After their success getting the Muhammad cartoons banned, some Muslims have now set their sights on wikipedia. Recently a large group of Muslims have started an email campaign asking wikipedia to remove their images of their holy prophet Muhammad, even going so far as to start an online petition that has received over 80,000 signatures.
“It’s totally unacceptable to print the prophet’s picture,” Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. “It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately.”
Thankfully wikipedia says they are staying true to the idealism the site was founded on, and doesn’t find it “unacceptable” to “[show] insensitivity towards Muslim feelings”.
“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.”
I can only hope that this stays a peaceful online protest and doesn’t descend into an online version of the violence that the cartoon controversy did.
(edit)
I also want to add what I think is a much larger point about these types of protests. From the Paul Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, “The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century”. This is a very recent phenomenon and does not represent any consensus of world wide Muslims. It isn’t some ancient commandmet being violated, it’s a politicization of a cultural taboo, if you can even call it that.
“holy profit Muhammad”
Best. Typo. Ever.
you know i had to come up in this house and show lance how typos are done.
Aw, you changed it. It was such a clever pun too.
yes, but i did leave it forever etched into your comment.
Semi-hypothetical: Why does an 80,000 signature petition represent all Muslims uniting in opposition to a website, but 80 million Americans opposing Iraq is just a disaffected minority?
Joshua,
I would suggest the 80k petition does not represent such a thing except in fanatics minds. As well, the 80 million opposing Iraq is not only not an accurate number, but by definition they are disaffected, and a minority.
By the way, being a disaffected minority is no bad thing. On many issues I certainly am one as well.
I guess I probably should have made that part more clear. I mean of course it’s not all muslims, I should more closely associate it with those who protested the cartoons. What percentage that is, I’m not sure.
and 80,000 is a surprisingly large number i think for a mere website, for such a insignificant issue.
Nope, it’s an unnecessary clarification.
But if we’re going to be making unnecessary clarifications, it might be more profitable to point out that there are entire Muslim countries where the question would be utterly meaningless, as Wikipedia is blocked. Tunisia or Iran for instance. Or Saudi Arabia, depending on your luck of the draw, as they have a kind of on-again-off-again prohibition.
Yeah, isn’t that pretty much the definition of “libertarian”? Although, I suppose some variant of “bitter” and “dreamer” should arguably be included as well.
But Lee, it’s not a meaningless distinction. Muslims who freak out over this stuff are a highly visible minority. Your point about who knows of Wikipedia is more apt: most—an overwhelming super-majority—don’t care because it doesn’t affect them.
This website makes a lot of its bread and butter by quite rightly complaining about unfair generalizations and stereotypes of conservatives, libertarians, and free-market values in the big media outlets. That is absolutely right to do. But it becomes hypocrisy when Muslims are spoken of as a monolithic group. No reasoned person would talk about Christians as a single group, not even within the U.S.—there are far too many divisions and the spectrum of opinion is far too large. To speak of Muslims as if they are a single bloc of people is deceptive, and by nature inaccurate.
Michael, I think you’re right that it is totally insignificant, especially as the images of Mohammed are reverent. The opposition to such images, though kind of understandable, has reached levels of hysteria I cannot imagine. But such is an unfortunate consequence of living in extreme times: the extremists get all the attention. In terms of Wikipedia, though, 80,000 isn’t that big a number—it gets well over 10 million hits a day. Even assuming multiple hits per user, concentrated in its most prolific editors who are only Muslim, 80k isn’t that big a number.
And Lance, I have to apologize: you’re right that 80 million Americans opposing Iraq is inaccurate. My guesstimate was far too low.
I didn’t say it was meaningless, I said it was unnecessary. Unnecessary in the sense that everyone obviously understood that Chris wasn’t arguing that 80,000 signatures on a petition, suggested every Muslim on Earth was uniting in opposition to Wikipedia. Everyone except for you of course.
Unless you actually did understand what he meant, and were just abusing his post to engage in a lengthy, unprovoked, and sanctimonious soapbox speech about the evils of hypocrisy and religious generalization. But you wouldn’t do that, would you?
The “meaningless” point I was making was for countries where there was no Wikipedia to petition against to begin with.
“And Lance, I have to apologize: you’re right that 80 million Americans opposing Iraq is inaccurate. My guesstimate was far too low.”
No you weren’t, and you are still too high. That poll tells us very little. The entire question borders on meaninglessness. We have broken those polls down before, and as soon as you ask for meaningful information on what people want you don’t get anywhere near those kind of numbers. Now, if you go down and look around at the other polls you see what I mean. Less than a third of the country wants us to start withdrawing immediately. Thus, the word minority.
