but if they are negotiations they aren't going very well. See: http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac...<%20http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac... http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit%3A%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB&act...
I wonder what caused this though. On another talk page there is an older discussion on the subject which seems more reasonable (In English). http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Hercule#Wikipedia_and_...
~Excirial
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Gerard Meijssen, 17/07/2010 12:01:
Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?
Yes: http://ace.wikipedia.org/?diff=19301
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h#Don.2... Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing with ace.wiki users somewhere?
Nemo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
User:Mimihitam made an introduction on Wikimania about the Acenese Wikipedia ( http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule#Wikis_of_the_World ). I remember he said that he doesn't speak Acenese, but the Indonesian Wikipedia has an intensive contact with the Acenese Wikipedia, so I think it is a good ideal to contact him for starting the dialog.
Greetings Ting
Excirial wrote:
*Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing with ace.wiki users somewhere?*
I have tried to determine if this was the case, but so far i see no real indication of this. I tried to check some recent contributions from the involved parties, but none seem to be no internal dialog (on-wiki that is). This is something to be expected though, as ACE is a relatively small wiki. The En.Wiki has many more editors, and even with so many people or centralized discussion don't attract to much attention.
There are a few comments here and there, but if they are negotiations they aren't going very well. See: http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac...<%20http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac... http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit%3A%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB&act...
I wonder what caused this though. On another talk page there is an older discussion on the subject which seems more reasonable (In English). http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Hercule#Wikipedia_and_...
~Excirial
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Gerard Meijssen, 17/07/2010 12:01:
Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?
Yes: http://ace.wikipedia.org/?diff=19301
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h#Don.2... Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing with ace.wiki users somewhere?
Nemo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org