Should wikipedia remove pictures of Muhammad

Global Politician

quote:

---

They overstep their bounds by wanting to force the whole world to abide by their particular religious rules.

---

Indeed, for as long as islam does not rule the world, islam is oppressed.

Huh. Maybe I don't understand the question.When people can express themselves as they choose, that is Freedom of Speech. If people choose not to express themselves in a way that will offend others, not only is that still Freedom of Speech, but in other contexts it's called Getting Along With Other People.I don't call black people by the so-called "n-word" because it's considered offensive. This isn't a violation of Freedom of Speech -- I freely choose not to use that word because I sincerely don't want to offend other people in this manner.But when people have to be careful of the way they express themselves because of threats or intimidation, then that is no longer Freedom of Speech.Edited by Chiroptera, : clarity of meaning

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

Burp. Maybe I can help. Alright, then we should all try to GAWOP (Getting Along With Other People). If black people demanded that the word nigger be removed from wiki, would your respect for GAWOP be enough for the removal?

What I mean by spam site - It tries to spam the search index .. Think about this I create a website that will show up when you search for *anything* . By the search engine criteria that is spamming.That is essentially wikipedia - why should it show up on top for anything even when there is much more quality material for given website.Regarding the main question, my answer is Yes, They SHOULD remove pictures that offend those of a mainstream religion.Wikipedia is not a celebration of free speech - they do not allow anyone to say anything about anyone. They are very restrictive on what they allow-they have even removed content that was informative and correct.
By that standard they should definitely remove the pictures.If you want to talk free speech - THEN ANY speech should be allowed including so called hate speech! I cant stand people who think that what they consider offensive should be censored.

Search Muhammad Muslim in Google -
Why is wikipedia 2nd on google search? How are they the authority on Muslims if they choose to offend them?
My point here is a website cannot claim to be an authority on a subject if it attempts to be offensive - especially an open site like this which is clearly violating search engine rules.Wikipedia is a spam site and like porn sites that attempt to use backdoor entry pages should be banned from the search engines.So the issue is not freedom of speech at all but spamming the search index.

That's to do with google, not with wiki. One of the criteria that pushes a page up in any given search is the number of incoming links to that page from pages that also contain the search words used.Although that's a clever way of approximating the relevancy and particularly the importance of the page, it's impossible for google to devise a system that sorts out actual quality.When we link to wiki from this thread, using the words that are the title of the particular wiki page in our posts, we help push the page up the results, and as people are doing this all over the internet, the high search engine results just reflect wiki's popularity, for better or worse.So no, wiki does not cheat on search engines. It does not need to.There's something to be said for looking further down the list when making google searches, and I keep it on a default of 50 results per page because of this.

Hi SF,
I don't wan to get sidetracked onto a general discussion of Wikipedia, suffice to say that I think it is an excellent resource, so long as you don't treat it as gospel; Encyclopedia should be the start of your investigations, not the last word.
As for Muhammad, I see no reason why the images should be censored. Wikipedia is not a Muslim site. It isn't run for the benefit of an exclusively Muslim audience. Those images are of historical interest to many and I see no reason why one religious group should be able to suppress them.

quote:

---

Yes, They SHOULD remove pictures that offend those of a mainstream religion.

---

So it's OK to upset people from minority faiths? Either this kind of censorship is right, or it is wrong. The number of worshipers is not really relevant.

quote:

---

Wikipedia is not a celebration of free speech

---

Nor is it a celebration of Islamic values. See Neutral Point of View

quote:

---

they do not allow anyone to say anything about anyone.

---

No, it has to follow the guidelines. The Muhammad images most certainly do this. See Wiki in Brief

quote:

---

They are very restrictive on what they allow-they have even removed content that was informative and correct.

---

They do remove articles that are correct if they are not noteworthy. These pictures are noteworthy. On what basis do you consider that the images breach Wiki guidelines?

quote:

---

If you want to talk free speech - THEN ANY speech should be allowed including so called hate speech! I cant stand people who think that what they consider offensive should be censored.

---

In which case it is truly mystifying that you think the pictures should be binned because they offend someone; double standard at all? I agree with you that people should be allowed to speak their mind, without fear of being censored just because someone doesn't like what they have to say. That is why this wiki page on Freedom of Speech contains an appallingly offensive picture of one of the Phelps clan, with one of their charmless posters. It offends me, but I don't object to it being there. The poster is most certainly "hate speech", but it isn't part of the text of the article. Posting hate speech as part of the text would most certainly be a breech of Wikipedia's neutrality.
In summation, why should Wikipedia censor itself according to the diktats of Muslims? Should Islamic websites operate according to the principles of Wikipedia? Or should everyone be allowed to exercise their right to free speech and free expression?
PS - I notice that in Message 20 you name the prophet without adding the phrase "Peace Be Upon Him" after his name. Should you be allowed to offend Muslims in this way?

