Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should wikipedia remove pictures of Muhammad
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 1 of 38 (454043)
02-05-2008 10:29 AM


There has been an ongoing issue at wikipedia for a while about the use of images of Muhammad.
Muhammad - Wikipedia
You can also see discussion about the matter here:
Talk:Muhammad - Wikipedia
and here:
Talk:Muhammad/images - Wikipedia
The matter has now been picked up by the media.
Wikipedia - Prophet Muhammad - Internet - The New York Times
I'm interested in people's thoughts on this - where does freedom of speech end and how much should it be tempered by respect for others?
(I'm thinking coffee shop for this?)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 02-05-2008 2:10 PM CK has not replied
 Message 5 by Creationista, posted 02-05-2008 2:39 PM CK has not replied
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 2:52 PM CK has replied
 Message 12 by nator, posted 02-05-2008 6:15 PM CK has replied
 Message 15 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-05-2008 8:54 PM CK has not replied
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 02-05-2008 9:05 PM CK has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 38 (454074)
02-05-2008 1:45 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 3 of 38 (454082)
02-05-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
02-05-2008 10:29 AM


I'm interested in people's thoughts on this - where does freedom of speech end and how much should it be tempered by respect for others?
It should be tempered exactly to the extent that those running the website choose to temper it.
Wikipedia has no obligation to kowtow to the wishes, reasonable or not, of any particular religious group. If muslims don't like the depiction of Muhammad, they shouldn't go to Wikipedia.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 02-05-2008 10:29 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by teen4christ, posted 02-05-2008 2:16 PM subbie has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 4 of 38 (454084)
02-05-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
02-05-2008 2:10 PM


quote:
If muslims don't like the depiction of Muhammad, they shouldn't go to Wikipedia.
I didn't realize this was such a big deal until now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 02-05-2008 2:10 PM subbie has not replied

  
Creationista
Inactive Junior Member


Message 5 of 38 (454091)
02-05-2008 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
02-05-2008 10:29 AM


The depictions on the site are from Islamic religious documents, as best I can tell. There is no reason to remove them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 02-05-2008 10:29 AM CK has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 38 (454093)
02-05-2008 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
02-05-2008 10:29 AM


Absolutely...
NOT!!
That's one of the lamest things I've ever heard of.
Is there any good argument for why they should?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 02-05-2008 10:29 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 02-05-2008 3:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
skepticfaith
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 71
From: NY, USA
Joined: 08-29-2006


Message 7 of 38 (454100)
02-05-2008 3:26 PM


Wikeipidia is a joke
Wikipidia is nothing but a spam site.
I have doublechecked a lot of information and realized most of the 'information' on there is either misleading or plain wrong.
And if you actually add something about someone or something, many times they just delete it. Why bother allow people to add anything if they are going to be deleted anything anyway. Better would be to review everything before it is posted.
Horrible site.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nator, posted 02-05-2008 6:10 PM skepticfaith has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 8 of 38 (454102)
02-05-2008 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2008 2:52 PM


Re: Absolutely...
The main argument is that it upsets Muslims and causes offense - do you consider that a "good argument?
Edited by CK, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 2:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 3:46 PM CK has not replied
 Message 10 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-05-2008 4:19 PM CK has not replied
 Message 14 by bluegenes, posted 02-05-2008 6:56 PM CK has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 38 (454106)
02-05-2008 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CK
02-05-2008 3:29 PM


Re: Absolutely...
The main argument is that it upsets Muslims and causes offense - do you consider that a "good argument?
No, I don't consider that a good argument. Do you?
Are they arguing that they should take down everything that offends anyone, or only things that offend muslims?
Doesn't the wiki article on the Earth upsets the member of The Flat Earth Society? Should that be censored as well?
Can I come up with a religion and then claim that some things offend me and then get those things taken down?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 02-05-2008 3:29 PM CK has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 10 of 38 (454114)
02-05-2008 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CK
02-05-2008 3:29 PM


