This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthonyhcole (talk | contribs) at 01:39, 23 April 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:39, 23 April 2012 by Anthonyhcole (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
I lived in Egypt for several years and was fortunate enough to make many friends. Through them, I often came to know their families. Just living life on a daily basis amongst the people allowed me to learn a great deal about their society and culture. One such thing is how it isn’t respectful, or indeed normal to depict images of prophets in their faith. In fact, no prophets are shown on TV, in films, in books, or anywhere else for that matter.
When the animated film the Prince of Egypt (including the animated character of Moses - another prophet) was released, it wasn’t shown in Egypt. No one there had ever seen the Ten Commandments. It was strange for me as I hadn’t been aware of this aspect of their religion before. I asked questions and came to respect their beliefs whether I personally agreed with them or not.
Misplaced Pages would cause great distress to not only my personal friends but also millions of other devout Muslims by artificially coupling images with this article. I speak from my life experience; what I have garnered first hand. There is no need for conjecture, assuming or predisposed guesses on my part as to what will offend. It is not only an absurdity to Muslims that such pictures would be included in this article, but also represents a preposterous audacity, lack of respect and illustration of ignorance.
Moreover and on to the crux, the overwhelming arguments for the desire to include these images do not seem to address how such images support the topic of the article and help the reader learn. Rather, they cry afoul of perceived censorship to material that would never naturally exist in such a context. My perception is that the issue has basically devolved into what the rights of people are vs. what constitutes relevant material. We must get it right and have the article reflect what is truly most important to its essence. By not including images, we show respect and more importantly keep the article accurate and true. Misplaced Pages must not take on the role of creating connections and correlations where there were none before.
— Veritycheck (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Obviously no one is arguing over the amount of Muslims who would rather the image wasn't shoved under their noses! NO reliable sources out there are claiming that the amount Muslims taking offence isn't real, or is 'exaggerated' etc - it is a clear cut fact that a significant number of Muslims do not wish to see an image of Mohammad.
The only 'opposing' position is entirely the 'POV' of certain Wikipedians - namely, that the offence taken by Muslim people must be actively ignored by Misplaced Pages, rather than simply worked around with no bother to anyone. They base this rude and encyclopedia-narrowing position on supposed 'principles' extrapolated from NOTCENSORED. All the other arguments they've used to back themselves up are just meaningless waffle (as if misusing NOTCENSORED isn't bad enough - there is no way it was intended for point-making and controversy-creating, all in the face of offending people unnecessarily like this).
— Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Stuff
http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/User:Anthonyhcole
http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/Pain
http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/Cancer_pain