Mailing List Archive

Muhammad
Hello,

We received an email on OTRS. I'll copy it in its entirety here for
consideration, and will do a very simple translation. I think the
proposal is interesting to reflect on.

---------

Hello,

I receive a lot of petition regarding the removal of our prophet.

I am myself against the removal, because it shows how the friday prayer
is important for muslims.

However, it so happens that the man on the image represents not the
prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from Persia). In various
descriptions of our prophet, it was said that he had a very long beard
and it could be seen when he was talking very softly because his beard
was moving (which was not the case of Ali).

May I suggest a solution ?
- Change of the name of the picture to islam.jpg instead of mohamet.jpg
- Change of the description which could say something like "groups of
muslims during the friday prayer in ancient times (date ?)"

I love your encyclopedia for its richness, and conflict leads to
nowhere. It is sometimes necessary to concede things, both from readers
and from editors. But if a group is disturbed by something to the point
of requesting removal, then it means the solution chosen is not the good
one.
I thank you for creating such a rich and free encyclopedia, and thank
you for reading me.

Bennani M.

---------

Bonjour,

Ces jour-ci, je reçois beaucoup de pétition à propos de la suppression d'une
photo de notre prophète.

Personnellement je suis contre l'enlèvement de cette photo car elle montre
l'assiduité des musulmans lors de la prière du vendredi.

Parodi des choses, lors d'une recherche, il se trouve que l'homme en
question sur le « mihrabe » représente non pas le prophète mais un imam (Ali
vu que le tableau est persan ) ,car parmi les différentes description du
prophète , il a était di qu'il avait une barbe longue et on pouvait le voir
murmuré de derrière en voyant simplement les bouts de sa barbe bouger
(contrairement à Ali) .

Personnellement, je me permet de proposer une petite solution :

- changement du nom de la photo en islam.jpg au lieu de mohamet.jpg
- Changement de la description en disant « Groupe de musulman lors de
la prière du vendredi au première aire de l'islam

Car personnellement j'adore votre encyclopédie pour ces richesses, et un tel
accident ca arrive ,le but étant de ne pas enfoncé les gents, ni de faire
un bras de fer ,ces actions ne mèneront à rein.

pour le développement des connaissances , il faut faire des sacrifices tant
pour l'éditeur que pour les lecteurs , mais si un groupe est dérangé par une
chose autant l'enlevé car si on prend tellement de mal à garder une chose
c'est que c'est pas la bonne solution qu'on a ici.

Je vous remercie , pour avoir mis au monde une encyclopédie aussi riche
gratuitement pour tous le monde et je vous remercie encore une foie d'avoir
lu mon message merci.

Nb : merci de me donner une réponse « que se soit favorable ou défavorable »


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
It seems to be a good request because Wikipedia is a a-religious,
a-politic encyclopedia and must manage any article in a scientific
point of view.

If someone requests to cancel images for religious purpose these
requests *must* not be followed because we are not a religious
encyclopedia.

It's the same that someone requests to delete some informations in an
article for religious purposes.

Ilario

2008/3/3 Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>:
> Hello,
>
> We received an email on OTRS. I'll copy it in its entirety here for
> consideration, and will do a very simple translation. I think the
> proposal is interesting to reflect on.
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
On 03/03/2008, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We received an email on OTRS. I'll copy it in its entirety here for
> consideration, and will do a very simple translation. I think the
> proposal is interesting to reflect on.
>
> ---------
>
> Hello,
>
> I receive a lot of petition regarding the removal of our prophet.
>
> I am myself against the removal, because it shows how the friday prayer
> is important for muslims.
>
> However, it so happens that the man on the image represents not the
> prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from Persia). In various
> descriptions of our prophet, it was said that he had a very long beard
> and it could be seen when he was talking very softly because his beard
> was moving (which was not the case of Ali).
>
> May I suggest a solution ?
> - Change of the name of the picture to islam.jpg instead of mohamet.jpg
> - Change of the description which could say something like "groups of
> muslims during the friday prayer in ancient times (date ?)"
>
> I love your encyclopedia for its richness, and conflict leads to
> nowhere. It is sometimes necessary to concede things, both from readers
> and from editors. But if a group is disturbed by something to the point
> of requesting removal, then it means the solution chosen is not the good
> one.
> I thank you for creating such a rich and free encyclopedia, and thank
> you for reading me.
>
> Bennani M.