---

Mutate and Survive

I'm saying that if those who run Wikipedia decided to remove the word from their site after considering the feelings of black people, then that would not be a violation of freedom of speech.Was my post unclear?

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

quote:

---

Everything offends muslims.

---

Your depiction of Muslims is too broad.I have personally known several Muslims that don't fit your definition at all.Would it be OK if we depicted all Christians as though they all believed as the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Mormons?Both sects believe some pretty out-there stuff.

quote:

---

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?

---

Well CK, this is what an expert had to say about the matter:

quote:

---

[In their refusal to delete the images,] Wikipedians are supported by Professor Harun Behr, who is training school teachers for Islamic religious education at the University of Erlangen. "There is no absolute aniconism [prohibiton of images] in Islam", Behr explains to FOCUS Online. The Wikipedia article only shows unproblematic depictions from the Middle Ages [according to Behr]. "In the school books which we are designing for islamic religious education, we are using similar illustrations", Behr explains. While there is a broad consensus within Islam to abstain from images of Muhammad, this abstainment is a sign of respect and not an absolute prohibition of images [according to him]. "Somebody who is demanding the deletion of these images is clearly crossing a boundary", Behr says.

---

Wikipedia: Proteste gegen Mohammed-Bilder - FOCUS online

That was what I understood as the medieval interpretation - that's why mosques from Spain to Turkmenistan have such fantastic beautiful tiled designs. Of course, one of those Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy also prohibits any graven images - but Jews and Christians don't pay it much mind.

quote:

---

Nor is it a celebration of Islamic values.

---

I dont care what wikipidia is - I know it CANNOT be an authority on Muslims and Muhammad. It should not show up on top of the search engine when it is MERELY a website with definitions and articles written by people on the internet. There are other websites primarily devoted to this topic that should show up on top because they are more relevant.They CLAIM to be an Encyclopedia, but I dispute this - (the search engines though do not). What if 100 other people decide to put up their own Wikis? WHy should this one wiki be given preference - which means essentially the opinion of the moderators on that site are of more value.
What I like to know is are they other Encyclopedia printed or otherwise that had the same problem . Why is Wiki the target here? You mean to say this 'historical interest' has never been printed before in other reference books?At the very least they need to add information on why the pictures do offend (some or most) Muslims not just put up pictures like that.I don't think Wiki should censor itself - If it wants to be taken seriously it needs to conduct itself (it meaning the moderators) like a true source of information not like some spam website with infinite doorway pages to its site.

quote:

---

n summation, why should Wikipedia censor itself according to the diktats of Muslims?

---

You would think that the majority of Muslims would be able to contribute to the site , no?
I don't think that anyone can dictate to a website what content should be up.
However I would hope people have the commonsense to realize that Wiki is not a neutral site nor a legit source of information and more like a site with flame wars just like a public forum.By the way - I do not care if I offend Muslims or anyone else for that matter, but I am trying to be neutral here.To me a much more blatant violation of free speech is Google swaying under pressure to add an idiotic note (and somehow push the legitimate entry to #2) when you type Jew into google. The #2 entry is a 'hate' site, but it devoted entirely to that topic. Notice that wikipidia comes up first. Apparently they are the authority on both jews and muslims and somehow manage to offend muslims without offending jews (which is even easier to do actually if you think about it) .

quote:

---

Your depiction of Muslims is too broad.

---

Even your friendly neighborhood muslim is subject to the koran. If he has detached himself from it, he is no longer muslim. If he is subject to the koran, he will do as the koran tells him do. That's broad, because it includes all muslims.

quote:

---

I have personally known several Muslims that don't fit your definition at all.

---

See above

quote:

---

Would it be OK if we depicted all Christians as though they all believed as the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Mormons?

---

When paganism is practiced in any so-called Christian religion, members of said religions are not Christian. JWs and LDSs are not Christian.

quote:

---

Both sects believe some pretty out-there stuff.

---

Indeed, they do, but they are also not Christian, since you cannot find their beliefs in the bible. CARM has a very good library on cults and who or who not is Christian. Calling myself the king of Siam does not make it so, even if I insist with threats on your life. Edited by ThreeDogs, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Even your friendly neighborhood muslim is subject to the koran. If he has detached himself from it, he is no longer muslim. If he is subject to the koran, he will do as the koran tells him do. That's broad, because it includes all muslims.

---

So, the Jews are commanded by the Torah to stone disobedient children and adulterers to death.Are you saying that any Jew that does not follow this directive is no longer a Jew?And who died and made you the Grand Arbiter of who may call themselves a Muslim, or a Christian?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

I think this topic has run its useful, on-topic course.I see two problems in fundamentalist religious viewpoints:1) Binary thinking. That there must be a yes/no, right/wrong position.2) Refusal to be able to even consider that their holy book may be flawed or outdated.If anyone likes these themes, maybe they're up to spinning off a new topic.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

​

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose