In a message dated 2/19/2008 4:25:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, teun.spaans@gmail.com writes:
The Farsi wikipedia seems to have held up a rather liberal stand, i noticed at least one pic i had not expected.
That could be because a lot of the contributors are from the Iranian Diaspora.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
teun.spaans@gmail.com writes:
The Farsi wikipedia seems to have held up a rather liberal stand, i noticed at least one pic i had not expected.
That could be because a lot of the contributors are from the Iranian Diaspora.
And many of them are well educated Baha'is or even Ismaili Muslims. These groups tend to be more affluent and better educated than today's average Iranian.
Ec
What I think would be most useful at this point is to try and compile an informational resource about this topic, so that we can see all points of view at a glance, and try to educate people better about this topic. More information and education will help to guide more informed decisions on this topic.
Some kinds of information that we should obtain and make public are: 1) Who exactly is offended by this and why? 2) Is there a prohibition on simply having these images, or are they only offensive when viewed by certain people? Ie, is it possible to have these images, but hold them on a page where they are not readily viewable, or only viewable after a warning? 3) What are the specific uses and values of the images currently on display? Is there significant historical context to these images, and are they closely integrated into the article? 4) How does the presence or non-presence of these images impact the POV of the article? That is, is removing them truly an NPOV offense? If the content is neutral, does the presentation matter?
I'm really of the opinion here that the best thing we can do is try to compile the important information into some kind of a primer, and then use that text as the basis for a rational discussion on the matter. What we don't need is to continue this disjoint argument with some people saying (in caricature) "these muslims don't respect my freedom of speech and NPOV", and others saying "these english and americans are islamophobic hateful bigots".
--Andrew Whitworth
Great idea. Let's sit down and discuss the issue some more. I'm sure polite civil discussion and a reassurance of NPOV will certainly make Iran feel better about the issue.
-Chad
On Feb 20, 2008 9:34 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
What I think would be most useful at this point is to try and compile an informational resource about this topic, so that we can see all points of view at a glance, and try to educate people better about this topic. More information and education will help to guide more informed decisions on this topic.
Some kinds of information that we should obtain and make public are:
- Who exactly is offended by this and why?
- Is there a prohibition on simply having these images, or are they
only offensive when viewed by certain people? Ie, is it possible to have these images, but hold them on a page where they are not readily viewable, or only viewable after a warning? 3) What are the specific uses and values of the images currently on display? Is there significant historical context to these images, and are they closely integrated into the article? 4) How does the presence or non-presence of these images impact the POV of the article? That is, is removing them truly an NPOV offense? If the content is neutral, does the presentation matter?
I'm really of the opinion here that the best thing we can do is try to compile the important information into some kind of a primer, and then use that text as the basis for a rational discussion on the matter. What we don't need is to continue this disjoint argument with some people saying (in caricature) "these muslims don't respect my freedom of speech and NPOV", and others saying "these english and americans are islamophobic hateful bigots".
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You forgot the <irony> tags ......
Waerth
Chad wrote:
Great idea. Let's sit down and discuss the issue some more. I'm sure polite civil discussion and a reassurance of NPOV will certainly make Iran feel better about the issue.
-Chad
On Feb 20, 2008 9:34 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
What I think would be most useful at this point is to try and compile an informational resource about this topic, so that we can see all points of view at a glance, and try to educate people better about this topic. More information and education will help to guide more informed decisions on this topic.
Some kinds of information that we should obtain and make public are:
- Who exactly is offended by this and why?
- Is there a prohibition on simply having these images, or are they
only offensive when viewed by certain people? Ie, is it possible to have these images, but hold them on a page where they are not readily viewable, or only viewable after a warning? 3) What are the specific uses and values of the images currently on display? Is there significant historical context to these images, and are they closely integrated into the article? 4) How does the presence or non-presence of these images impact the POV of the article? That is, is removing them truly an NPOV offense? If the content is neutral, does the presentation matter?