Seems like a good solution for one image. We shouldn't assert that an
image is one person if we are not certain that the image does depict
that person. If we aren't sure, the caption should convey this ("Some
scholars believe this to be a depiction of Muhammad"). Which image in
particular is he referring to, because there are several on the
en.Wikipedia article, most of which are known to show Muhammad? Is he
even referring to en.wikipedia?

Still, this doesn't help images which are known to depict Muhammad's
face (such as plates from the [[Siyer-i Nebi]], including "Prophet
Muhammad at the Ka'ba").

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 03/03/2008, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> We received an email on OTRS. I'll copy it in its entirety here for
>> consideration, and will do a very simple translation. I think the
>> proposal is interesting to reflect on.
>>
>> ---------
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I receive a lot of petition regarding the removal of our prophet.
>>
>> I am myself against the removal, because it shows how the friday prayer
>> is important for muslims.
>>
>> However, it so happens that the man on the image represents not the
>> prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from Persia). In various
>> descriptions of our prophet, it was said that he had a very long beard
>> and it could be seen when he was talking very softly because his beard
>> was moving (which was not the case of Ali).
>>
>> May I suggest a solution ?
>> - Change of the name of the picture to islam.jpg instead of mohamet.jpg
>> - Change of the description which could say something like "groups of
>> muslims during the friday prayer in ancient times (date ?)"
>>
>> I love your encyclopedia for its richness, and conflict leads to
>> nowhere. It is sometimes necessary to concede things, both from readers
>> and from editors. But if a group is disturbed by something to the point
>> of requesting removal, then it means the solution chosen is not the good
>> one.
>> I thank you for creating such a rich and free encyclopedia, and thank
>> you for reading me.
>>
>> Bennani M.
>
> Seems like a good solution for one image. We shouldn't assert that an
> image is one person if we are not certain that the image does depict
> that person. If we aren't sure, the caption should convey this ("Some
> scholars believe this to be a depiction of Muhammad"). Which image in
> particular is he referring to, because there are several on the
> en.Wikipedia article, most of which are known to show Muhammad? Is he
> even referring to en.wikipedia?

Apparently this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg

It represents Friday prayer.
Indeed, the beard is very short, whilst here, it is very long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

> Still, this doesn't help images which are known to depict Muhammad's
> face (such as plates from the [[Siyer-i Nebi]], including "Prophet
> Muhammad at the Ka'ba").

Indeed

ant

(not a Muhamad specialist :-))


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
2008/3/3 Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>:

> However, it so happens that the man on the image represents not the
> prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from Persia).

Is there any source to back this statement up, except for its origin
and one face feature?

> May I suggest a solution ?
> - Change of the name of the picture to islam.jpg instead of mohamet.jpg

Changing the name from one non-descriptive name to another
non-descriptive one is not quite helpful. In the case of
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg , the description
contains a lot more useful information for a proper file name.

Mathias

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
Hello, as an aethetician, I hold barely same questions of Mathias's.

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Mathias Schindler
<mathias.schindler@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/3/3 Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>:
>
>
> > However, it so happens that the man on the image represents not the
> > prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from Persia).
>
> Is there any source to back this statement up, except for its origin
> and one face feature?

While I feel the offered description sounds rational, no original
research so we have to rely on this offered solution until it is
proved by cited sources. In studies of art history, "who is depicted"
is a major genre of disputes and seeds of many papers,$B!!(Bspecially on
historically significant works, like Mona Lisa, so I assume if picture
A is important in that genre, there are some papers which argued
"who's who" problems.

> > May I suggest a solution ?
> > - Change of the name of the picture to islam.jpg instead of mohamet.jpg
>
> Changing the name from one non-descriptive name to another
> non-descriptive one is not quite helpful. In the case of
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg , the description
> contains a lot more useful information for a proper file name.

