Petition against weikipedia.sign it

  • Thread starter Thread starter mutlib
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 12
  • Views Views 12K
First, did you check to see how many signatures there where, or did you just copy and paste, cuz there are over 61,000 signatures at the moment. Second, where is it Wiki policy that a petition of 10,000 signatures will get something removed? Third, there aren't any offensive pictures. Rather, they are pictures created by muslims.

If you're really serious about it, join wikipedia, join the discussions and convince the other wiki editors that it should be removed. I don't see something like a petition changing their mind, as the content is based on discussion. The discussion related to images of the Prophet (saws) has been contentious for quite some time. Have a look at some of the most recent here.
 
Official wiki policy on images of the Prophet (saws):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

It offends Muslims
Further information: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer
Wikipedia recognizes that there are cultural traditions among some Muslim groups that prohibit depictions of Muhammad and other prophets and that some Muslims are offended when those traditions are violated. However, the prohibitions are not universal among Muslim communities, particularly with the Shi'a. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. Wikipedia will not remove content or images because people find them objectionable or offensive so long as the content or images are relevant to the article and does not violate any of the Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted. (see also Wikipedia:Content disclaimer)

The traditional reason given for the Islamic prohibitions on images of prophets is to prevent the images from becoming objects of worship as a form of idolatry, where the image becomes more important than the subject it represents. However, Wikipedia uses the images of Muhammad as examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context. Therefore, there are no concerns that the presence of the images on the articles will result in the practice of idolatry among Muslims.

Please note that if you are offended by the images (and you have an account), you can change your personal settings so that you don't have to see them, without affecting other users. To do this, create a page at User:YourUsername/monobook.css and add the following line:

body.page-Muhammad img {display: none;}

This will permanently hide the images on the article for you as long as you are logged in.


[edit] The images are false
So are images used in articles for Christopher Columbus, William Shakespeare and Jesus. As there are no accurate images (e.g. photographs), it is best to use what we have. Longstanding tradition on Wikipedia favors any images even representing part of a tradition over none at all.
Click to expand...
 
i see no reason why wiki should remove the images. portraying the prophet has not always been taboo to all muslims. there is a lot of persian art, for example, in which the prophet is depicted.
 
snakelegs said:
i see no reason why wiki should remove the images. portraying the prophet has not always been taboo to all muslims. there is a lot of persian art, for example, in which the prophet is depicted.
Click to expand...
Why no petition to remove pictures of Adam, Moses, and Jesus?

Aren't all prophets equal? :muddlehea
 
snakelegs said:
i see no reason why wiki should remove the images. portraying the prophet has not always been taboo to all muslims. there is a lot of persian art, for example, in which the prophet is depicted.
Click to expand...

I agree. Most recently I recall photos from Iran of people protesting against the Mohammed cartoons carrying banners with pictures of Mohammed! Obviously,unlike the cartoons, they were very respectful images but clearly such images are not taboo to many muslims. The Wiki policy seems the right one.
 
you shouldn't depict any prophet, images of God are especially blasphemous.. but many of those depictions were commissioned by the church.. take for example Lorenzo Ghiberti's Gates of Paradise among others, or caravaggio's death of the virgin, where he used a dead W H O R E to depict the virgin Mary.. Christians are happy with such depictions yet they speak against false idols, it is their business... as far as we are concerned we aren't to depict God or messenegers.
If we can remove evil from the world albeit on such a small scale then we should.. in fact I encourage Muslims to sign the petition if it will make a difference. shiites make up 10% of the Muslim world, they are a heritical faction, not recognized as Muslims save by those with vested interest to show division within Islam.

Does anyone know what jesus or Moses or God look like? I believe the answer is No.. so why do we draw from imagination false images and attribute them to God or his messengers?

:w:
 
:sl:
I agree with Wikipedia. The Wiki is meant to store all human knowledge. Just because it is wrong to draw pictures of the Prophet (peace be upon him) does not mean it has not happened.

Wikipedia tries to include everything that exists. It even has pictures of such controversial subjects as beheading, pornography, sex, racial abuse and torture. Just because people don't like something doesn't mean it didn't happen.
:w:
 
Yanal said:
Is it still applying or has it reached 10 000?
Click to expand...

Dear Young brother, this is a very old thread. The number had reached over 60,000 by the second post.

The petition has no bearing or say so over what wikipedia does.The current number of signatures is 455,165
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top