I'm really of the opinion here that the best thing we can do is try to compile the important information into some kind of a primer, and then use that text as the basis for a rational discussion on the matter. What we don't need is to continue this disjoint argument with some people saying (in caricature) "these muslims don't respect my freedom of speech and NPOV", and others saying "these english and americans are islamophobic hateful bigots".
--Andrew Whitworth
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 Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Great idea. Let's sit down and discuss the issue some more. I'm sure polite civil discussion and a reassurance of NPOV will certainly make Iran feel better about the issue.
I'm not talking about more endless discussion, I'm talking about getting information together into a centralized resource. That's something that we haven't done yet, and we can't expect anybody to make good decisions on this matter without having all the information available.
--Andrew Whitworth
It should be noted that Egypt has just banned 2 German Newspapers (Die Welt, and Frankfurter Allgemaine), the Wall Street Journal, and The Observer over posting the Muhammad cartoons, which was followed with demonstrations by university professors, deans, and students chanting "Jews, Jews, watch out, the army of Muhammad will return!".
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content...
This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.
-Dan
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Great idea. Let's sit down and discuss the issue some more. I'm sure polite civil discussion and a reassurance of NPOV will certainly make Iran feel better about the issue.
I'm not talking about more endless discussion, I'm talking about getting information together into a centralized resource. That's something that we haven't done yet, and we can't expect anybody to make good decisions on this matter without having all the information available.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
That's enough for me to say no to Wikimania. Has anyone talked to any of our Wikimedia friends in Egypt to see what's going on first-hand?
-Chad
On Feb 20, 2008 2:16 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
It should be noted that Egypt has just banned 2 German Newspapers (Die Welt, and Frankfurter Allgemaine), the Wall Street Journal, and The Observer over posting the Muhammad cartoons, which was followed with demonstrations by university professors, deans, and students chanting "Jews, Jews, watch out, the army of Muhammad will return!".
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content...
This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.
-Dan
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Great idea. Let's sit down and discuss the issue some more. I'm sure polite civil discussion and a reassurance of NPOV will certainly make Iran feel better about the issue.
I'm not talking about more endless discussion, I'm talking about getting information together into a centralized resource. That's something that we haven't done yet, and we can't expect anybody to make good decisions on this matter without having all the information available.
--Andrew Whitworth
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 decided some time ago to not attend Wikimania (with deep regret, because I was excited that I might be able to make it this time around). My decision was initially based upon Egypt's restrictions upon LGBT people, and I will not financially contribute to my own oppression.
This most recent dust-up seems to solidify that decision in my mind.
With all respect - and I have a lot of it - for the members of the committee, I believe the jury erred in selecting Egypt as the home of Wikimania.
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Chad" innocentkiller@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:26 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania and the Muhammad pix
That's enough for me to say no to Wikimania. Has anyone talked to any of our Wikimedia friends in Egypt to see what's going on first-hand?
-Chad
On Feb 20, 2008 2:16 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
It should be noted that Egypt has just banned 2 German Newspapers (Die Welt, and Frankfurter Allgemaine), the Wall Street Journal, and The Observer over posting the Muhammad cartoons, which was followed with demonstrations by university professors, deans, and students chanting "Jews, Jews, watch out, the army of Muhammad will return!".
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content...
This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.
-Dan
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Great idea. Let's sit down and discuss the issue some more. I'm sure polite civil discussion and a reassurance of NPOV will certainly make Iran feel better about the issue.
I'm not talking about more endless discussion, I'm talking about getting information together into a centralized resource. That's something that we haven't done yet, and we can't expect anybody to make good decisions on this matter without having all the information available.
--Andrew Whitworth
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
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.
This is like refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union, because it is such an awful atheist country. Think again.
Or perhaps, refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union because smuggling Bibles is illegal by fiat of an intolerant government, and people who do it run the risk of being beaten or worse.
Fail analogy is full of fail.
-Dan On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.
This is like refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union, because it is such an awful atheist country. Think again.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Guys Your jokes sounds very offending. Such thing has never happened for your information. I say it as an personally offended person and a catecumenata (sorry I don't know how you call it in English) at the Orthodox Church of Japan, an autonomous and canonical Orthodox church, whose primate is confirmed by the Orthodox Church of Russia.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Or perhaps, refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union because smuggling Bibles is illegal by fiat of an intolerant government, and people who do it run the risk of being beaten or worse.
Fail analogy is full of fail.
-Dan
On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.
This is like refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union, because it is such an awful atheist country. Think again.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
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
Aphaia: We are not talking about the Orthodox Church of Russia, nor are we talking about Russia. We are talking about the former Soviet Union, which was notoriously intolerant of religions, including Christianity and its related sects. Your offense is misplaced.
-Dan
On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Aphaia wrote:
Guys Your jokes sounds very offending. Such thing has never happened for your information. I say it as an personally offended person and a catecumenata (sorry I don't know how you call it in English) at the Orthodox Church of Japan, an autonomous and canonical Orthodox church, whose primate is confirmed by the Orthodox Church of Russia.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Or perhaps, refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union because smuggling Bibles is illegal by fiat of an intolerant government, and people who do it run the risk of being beaten or worse.
Fail analogy is full of fail.
-Dan
On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.
This is like refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union, because it is such an awful atheist country. Think again.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
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
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Aphaia: We are not talking about the Orthodox Church of Russia, nor are we talking about Russia.
We are talking about the former Soviet Union,
And what is relevance to this list, please?
which was notoriously intolerant of religions, including Christianity and its related sects.
I think I don't need to be informed that from you Westerner.
Your offense is misplaced.
Disagreed. You talk something never happened and unnecessarily mock religious situation. I don't feel insulted even if you don't remember me or His Grace Daniel but your joke is simply pointless and not funny.
Thanks,
-Dan
On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Aphaia wrote:
Guys Your jokes sounds very offending. Such thing has never happened for your information. I say it as an personally offended person and a catecumenata (sorry I don't know how you call it in English) at the Orthodox Church of Japan, an autonomous and canonical Orthodox church, whose primate is confirmed by the Orthodox Church of Russia.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Or perhaps, refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union because smuggling Bibles is illegal by fiat of an intolerant government, and people who do it run the risk of being beaten or worse.
Fail analogy is full of fail.
-Dan
On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.
This is like refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union, because it is such an awful atheist country. Think again.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
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
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
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 Feb 21, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Aphaia wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Aphaia: We are not talking about the Orthodox Church of Russia, nor are we talking about Russia.
We are talking about the former Soviet Union,
And what is relevance to this list, please?
It is relevant to the list because it is an analogy offered by Lars as to why we should be in Egypt.
which was notoriously intolerant of religions, including Christianity and its related sects.
I think I don't need to be informed that from you Westerner.
Oh really? Because Westerners don't have any idea of what the cold war is like? Because my family is not from the former Soviet Union? Do you have some special privilege or immunity that exempts you from being informed of things you apparently don't know about by Westerners? Or is it that all Westerners are dumb, and you know everything there is to know about the Cold War era Soviet Union, and you can never learn a thing from a Westerner about it?
Your offense is misplaced.
Disagreed. You talk something never happened and unnecessarily mock religious situation. I don't feel insulted even if you don't remember me or His Grace Daniel but your joke is simply pointless and not funny.
What joke? What do you keep insisting on a joke or mocking? I think you have the wrong impression that is going on here, and yes, that is why I think your offense is misplaced. Nobody is joking about anything. We're debating reasons why the Foundation should or should not be supporting Wikimania in a country that is hostile to free expression. I fail to see where the joke and mockery is there, but feel free to let me know when you find it.
-Dan
Thanks,
-Dan
On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Aphaia wrote:
Guys Your jokes sounds very offending. Such thing has never happened for your information. I say it as an personally offended person and a catecumenata (sorry I don't know how you call it in English) at the Orthodox Church of Japan, an autonomous and canonical Orthodox church, whose primate is confirmed by the Orthodox Church of Russia.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Or perhaps, refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union because smuggling Bibles is illegal by fiat of an intolerant government, and people who do it run the risk of being beaten or worse.
Fail analogy is full of fail.
-Dan
On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.
This is like refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union, because it is such an awful atheist country. Think again.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
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
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
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
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I can't believe you guys are arguing about this. I don't think Dan was making any particular point about russia, and if he was I apologize on his behalf. Can we please get back to the issues that might actually affect people's personal safety?
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Aphaia: We are not talking about the Orthodox Church of Russia, nor are we talking about Russia.
We are talking about the former Soviet Union,
And what is relevance to this list, please?
which was notoriously intolerant of religions, including Christianity and its related sects.
I think I don't need to be informed that from you Westerner.
Your offense is misplaced.
Disagreed. You talk something never happened and unnecessarily mock religious situation. I don't feel insulted even if you don't remember me or His Grace Daniel but your joke is simply pointless and not funny.
Thanks,
-Dan
On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Aphaia wrote:
Guys Your jokes sounds very offending. Such thing has never happened for your information. I say it as an personally offended person and a catecumenata (sorry I don't know how you call it in English) at the Orthodox Church of Japan, an autonomous and canonical Orthodox church, whose primate is confirmed by the Orthodox Church of Russia.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Or perhaps, refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union because smuggling Bibles is illegal by fiat of an intolerant government, and people who do it run the risk of being beaten or worse.
Fail analogy is full of fail.
-Dan
On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.
This is like refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union, because it is such an awful atheist country. Think again.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
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
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
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
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I agree - you can bicker off-list. Lets return the point of the thread, if there is more to add.
Nathan
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
I can't believe you guys are arguing about this. I don't think Dan was making any particular point about russia, and if he was I apologize on his behalf. Can we please get back to the issues that might actually affect people's personal safety?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
This is really the kind of environment we want to host a Wikimania in? I'd have much more respect for people who BOYCOTT Wikimania in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and journalistic integrity.
This is like refusing to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union, because it is such an awful atheist country. Think again.
Speak for yourself. You won't catch me smuggling Bibles in anywhere. Maybe copies of _The God Delusion_ ...
- -- Ben "Cyde Weys" McIlwain ( http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/ )
On 20/02/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Great idea. Let's sit down and discuss the issue some more. I'm sure polite civil discussion and a reassurance of NPOV will certainly make Iran feel better about the issue.
I believe Andrew was talking about the *portraits*, not the caricatures, which are the ones Iran is making noises over. It is important to distinguish the two...
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I believe Andrew was talking about the *portraits*, not the caricatures, which are the ones Iran is making noises over. It is important to distinguish the two...
That's precisely it, and i should have been more clear in distinguishing between the two.
What's misfortunate at this point is that those cartoons, which otherwise could have been forgotten and swept under a rug, are now so famous and notable that they will never go away. They will have a place in Wikipedia forever because they have become so notable.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Feb 20, 2008 4:34 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
What I think would be most useful at this point is to try and compile an informational resource about this topic, so that we can see all points of view at a glance, and try to educate people better about this topic. More information and education will help to guide more informed decisions on this topic.
Some kinds of information that we should obtain and make public are:
Not sure if I should reply considering that I'm a muslim and might be biased, but here is a reply:
- Who exactly is offended by this and why?
Who: I can say that most (not all) egyptian muslims would be offended by these pictures, either the pictures on [[Muhammed]] or the ones on jyllands posten article. Why: Because they consider (muslims) and believe that muhammed isn't like any other person whom could be depicted in a picture and humiliated by some artists. they consider him as a holy figure, like the best person ever born and the one who guided them to a better life etc. So when people start to show paintings and even worse, cartoons insulting him, they get upset and offended. they don't view it from 'free speech' 'freedom of expression' or 'freedom to write' points but rather as an insult and disrespect to them and to their religion.