Islam.jpg is more vague than the current name, so I agree with Mathias.
* Most of historic images have a traditional name in an academic
circle. If it is traditionally called "Mohamet", renaming might be not
the scientific way. I recommend to pick up most popular names.
* If there is a dispute and no such standardized name, still a more
descriptive name is preferred. Then "Mohamet.jpg" may be a POV name
(since there is a dispute) and an alternate like "Friday prayer with
an Imam" may fit more.


Cheers,
> Mathias
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> 2008/3/3 Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>:
>
>> However, it so happens that the man on the image represents not the
>> prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from Persia).
>
> Is there any source to back this statement up, except for its origin
> and one face feature?

I dunno. The document seems to come from BNF. But the BNF website is
seriously unhelpful on that matter :-)
All I found is http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm

I gather a scholar could help us on this. I can ask the guy of course,
but will only do so is there a minimum of support. I have no idea why he
suggests it is Ali. I do not know enough the history of Muslim religion.

However, whilst I was wandering around, I must say the diversity of
faces this faceless person has been represented with, is quite amazing :-)


>> May I suggest a solution ?
>> - Change of the name of the picture to islam.jpg instead of mohamet.jpg
>
> Changing the name from one non-descriptive name to another
> non-descriptive one is not quite helpful. In the case of
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg , the description
> contains a lot more useful information for a proper file name.

Agreed.

Ant

> Mathias
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
In Shi'a Islam, Ali and his descendents are the true political and religious
successors to Muhammad. He was a contemporary of Muhammad's, the first man
other than Muhammad to accept Islam, and after Muhammad's death was
considered an infallible leader in his own right. Sunnis also revere him,
but don't consider him infallible and recognize a more complicated set of
legitimate successors to Muhammad.

Aside from Muhammad himself, Ali is probably the most important figure in
the founding of Shi'a. I've been told that depictions of Ali are relatively
common in Shi'a areas (more so than any historical Muslim leader including
Muhammad), though I have no direct knowledge of this.
-Robert Rohde


On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Mathias Schindler wrote:
> > 2008/3/3 Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>:
> >
> >> However, it so happens that the man on the image represents not the
> >> prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from Persia).
> >
> > Is there any source to back this statement up, except for its origin
> > and one face feature?
>
> I dunno. The document seems to come from BNF. But the BNF website is
> seriously unhelpful on that matter :-)
> All I found is http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm
>
> I gather a scholar could help us on this. I can ask the guy of course,
> but will only do so is there a minimum of support. I have no idea why he
> suggests it is Ali. I do not know enough the history of Muslim religion.
>
> However, whilst I was wandering around, I must say the diversity of
> faces this faceless person has been represented with, is quite amazing :-)
>
>
> >> May I suggest a solution ?
> >> - Change of the name of the picture to islam.jpg instead of
> mohamet.jpg
> >
> > Changing the name from one non-descriptive name to another
> > non-descriptive one is not quite helpful. In the case of
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg , the description
> > contains a lot more useful information for a proper file name.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Ant
>
> > Mathias
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
Hi all

I am on this mailing list only to learn about Wikipedia and do a small
presentation for my class this quarter.
I noticed a lot of emails about the Mohammed pictures. I don't know if it
helps you through the decisions making process but
that said i'm quite confident that this is not a Mohammed picture. Most
probably it is Ali. and for that reason it should be fine.
in Iran(Majority Shia Moslem) a lot of Ali pictures can be found. there is
not objection from religious authorities about that.
But you can rarely find a Muhammad picture. in most of the old paintings
Mohammed face was not painted in detail. instead
it was drawn as a big source of light. I come from Iran and would be more
than happy to help you with this topic or any related issue.
I can also translate from Farsi(Persian) to English.

Aslan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
There are several pictures, including some where it clearly is
Muhammad with his face whited out.. Which one are you referring to?

-Dan
On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:44 PM, A N wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I am on this mailing list only to learn about Wikipedia and do a small
> presentation for my class this quarter.
> I noticed a lot of emails about the Mohammed pictures. I don't know
> if it
> helps you through the decisions making process but
> that said i'm quite confident that this is not a Mohammed picture.
> Most
> probably it is Ali. and for that reason it should be fine.
> in Iran(Majority Shia Moslem) a lot of Ali pictures can be found.
> there is
> not objection from religious authorities about that.
> But you can rarely find a Muhammad picture. in most of the old
> paintings
> Mohammed face was not painted in detail. instead
> it was drawn as a big source of light. I come from Iran and would be
> more
> than happy to help you with this topic or any related issue.
> I can also translate from Farsi(Persian) to English.
>
> Aslan
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
A N wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I am on this mailing list only to learn about Wikipedia and do a small
> presentation for my class this quarter.
> I noticed a lot of emails about the Mohammed pictures. I don't know if it
> helps you through the decisions making process but
> that said i'm quite confident that this is not a Mohammed picture. Most
> probably it is Ali. and for that reason it should be fine.
> in Iran(Majority Shia Moslem) a lot of Ali pictures can be found. there is
> not objection from religious authorities about that.
> But you can rarely find a Muhammad picture. in most of the old paintings
> Mohammed face was not painted in detail. instead
> it was drawn as a big source of light. I come from Iran and would be more
> than happy to help you with this topic or any related issue.
> I can also translate from Farsi(Persian) to English.
>
> Aslan

Hello Aslan

See also emails posted here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039057.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039062.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039066.html

Best

Ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
a typical Mohammad picture in islamic litruture would look like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg

you can find pictures like this but they are rare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg
this was clearly a Mohammed picture because it describes a well known story.

one picture i am not sure if it is Mohammed or Ali is this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg
especially because its an earlier picture and its very unusual for a more
recent islamic artist to paint Mohammads face in detail. I can make an
inquiry to one of my university professors that knows a great deal about
Islamic art and literature and get his opinion about this picture.
I wish it had some surrounding text as most of Islamic painting do. that
would have helped a lot.

As far as i know a great deal of Islamic art came from Iran and Ottoman
empire. Somehow Iranian religious authorities did not strongly object to
Mohammed pictures. Even now they don't object to an old Mohammed picture
unless its something like :
http://www.suprmchaos.com/bologna-fresco_062602.jpg

when the picture is drawn by Muslims it usually does not raise any
objection. however now, one can not paint a picture of Mohammed no matter
how good it looks. I know this does not make sense at all but that is how it
is.

Aslan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
I really thing the Mohhamed controversy has been going on for far too long
because of the close-mindness of both sides. Wiki supposed to be free.
Consensus is often defined as "reaching an agreement" or compromise. We have
one side who is desperately tying/fighting to keep the image of Mohammed off
the article, we also have another side that is desperately trying to keep
the image of Mohammed in the article. Both sides are being no better than
each other.

Now I can understand why clear newbies are acting like this, they do not
know any better. What I cannot comprehend is why oldies are acting like
this. People should be seeking a compromise, not waging a war.

That is all there is to it. This one OTRS email shows an understanding of
the way we do things on wikipedia both sides of the dispute failed to
demonstrate.

- White Cat

2008/3/3 Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>:

