Trying to Censor Wikipedia? (asked to remove Mohammed photos)

2008-02-06 07:54:36

#1

David.P: Banned; +649|6703

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/05/ … y/wiki.php

Seriously What the Fuck? I'm glad wikipedia is not bending to pressure, But for how long?

Like i said in the earlier thread Double Mother Fucken Standards...

2008-02-06 08:00:19

#2

jord: Member; +2,382|7107|The North, beyond the wall.

15th century illustration in a copy of a manuscript by Al-Bīrūnī, depicting Muhammad preaching the Qur'ān in Mecca.[51]

I think they're moaning about that picture... It's artwork from 500 years ago, it's not degrading or offensive from the looks of it.

80 000 signatures my ass, if by 80 000 you mean people signed it 100 times each. Then yeah it would be 80 000.

2008-02-06 08:01:27

#3

Shem: sɥǝɯ; +152|6956|London (At Heart)

I actually agree that it should be removed to be honest.

Hey, Im pretty sure a lot of christians would get pissy if we put certain images up there.

Muslims don't like pictures of Mohammed.. respect it imo.

Last edited by Shem (2008-02-06 08:01:54)

2008-02-06 08:05:08

#4

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7165|Salt Lake City

It's an encyclopedia. It's information, it's not bashing or in any way insulting Islam; this isn't like the cartoons that were made recently. If they don't like it, they don't have to visit the site or visit that particular subject.

2008-02-06 08:07:54

#5

topal63: . . .; +533|7147

Shem wrote:
I actually agree that it should be removed to be honest.

Hey, Im pretty sure a lot of christians would get pissy if we put certain images up there.

Muslims don't like pictures of Mohammed.. respect it imo.

You've got to be kidding.

Look that's taking cultural sensitivity & political correctness way to far. We are not a Christian Nation nor are we a Muslim Nation. We (the U.S.) are not a religious theocracy of any kind. And, there is no reason in existence that a secular society should ever give in to any kind of religious demands - of any kind regarding: censorship, modification of instructional material, science textbooks, etc.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-02-06 08:08:26)

2008-02-06 08:08:17

#6

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6984

Wikipedia will not buckle. These petition signers are wasting their time. They should go out and have a fucking beer instead of wasting their ink. If I wanna stick a link on Wikipedia to ancient art depicting Jesus fisting Buddha while Moses watches then I'd like my freedom of speech respected (of course the link would have to be of some historical or artistic merit, otherwise it would just be tasteless...).

PS David - where exactly are these non-existent double standards?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-06 08:20:47)

2008-02-06 08:08:47

#7

bf2gammer: Member; +14|6649

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's an encyclopedia. It's information, it's not bashing or in any way insulting Islam; this isn't like the cartoons that were made recently. If they don't like it, they don't have to visit the site or visit that particular subject.

exactly.

2008-02-06 08:11:25

#8

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|7172|Reality

Shem wrote:
I actually agree that it should be removed to be honest.

Hey, [I'm] pretty sure a lot of Christians would get pissy if we put certain images up there.

Muslims don't like pictures of Mohammed.. respect it imo.

who else are you gonna accommodate? because once you start down this road it will be very hard to turn around.

as the poster above you mentioned, this is old Islamic art

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2008-02-06 08:27:19

#9

Tetrino: International OMGWTFBBQ; +200|7160|Uhh... erm...

Well, to view things clearly, one must find out the reason things are or are not allowed in Islam. The reason, as far as I know, that Muhammad prohibited depictions of himself was because he did not want to appear to Muslims as anything more than a messenger of God and as a human being. He did not want what happened to Christ to happen to him, becoming the center of worship rather than God.

So in my opinion, there is nothing wrong at all with this image. I highly doubt anyone looking at that will suddenly begin worshiping Muhammad, and it is hardly insulting. This is just another example of people blindly following what they are told without thinking about why they are told to do what they're told.

2008-02-06 08:30:39

#10

Magpie: international welder....Douchebag Dude, <3 ur mom; +257|6955|Milkystania, yurop

Those crazy Buddhists with their petitions

2008-02-06 08:36:39

#11

Lieutenant_Jensen: Your cops are corrupt.; +200|6820|fåking denmark

Magpie wrote:
Those crazy Buddhists with their petitions

Don't blame the Buddhists! They are cool.

2008-02-06 08:38:56

#12

JahManRed: wank; +646|7057|IRELAND

Oh. Another, "the hoards of Muslims are coming for us" thread by D.P. How refreshing.

2008-02-06 08:40:45

#13

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6929|so randum

Wiki wont fold.

And the muslims arent going to kill you in your sleep.

So chill on the muslim threads.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2008-02-06 08:43:13

#14

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6652|Escea

JahManRed wrote:
Oh. Another, "the hoards of Muslims are coming for us" thread by D.P. How refreshing.

Eh? He's pointing out something that's actually happened. There's a string of these events you know.

2008-02-06 08:46:58

#15

chittydog: less busy; +586|7264|Kubra, Damn it!

Big deal. So some people signed a online petition. Is this worth getting upset over? I guarantee you that any religious group would protest if someone posted an image they considered offensive. It's wiki's right to post it, and it's the people's right to protest.

I think he's just mad that it's a civil protest by non-violent muslims.

2008-02-06 08:51:16

#16

HollisHurlbut: Member; +51|6426

Shem wrote:
I actually agree that it should be removed to be honest.

Hey, Im pretty sure a lot of christians would get pissy if we put certain images up there.

Interesting wording. It just so happens that Wikipedia has an article, accompanied by a picture, of a piece of "art" that spawned some intense controversy when it was put on display in New York. It's called Piss Christ. Enjoy it. Read the discussion page. Observe the complete absence of demands to remove the image.

Next, take a stroll on over tyo the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammed]Muhammed entry and experience the whine.

Muslims don't like pictures of Mohammed.. respect it imo.

Part of me doesn't even believe this is true. Remember the Danish cartoons hubbub? Well MANY newspapers across the mideast repreinted the cartoons unaltered. So much for a "ban" on the image.

2008-02-06 10:26:42

#17

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7191

M.O.A.B wrote:
JahManRed wrote:
Oh. Another, "the hoards of Muslims are coming for us" thread by D.P. How refreshing.
Eh? He's pointing out something that's actually happened. There's a string of these events you know.

Ya....but I remember from another thread on here being told moderate muslims do not have time to protest stuff like this because they are poor. Hmmmm...

2008-02-06 10:27:58

#18

Locoloki: I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!; +216|7069|Your moms bedroom

maybe some of you 4chan guys can get people to sign a petition to keep it up

2008-02-06 10:29:14

#19

..teddy..jimmy: Member; +1,393|7078

<3 Pork

2008-02-06 10:31:54

#20

Shem: sɥǝɯ; +152|6956|London (At Heart)

Not all muslims are extremsists, alot of you seem to forget that.

Most of us, including myself do not belong to this faith and as such we have no right to say whether or not they should think it acceptable.

If the faith as a whole wants it removed, just remove it, keeping it up there in spite is just a way to spawn a few more extremists.

Last edited by Shem (2008-02-06 10:32:45)

2008-02-06 10:35:19