- Is there a prohibition on simply having these images, or are they
only offensive when viewed by certain people? Ie, is it possible to have these images, but hold them on a page where they are not readily viewable, or only viewable after a warning?
On jyllands posten's article on arabic wikipedia, there is a warning and a link to the images.
- What are the specific uses and values of the images currently on
display? Is there significant historical context to these images, and are they closely integrated into the article?
imho, they are just there as test or challenge of wikipedia's freedom of expression and a source for (false) feel good that wikipedia is free. beside that, as a helpful illustrations that add to the articles and increase its educational value, null.
<censored> :P
--Andrew Whitworth
--user:alnokta
"Not sure if..." I think exactly because you know both worlds, islam and wikipedia, you are highly qualified to comment. And of course you are biased, to some extent we probably all are biased - but without realizing it.
" Because they consider (muslims) and believe " I assume that you mean sunni muslims, as from further up in this discussion i understood that in shitism opinions slightly differ on this topic.
"increase its educational value, null." May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of the illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008 4:34 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
What I think would be most useful at this point is to try and compile an informational resource about this topic, so that we can see all points of view at a glance, and try to educate people better about this topic. More information and education will help to guide more informed decisions on this topic.
Some kinds of information that we should obtain and make public are:
Not sure if I should reply considering that I'm a muslim and might be biased, but here is a reply:
- Who exactly is offended by this and why?
Who: I can say that most (not all) egyptian muslims would be offended by these pictures, either the pictures on [[Muhammed]] or the ones on jyllands posten article. Why: Because they consider (muslims) and believe that muhammed isn't like any other person whom could be depicted in a picture and humiliated by some artists. they consider him as a holy figure, like the best person ever born and the one who guided them to a better life etc. So when people start to show paintings and even worse, cartoons insulting him, they get upset and offended. they don't view it from 'free speech' 'freedom of expression' or 'freedom to write' points but rather as an insult and disrespect to them and to their religion.
- Is there a prohibition on simply having these images, or are they
only offensive when viewed by certain people? Ie, is it possible to have these images, but hold them on a page where they are not readily viewable, or only viewable after a warning?
On jyllands posten's article on arabic wikipedia, there is a warning and a link to the images.
- What are the specific uses and values of the images currently on
display? Is there significant historical context to these images, and are they closely integrated into the article?
imho, they are just there as test or challenge of wikipedia's freedom of expression and a source for (false) feel good that wikipedia is free. beside that, as a helpful illustrations that add to the articles and increase its educational value, null.
<censored> :P
--Andrew Whitworth
--user:alnokta _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 20/02/2008, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
"increase its educational value, null." May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of the illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.
Indeed. I was unaware, until the present discussion, just how widely this viewpoint - that images of Muhammad are verboten in all circumstances - is in fact highly disputed.
- d.
On 20/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/02/2008, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
"increase its educational value, null." May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of the illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.
Indeed. I was unaware, until the present discussion, just how widely this viewpoint - that images of Muhammad are verboten in all circumstances - is in fact highly disputed.
There is a charming story I remember, told by a journalist who had interviewed a senior Anglican bishop (I forget who) at a time of some public split or another, probably during the female-clergy thing. As a joke, he asked what exactly you *had* to believe in, beyond 'God', in order to be a member of the Church of England, given they disagreed on so much?
A long pause. "Well, that's a very good question. Um."
The CoE is a broader group than most in this regard, of course, but for any particularly large religion it holds true - anything more complex than the basic tenets, anything beyond the stuff you could write on a single postcard, is quite possibly going to be disputed between sects, or honoured in the breach, or a matter for personal conscience, or simply liturgical padding rather than theology...
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:52 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. I was unaware, until the present discussion, just how widely this viewpoint - that images of Muhammad are verboten in all circumstances - is in fact highly disputed.
[[Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani]], the leading Shia cleric in Iraq, has specifically endorsed respectful images of Muhammad.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061017223013/http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/me...
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:52 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/02/2008, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
"increase its educational value, null." May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of
the
illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.