> Hello,
>
> We received an email on OTRS. I'll copy it in its entirety here for
> consideration, and will do a very simple translation. I think the
> proposal is interesting to reflect on.
>
> ---------
>
> Hello,
>
> I receive a lot of petition regarding the removal of our prophet.
>
> I am myself against the removal, because it shows how the friday prayer
> is important for muslims.
>
> However, it so happens that the man on the image represents not the
> prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from Persia). In various
> descriptions of our prophet, it was said that he had a very long beard
> and it could be seen when he was talking very softly because his beard
> was moving (which was not the case of Ali).
>
> May I suggest a solution ?
> - Change of the name of the picture to islam.jpg instead of mohamet.jpg
> - Change of the description which could say something like "groups of
> muslims during the friday prayer in ancient times (date ?)"
>
> I love your encyclopedia for its richness, and conflict leads to
> nowhere. It is sometimes necessary to concede things, both from readers
> and from editors. But if a group is disturbed by something to the point
> of requesting removal, then it means the solution chosen is not the good
> one.
> I thank you for creating such a rich and free encyclopedia, and thank
> you for reading me.
>
> Bennani M.
>
> ---------
>
> Bonjour,
>
> Ces jour-ci, je reçois beaucoup de pétition à propos de la suppression
> d'une
> photo de notre prophète.
>
> Personnellement je suis contre l'enlèvement de cette photo car elle
> montre
> l'assiduité des musulmans lors de la prière du vendredi.
>
> Parodi des choses, lors d'une recherche, il se trouve que l'homme en
> question sur le « mihrabe » représente non pas le prophète mais un imam
> (Ali
> vu que le tableau est persan ) ,car parmi les différentes description du
> prophète , il a était di qu'il avait une barbe longue et on pouvait le
> voir
> murmuré de derrière en voyant simplement les bouts de sa barbe bouger
> (contrairement à Ali) .
>
> Personnellement, je me permet de proposer une petite solution :
>
> - changement du nom de la photo en islam.jpg au lieu de mohamet.jpg
> - Changement de la description en disant « Groupe de musulman lors de
> la prière du vendredi au première aire de l'islam
>
> Car personnellement j'adore votre encyclopédie pour ces richesses, et un
> tel
> accident ca arrive ,le but étant de ne pas enfoncé les gents, ni de faire
> un bras de fer ,ces actions ne mèneront à rein.
>
> pour le développement des connaissances , il faut faire des sacrifices
> tant
> pour l'éditeur que pour les lecteurs , mais si un groupe est dérangé par
> une
> chose autant l'enlevé car si on prend tellement de mal à garder une chose
> c'est que c'est pas la bonne solution qu'on a ici.
>
> Je vous remercie , pour avoir mis au monde une encyclopédie aussi riche
> gratuitement pour tous le monde et je vous remercie encore une foie
> d'avoir
> lu mon message merci.
>
> Nb : merci de me donner une réponse « que se soit favorable ou défavorable
> »
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
I have not looked into the Mohamed images very much
because of the sheer volume of material to read. But
it may be useful to point out a successful compromise
I was involved on a similar issue regarding LDS
Temple Garments.[1] The compromise was that the people
modeling the garments were photoshoped out. Of course
the LDS member's first choice was to have no image at
all, but all of them participating felt it was less
offensive after the alteration and the situation was
calmer. I do not know how much can be done to make
the images of Mohamed less offensive while still
displaying them. But suggestions about verifying these
images and using different filenames are a good place
to start.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Garment.jpg
--- White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com> wrote:

