[Foundation-l] Boycott in ace at wiki

[Excirial]

*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-Bīrūnī<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab%C5%AB_Rayh%C4%81n_al-B%C4%ABr%C5%ABn%C4%AB>'s
**al-Âthâr al-bâqiyah<http://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_hoaxes>which are all topics made up by
humans. However, have a look at WP:Hoax => Hoaxes v. Article's about
hoaxes<http://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 at fairpoint.net>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?
>
> 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
> > Zeus<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus>,
> > Loki <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki>or
> > Wodan<http://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 at 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 at gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Fred Bauder
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>