Indeed. I was unaware, until the present discussion, just how widely this viewpoint - that images of Muhammad are verboten in all circumstances - is in fact highly disputed.
For some general background on the Islamic view of depictions of Muhammad, I would suggest the following Wikipedia pages are at least a useful starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
Also, I would suggest that David's characterization as "highly disputed", is something of an oversimplification. It is not really that this is actively "disputed" but more an acknowledgment that there exist different views among the different religious traditions within Islam (starting with Sunni vs. Shi'a). This is much the same way that there exist different religious faiths within Christianity that disagree on any number of issues, but I don't think we would characterize those differences of faith as "disputes", per se.
Also, it is worth noting that ~90% of Muslims come from the Sunni faith, and that most (all?) schools of thought within the modern Sunni tradition do consider images of Muhammad as inappropriate (with varying degrees of fervor). So while it may be useful to acknowledge differences of opinion within Islam, I believe it is also the case that a significant majority of Muslims view representations of Muhammed as (at least) disrespectful.
-Robert Rohde
David Gerard wrote:
On 20/02/2008, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
"increase its educational value, null." May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of the illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.
Indeed. I was unaware, until the present discussion, just how widely this viewpoint - that images of Muhammad are verboten in all circumstances - is in fact highly disputed.
While it may not be educationally necessary in a literate society, in a pre-literate society representational images can be very powerful. In illustrating some activity of Muhammed some representation of that activity can be a powerful educational tool for those who cannot read. Unfortunately, the power of abstraction comes from reading. The Qur'an certainly speaks of Muhammed, and thus creates pictures of him in words. Logical consistency would suggest the absurdity that these word pictures should also be forbidden. Abstract reasoning allows readers to understand that any representations of Muhammed or Jesus are not based on original photographs.
We cannot underestimate the power of images, symbols and myths as entities in their own right. These powers make no scientific sense at all, but that does not diminish their influence. Many Americans can be very upset when they see their flag being abused, yet to the strictly logical mind it is just a piece of cloth.
Ec
While it may not be educationally necessary in a literate society, in a pre-literate society representational images can be very powerful. In illustrating some activity of Muhammed some representation of that activity can be a powerful educational tool for those who cannot read. Unfortunately, the power of abstraction comes from reading. The Qur'an certainly speaks of Muhammed, and thus creates pictures of him in words. Logical consistency would suggest the absurdity that these word pictures should also be forbidden. Abstract reasoning allows readers to understand that any representations of Muhammed or Jesus are not based on original photographs.
We cannot underestimate the power of images, symbols and myths as entities in their own right. These powers make no scientific sense at all, but that does not diminish their influence. Many Americans can be very upset when they see their flag being abused, yet to the strictly logical mind it is just a piece of cloth.
I think you're putting too much sway on *reading* the Qur'an. The Qur'an is often spoken aloud (and even memorised), so illiterate people can get just as much from the words as literate people can.
Yes, but the Qur'an is written in Classical Arabic, a language that is only easily mutually intelligible with a certain number of modern varieties of Arabic.
If you read out "qaalat anaa yakuunu lii ghula'mun, walam yamsasnii basharun, walam aku baghii'aan", Arabs in many parts of North Africa may not know what this means because this means nothing in their dialect/language. If they are literate, they will surely understand, but if they are not, they will probably recognize it as a reading from the Qur'aan but may not understand the true meaning. In fact, they may even be able to tell you the exact verse it is in the Qur'aan but they will not know what the words mean.
Mark
On 21/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
While it may not be educationally necessary in a literate society, in a pre-literate society representational images can be very powerful. In illustrating some activity of Muhammed some representation of that activity can be a powerful educational tool for those who cannot read. Unfortunately, the power of abstraction comes from reading. The Qur'an certainly speaks of Muhammed, and thus creates pictures of him in words. Logical consistency would suggest the absurdity that these word pictures should also be forbidden. Abstract reasoning allows readers to understand that any representations of Muhammed or Jesus are not based on original photographs.