> I really thing the Mohhamed controversy has been
> going on for far too long
> because of the close-mindness of both sides. Wiki
> supposed to be free.
> Consensus is often defined as "reaching an
> agreement" or compromise. We have
> one side who is desperately tying/fighting to keep
> the image of Mohammed off
> the article, we also have another side that is
> desperately trying to keep
> the image of Mohammed in the article. Both sides are
> being no better than
> each other.
>
> Now I can understand why clear newbies are acting
> like this, they do not
> know any better. What I cannot comprehend is why
> oldies are acting like
> this. People should be seeking a compromise, not
> waging a war.
>
> That is all there is to it. This one OTRS email
> shows an understanding of
> the way we do things on wikipedia both sides of the
> dispute failed to
> demonstrate.
>
> - White Cat
>
> 2008/3/3 Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > We received an email on OTRS. I'll copy it in its
> entirety here for
> > consideration, and will do a very simple
> translation. I think the
> > proposal is interesting to reflect on.
> >
> > ---------
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I receive a lot of petition regarding the removal
> of our prophet.
> >
> > I am myself against the removal, because it shows
> how the friday prayer
> > is important for muslims.
> >
> > However, it so happens that the man on the image
> represents not the
> > prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from
> Persia). In various
> > descriptions of our prophet, it was said that he
> had a very long beard
> > and it could be seen when he was talking very
> softly because his beard
> > was moving (which was not the case of Ali).
> >
> > May I suggest a solution ?
> > - Change of the name of the picture to islam.jpg
> instead of mohamet.jpg
> > - Change of the description which could say
> something like "groups of
> > muslims during the friday prayer in ancient times
> (date ?)"
> >
> > I love your encyclopedia for its richness, and
> conflict leads to
> > nowhere. It is sometimes necessary to concede
> things, both from readers
> > and from editors. But if a group is disturbed by
> something to the point
> > of requesting removal, then it means the solution
> chosen is not the good
> > one.
> > I thank you for creating such a rich and free
> encyclopedia, and thank
> > you for reading me.
> >
> > Bennani M.
> >
> > ---------
> >
> > Bonjour,
> >
> > Ces jour-ci, je reçois beaucoup de pétition à
> propos de la suppression
> > d'une
> > photo de notre prophète.
> >
> > Personnellement je suis contre l'enlèvement de
> cette photo car elle
> > montre
> > l'assiduité des musulmans lors de la prière du
> vendredi.
> >
> > Parodi des choses, lors d'une recherche, il se
> trouve que l'homme en
> > question sur le « mihrabe » représente non pas le
> prophète mais un imam
> > (Ali
> > vu que le tableau est persan ) ,car parmi les
> différentes description du
> > prophète , il a était di qu'il avait une barbe
> longue et on pouvait le
> > voir
> > murmuré de derrière en voyant simplement les bouts
> de sa barbe bouger
> > (contrairement à Ali) .
> >
> > Personnellement, je me permet de proposer une
> petite solution :
> >
> > - changement du nom de la photo en islam.jpg au
> lieu de mohamet.jpg
> > - Changement de la description en disant «
> Groupe de musulman lors de
> > la prière du vendredi au première aire de
> l'islam
> >
> > Car personnellement j'adore votre encyclopédie
> pour ces richesses, et un
> > tel
> > accident ca arrive ,le but étant de ne pas enfoncé
> les gents, ni de faire
> > un bras de fer ,ces actions ne mèneront à rein.
> >
> > pour le développement des connaissances , il faut
> faire des sacrifices
> > tant
> > pour l'éditeur que pour les lecteurs , mais si un
> groupe est dérangé par
> > une
> > chose autant l'enlevé car si on prend tellement
> de mal à garder une chose
> > c'est que c'est pas la bonne solution qu'on a ici.
> >
> > Je vous remercie , pour avoir mis au monde une
> encyclopédie aussi riche
> > gratuitement pour tous le monde et je vous
> remercie encore une foie
> > d'avoir
> > lu mon message merci.
> >
> > Nb : merci de me donner une réponse « que se soit
> favorable ou défavorable
> > »
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>



____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

White Cat wrote:
> I really thing the Mohhamed controversy has been going on for far too long
> because of the close-mindness of both sides. Wiki supposed to be free.
> Consensus is often defined as "reaching an agreement" or compromise. We have
> one side who is desperately tying/fighting to keep the image of Mohammed off
> the article, we also have another side that is desperately trying to keep
> the image of Mohammed in the article. Both sides are being no better than
> each other.
>
> Now I can understand why clear newbies are acting like this, they do not
> know any better. What I cannot comprehend is why oldies are acting like
> this. People should be seeking a compromise, not waging a war.
>
> That is all there is to it. This one OTRS email shows an understanding of
> the way we do things on wikipedia both sides of the dispute failed to
> demonstrate.

I disagree. Not every situation merits a compromise. Indeed, in many
situations, such as the evolution vs creationism debate raging through
the uneducated masses in our school systems, one side is clearly right
and one side is clearly wrong. To compromise is to lose.


- --
Ben "Cyde Weys" McIlwain ( http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/ )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFH1USCvCEYTv+mBWcRAgfgAJ9Be+1VPF+mYHYWQGpR6PI5pIYjnACeNlZG
7g8dkNPX+X/I1cee7LlH6tE=
=9o69
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
On 10/03/2008, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com> wrote:
> I really thing the Mohhamed controversy has been going on for far too long
> because of the close-mindness of both sides. Wiki supposed to be free.
> Consensus is often defined as "reaching an agreement" or compromise. We have
> one side who is desperately tying/fighting to keep the image of Mohammed off
> the article, we also have another side that is desperately trying to keep
> the image of Mohammed in the article. Both sides are being no better than
> each other.