Re: Absolutely...
The main argument is that it upsets Muslims and causes offense - do you consider that a "good argument?
Not at all.
I deeply offends me that they give bandwidth to the Invisible pink Unicorn.
I seriously dislike that nasty equine miscreant.
She had the temerity to disrespect the color purple.
Chapter 4, verse 5 of her (not so) holy book states
that two faced IPU writes:
5. Thus came to be such minions of malaise as the Visible Brown Unicorn, and the Purple Oyster of Doom; for it is Her decision that purple is usually a color for shitheads, and yea verily so is brown.
The entry on the IPU is a complete affront to those of us of a purple pursuasion and as such it should be removed from Wikipedia. (Just ask PurpleDawn. She agrees with me.)
I don't see why the Muslims should get upset at a mre picture. The IPU called me a SHITHEAD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 02-05-2008 3:29 PM CK has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 11 of 38 (454148)
02-05-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by skepticfaith
02-05-2008 3:26 PM


Re: Wikeipidia is a joke
quote:
Wikipidia is nothing but a spam site.
Well, no, that's demonstrably not true.
It would be more accurate to say that wikipedia varies widely in quality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by skepticfaith, posted 02-05-2008 3:26 PM skepticfaith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by skepticfaith, posted 02-06-2008 1:18 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 38 (454151)
02-05-2008 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
02-05-2008 10:29 AM


No, of course they shouldn't take down depictions of Muhammad.
Unless I'm mistaken, the rule about not being allowed to depict Muhammad applies only to Muslims.
They overstep their bounds by wanting to force the whole world to abide by their particular religious rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 02-05-2008 10:29 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by CK, posted 02-05-2008 6:45 PM nator has not replied
 Message 16 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-05-2008 9:00 PM nator has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 13 of 38 (454159)
02-05-2008 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
02-05-2008 6:15 PM


someone told me that's not true - that the actual prohibition is about living people or animals but over the years they just focus on Mo.
Anyone know for sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 02-05-2008 6:15 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by CK, posted 02-06-2008 9:18 AM CK has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 14 of 38 (454163)
02-05-2008 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CK
02-05-2008 3:29 PM


CK writes:
The main argument is that it upsets Muslims and causes offense - do you consider that a "good argument?
Most certainly not. It's an example of the typical hypocrisy that we see in all Abrahamic religions, and even considering the question illustrates the special privileges granted to religions.
The Islamic scriptures are highly offensive to non-Muslims. Allah has drawn a veil over our eyes so that we don't believe, and then proceeds to blame us by condemning us to eternal torture. What an asshole of a god! But we don't try to ban or censor those idiotic scriptures.
But it is the nature of such religions to operate censorship, just as it is in their nature to indoctrinate children, and they require these methods to survive.
If Muslims don't want to be offended, they can stop believing in such mumbo jumbo, and start using their brains for thinking instead.
Wiki also reproduces the Danish Muhammed cartoons, here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 02-05-2008 3:29 PM CK has not replied

  
ThreeDogs
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 77
From: noli me calcare
Joined: 01-08-2008


Message 15 of 38 (454204)
02-05-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
02-05-2008 10:29 AM


http://ethnikoi.org/iran.html
Wikipedia nor anyone else in the free world, should not remove pics of mohammed. Everything offends muslims. Everything about muslims offends me. The link I leave with you is just the tip of the iceberg of how offended I am. What you don't know about islam can kill you. Respect is reciprocal, except when it involves muslims, then I am asked to respect, but they don't have to follow suit. They say I have seven intestinal tracts and they have one. That's not true, I have counted mine, and I only have one, too. They say the sun sets in a muddy pool in the west. That's not true, I checked it out personally. They say that satan sleeps up the nose at night and he must be flushed out in the morning. I flushed my nose, but no satan came out. They say that allah does not forgive the passing of gas during prayer. I wouldn't, either. Just imagine it, if you will.
Mohammed has left enough information about himself to picture him the maniac/terrorist he was. When you give them the little finger, they will take the whole hand, and I'm disinclined to give my right to freedom of speech just because they are offended.
I trust the link will provoke further research on islam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 02-05-2008 10:29 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 02-06-2008 9:04 AM ThreeDogs has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024