We cannot underestimate the power of images, symbols and myths as entities in their own right. These powers make no scientific sense at all, but that does not diminish their influence. Many Americans can be very upset when they see their flag being abused, yet to the strictly logical mind it is just a piece of cloth.
I think you're putting too much sway on *reading* the Qur'an. The Qur'an is often spoken aloud (and even memorised), so illiterate people can get just as much from the words as literate people can.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
But is it a piece of cloth to those who burn it?
I personally don't exactly disagree with burning the American flag. I am not the most patriotic American in the world. But I do think that the intention of someone who is desecrating something "sacred" is very important.
For example, the teacher in the Sudan who named a teddy bear Mohammed. Do you really think she meant to insult the Prophet (PBUH)? I don't. I think that is totally ridiculous.
However, the people who drew (some of the) Jyllands-Posten cartoons meant to insult Islam in some way, although as I understand it, they were intended more as an exercise in free speech than as an insult in and of itself.
Mark
On 21/02/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 20/02/2008, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
"increase its educational value, null." May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of the illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.
Indeed. I was unaware, until the present discussion, just how widely this viewpoint - that images of Muhammad are verboten in all circumstances - is in fact highly disputed.
While it may not be educationally necessary in a literate society, in a pre-literate society representational images can be very powerful. In illustrating some activity of Muhammed some representation of that activity can be a powerful educational tool for those who cannot read. Unfortunately, the power of abstraction comes from reading. The Qur'an certainly speaks of Muhammed, and thus creates pictures of him in words. Logical consistency would suggest the absurdity that these word pictures should also be forbidden. Abstract reasoning allows readers to understand that any representations of Muhammed or Jesus are not based on original photographs.
We cannot underestimate the power of images, symbols and myths as entities in their own right. These powers make no scientific sense at all, but that does not diminish their influence. Many Americans can be very upset when they see their flag being abused, yet to the strictly logical mind it is just a piece of cloth.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think "shitism" is the wrong word. Perhaps you meant "shi'a"?
On 20/02/2008, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
"Not sure if..." I think exactly because you know both worlds, islam and wikipedia, you are highly qualified to comment. And of course you are biased, to some extent we probably all are biased - but without realizing it.
" Because they consider (muslims) and believe "
I assume that you mean sunni muslims, as from further up in this discussion i understood that in shitism opinions slightly differ on this topic.
"increase its educational value, null."
May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of the illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008 4:34 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
What I think would be most useful at this point is to try and compile an informational resource about this topic, so that we can see all points of view at a glance, and try to educate people better about this topic. More information and education will help to guide more informed decisions on this topic.
Some kinds of information that we should obtain and make public are:
Not sure if I should reply considering that I'm a muslim and might be biased, but here is a reply:
- Who exactly is offended by this and why?
Who: I can say that most (not all) egyptian muslims would be offended by these pictures, either the pictures on [[Muhammed]] or the ones on jyllands posten article. Why: Because they consider (muslims) and believe that muhammed isn't like any other person whom could be depicted in a picture and humiliated by some artists. they consider him as a holy figure, like the best person ever born and the one who guided them to a better life etc. So when people start to show paintings and even worse, cartoons insulting him, they get upset and offended. they don't view it from 'free speech' 'freedom of expression' or 'freedom to write' points but rather as an insult and disrespect to them and to their religion.
- Is there a prohibition on simply having these images, or are they
only offensive when viewed by certain people? Ie, is it possible to have these images, but hold them on a page where they are not readily viewable, or only viewable after a warning?
On jyllands posten's article on arabic wikipedia, there is a warning and a link to the images.
- What are the specific uses and values of the images currently on
display? Is there significant historical context to these images, and are they closely integrated into the article?
imho, they are just there as test or challenge of wikipedia's freedom of expression and a source for (false) feel good that wikipedia is free. beside that, as a helpful illustrations that add to the articles and increase its educational value, null.
<censored> :P
--Andrew Whitworth
--user:alnokta _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- test
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org