As far as I'm aware, the issue isn't that the image is in the article.
The issue is that Wikipedia (or WF) is publishing the image at all.

Where do you suggest the compromise is?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as I'm aware, the issue isn't that the image is in the article.
> The issue is that Wikipedia (or WF) is publishing the image at all.
>
> Where do you suggest the compromise is?

I've heard a few things suggested over the course of the conversation:
1) Edit the images to remove the face of Mohammed from them.
2) Rename images which aren't expressly known to be Mohammed (such as
the one example that people discuss, where the image is likely Ali
instead). Use filenames which don't specifically say that the image is
of Mohammed.
3) Do more to specifically reference the images from the article,
including justifying why the image appears in the article at all
("this is an example of the way mohammed is depicted in..."). Using
the images for mere decoration is one thing, using them to illustrate
specific facts and examples is another.

Of these, I personally think #2 is the best first attempt, because it
doesnt require us to change any article content. After that, #3 is a
good idea because while we are modifying content, we are adding more
information to the article.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
On 10/03/2008, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As far as I'm aware, the issue isn't that the image is in the article.
> > The issue is that Wikipedia (or WF) is publishing the image at all.
> >
> > Where do you suggest the compromise is?
>
> I've heard a few things suggested over the course of the conversation:
> 1) Edit the images to remove the face of Mohammed from them.
> 2) Rename images which aren't expressly known to be Mohammed (such as
> the one example that people discuss, where the image is likely Ali
> instead). Use filenames which don't specifically say that the image is
> of Mohammed.
> 3) Do more to specifically reference the images from the article,
> including justifying why the image appears in the article at all
> ("this is an example of the way mohammed is depicted in..."). Using
> the images for mere decoration is one thing, using them to illustrate
> specific facts and examples is another.
>
> Of these, I personally think #2 is the best first attempt, because it
> doesnt require us to change any article content. After that, #3 is a
> good idea because while we are modifying content, we are adding more
> information to the article.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth

If we edited the image (per 1), we'd hardly be representing the work
of art without bias and we wouldn't be representing the artwork
neutrally. This is entirely counter to what we are trying to do. There
are pictures in the world which depict Muhammad's face (we're not
synthesising these pictures). That is not our fault and it is not our
job to say that whether it is appropriate that these images exist or
not. We should represent these artworks without bias.

I definitely agree with 2). Wouldn't most/all Wikimedians agree with
accurately naming images?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we edited the image (per 1), we'd hardly be representing the work
> of art without bias and we wouldn't be representing the artwork
> neutrally.

I agree with you entirely, I don't think that the first option is a
good one for us.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Whitworth
<wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we edited the image (per 1), we'd hardly be representing the work
> > of art without bias and we wouldn't be representing the artwork
> > neutrally.
>
> I agree with you entirely, I don't think that the first option is a
> good one for us.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
Indeed, one editor or another created a modified version of Muhammad
Kaaba 1315 with the face blurred, and the comprimise was pretty
soundly rejected. I believe the image is still on commons though.

WilyD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
You may be right. But waging a war over it is clearly not the right thing to
do.

- White Cat

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys@gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> White Cat wrote:
> > I really thing the Mohhamed controversy has been going on for far too
> long
> > because of the close-mindness of both sides. Wiki supposed to be free.
> > Consensus is often defined as "reaching an agreement" or compromise. We
> have
> > one side who is desperately tying/fighting to keep the image of Mohammed
> off
> > the article, we also have another side that is desperately trying to
> keep
> > the image of Mohammed in the article. Both sides are being no better
> than
> > each other.
> >
> > Now I can understand why clear newbies are acting like this, they do not
> > know any better. What I cannot comprehend is why oldies are acting like
> > this. People should be seeking a compromise, not waging a war.
> >
> > That is all there is to it. This one OTRS email shows an understanding
> of
> > the way we do things on wikipedia both sides of the dispute failed to
> > demonstrate.
>
> I disagree. Not every situation merits a compromise. Indeed, in many
> situations, such as the evolution vs creationism debate raging through
> the uneducated masses in our school systems, one side is clearly right
> and one side is clearly wrong. To compromise is to lose.
>
>
> - --
> Ben "Cyde Weys" McIlwain ( http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/ )
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFH1USCvCEYTv+mBWcRAgfgAJ9Be+1VPF+mYHYWQGpR6PI5pIYjnACeNlZG
> 7g8dkNPX+X/I1cee7LlH6tE=
> =9o69
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
Images will not be deleted from commons for religious reasons. That I can
guarantee. Their presentation on wikipedia can be avoided.

We do not want galleries on wikipedia, that is what commons is for. This for
example can be a valid compromise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus shows a few examples, which
I will now move to commons as per the above reason.

- White Cat

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Whitworth
> <wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > If we edited the image (per 1), we'd hardly be representing the work
> > > of art without bias and we wouldn't be representing the artwork
> > > neutrally.
> >
> > I agree with you entirely, I don't think that the first option is a
> > good one for us.
> >
> > --Andrew Whitworth
> >
> >
> Indeed, one editor or another created a modified version of Muhammad
> Kaaba 1315 with the face blurred, and the comprimise was pretty
> soundly rejected. I believe the image is still on commons though.
>
> WilyD
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:48 AM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Images will not be deleted from commons for religious reasons. That I can
> guarantee. Their presentation on wikipedia can be avoided.
>
> We do not want galleries on wikipedia, that is what commons is for. This
> for
> example can be a valid compromise.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus shows a few examples,
> which
> I will now move to commons as per the above reason.
>
> - White Cat
>
>

As might be expected, you were already reverted. An article on Wikipedia
discussing "Depictions of Jesus" is quite expected to contain examples of
depictions of Jesus. Please be flexible about these things. There is no
need to say X kind of content belongs only on Y site. The goal is to be
useful to readers.

At the very least, moving any large chunk of content out of Wikipedia,
primarily because you don't like it there, is something that should be
discussed among the contributors to that page.

-Robert Rohde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
Ah was reverted almost instantly

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depiction_of_Jesus&diff=197254354&oldid=197253025

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:48 PM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Images will not be deleted from commons for religious reasons. That I can
> guarantee. Their presentation on wikipedia can be avoided.
>
> We do not want galleries on wikipedia, that is what commons is for. This
> for example can be a valid compromise.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus shows a few examples,
> which I will now move to commons as per the above reason.
>
> - White Cat
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Whitworth
> > <wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > If we edited the image (per 1), we'd hardly be representing the
> > work
> > > > of art without bias and we wouldn't be representing the artwork
> > > > neutrally.
> > >
> > > I agree with you entirely, I don't think that the first option is a
> > > good one for us.
> > >
> > > --Andrew Whitworth
> > >
> > >
> > Indeed, one editor or another created a modified version of Muhammad
> > Kaaba 1315 with the face blurred, and the comprimise was pretty
> > soundly rejected. I believe the image is still on commons though.
> >
> > WilyD
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
Re: Muhammad [ In reply to ]
Why does commons exist?

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:48 AM, White Cat <
> wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Images will not be deleted from commons for religious reasons. That I
> can
> > guarantee. Their presentation on wikipedia can be avoided.
> >
> > We do not want galleries on wikipedia, that is what commons is for. This
> > for
> > example can be a valid compromise.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus shows a few examples,
> > which
> > I will now move to commons as per the above reason.
> >
> > - White Cat
> >
> >
>
> As might be expected, you were already reverted. An article on Wikipedia
> discussing "Depictions of Jesus" is quite expected to contain examples of
> depictions of Jesus. Please be flexible about these things. There is no
> need to say X kind of content belongs only on Y site. The goal is to be
> useful to readers.
>
> At the very least, moving any large chunk of content out of Wikipedia,
> primarily because you don't like it there, is something that should be
> discussed among the contributors to that page.
>
> -Robert Rohde
> _______________________________________________
> 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

1 2  View All