Wikipedia.org, the popular online encyclopedia run by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, has sparked heated reactions from Muslims who object to the site’s inclusion of images of the prophet Muhammad in an article bearing his name.
“There have been complaints from Muslims ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
When you say: -------------- “The Foundation prohibits images which violate American law " You cannot ALSO say "Censoring the images would suggest that the view of one interest group is more important than that of another" There IS a prevalence given to one POV, which is the American POV. So the correct (and sincere) answer would be: "We only apply the American POV, and currently America is not ruled by Islam". Everything else is the usual fake "all you need is love" gospel brought about by WMF. When it comes to reality there IS one law that counts, and it's the American Law. So... if Islam wants to take the pictures off, what they need to do is to invest a few millions in making a better wikipedia that is NOT ruled by an American institution. But that would cost money to the sheiks... while a petition is for free ;) Much ado for nothing...
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
A thought experiment: How long before Salvador Dali's "blasphemous" caricature of Mohammed is expunged from art history classes? How about Auguste Rodin? or Gustave Dore? Each of these artists caricatured Mohammed's suffering in Hell-- as related in Dante's trilogy "The Divine Comedy" [Inferno XXVIII, 19-42]. http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/dantes_inferno/ The same forces that plotted to destroy the fresco of Dante's Inferno in Bologna's Church of San Petronio in Last year remain at work today. http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1217873,00.html And if academia and journalism remain unwilling to fight this battle, what's to stop the global Taliban from silencing any and every expression Muslims deem "offensive"? Archived depictions of Mohammed serve as a poignant reminder that such imagery has been part of Western and Islamic culture since the Middle Ages -- and serve as a resource for those interested in defending free expression. http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
this should be a non-issue. we live in a civil society under american law, not islamic law. i'm glad to see these upset muslims are using a petition this time, and not putting bounties on the heads of those who uphold free speech (http://www.slate.com/id/2136714/).
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!