Then we have to read how ignorant of the situation many people are. Large hunks of the population according to those polls is either unaware, or completely unwilling to acknowledge, that things have changed in Iraq. Seems like the definition of disaffected. In the most negative sense of the word for a large chunk of the group.
As Lee said, nothing in the post spoke of Muslims as an undifferentiated mass. No slam against Muslims in general was made. You are reading into it things that are not there.
Defensive-much, gentlemen? It was obvious to me as well that Chris didn’t mean all Muslims… but his initial wording implied as much (unless I was seriously hallucinating the other night, the “some” wasn’t in front of “Muslims” when it was first posted). I know that was unintentional. But again, given how often you all bitch and moan about sloppy writing and reporting, a tiny bit of care in not accidentally mischaracterizing 1 billion people surely isn’t too much to ask. Chris I thought had responded appropriately, and if that was all I don’t think it would have required further comment beyond thanking him for the clarification. Instead now we have accusations of mendacity, which is stretching things a bit too far here.
Lance, wouldn’t 80 million fit “less than a third” of all Americans (and still potentially be a bit low)? Ignorance is immaterial of their opinion… just as it is immaterial in the debate over imaged of Mohammed. Who cares if they’re ignorant? They still hold sway, and can take decisive action. That matters, just as a statistically meaningless 80,000 people putting their names online matters for sheer perception’s sake.
Ha. This isn’t defense, you are under attack. There’s quite a difference.
Not really. Defensiveness lends itself to adopting attack. Is “counterattack” an appropriate middle ground? I believe it could be.
True enough. I’d say it was definitely a counterattack. Although at this stage, “victory” might be a better term. That is since it’s impossible to argue that Chris was even accidentally misleading people on this matter, and the point should be resolved against your implication that he was.
What, declare victory and go home? At least that works somewhere.
Traditionally, it is the writer’s burden to be clear and unambiguous, especially when discussing controversy. Highlighting a sloppy phrase that could be misinterpreted isn’t quite the same as implying Chris meant to mislead people—merely that he was writing something he probably didn’t mean to (like when I get annoyed when columnists refer to Uzbekistan as part of the “greater Middle East”). Freaking out by saying “who cares, everyone knew what he meant and Josh is nitpicking” is a bit much considering how stridently critical of sloppy writing this blog is.
That is the unresolved sticking point to me: the demand for perfection from the media, but an unwillingness to admit imperfection here. Except from Chris, that is, who again I think took my comment in good faith.
Traditionally, it is the critic’s burden to tender fair and relevant criticism. Thusfar you haven’t met that standard.
What you have here, is criticism in search of a post to criticize. What you’ve said on the issues you alone have raised, is not remotely applicable to what Chris has written. Nor would his believing that it somehow is, improve his content creation.
What you should have said in making your points –to be “clear and unambiguous”– was “There’s some things I’d like to say about media perception and the perils of religious generalization…” and made it the self-contained argument that it is. Instead you’re trying to force a motive for what you want to say into Chris’ post where none exists.
That is plainly disingenuous criticism. Made worse by this idea you have, that by engaging in such a practice, you’re somehow assisting Chris in improving the clarity of his writing. You’re doing the opposite. Your criticism has almost nothing to do with what he has written,and were he to heed your advice in context, it would have a negative effect on his posting, by consuming his content in confused and unnecessary caveats to defend or qualify arguments he hasn’t even made.
Except that Chris thought he was unclear and felt it necessary to write an addendum noting the protest’s modernity, and how it is unrepresentative of a majority view of Muslims.
Otherwise, keep going – this is fun.
You’re not arguing with Chris, Josh. You’re arguing with me. If Chris thinks your criticism was so apropos and worthwhile that it ought to be included as an addendum to Strunk & White, it doesn’t make your point any more relevant or plausible.
Actually, not true. Chris said he should have “made that part more clear” and you disagreed with him. You’re arguing his case, even though he seems to find it unnecessary and disagrees with you.
I’m not arguing Chris’s case, I’m arguing against yours. Indeed I couldn’t argue Chris’s case in this instance, because as I’ve stated, the motive of your criticism in fact had nothing to do with his post. Persuading him that it did, does not make your bad criticism good, anymore than Lance agreeing with me above somehow proves my case by endorsement. It’s still bad advice and bad criticism. You’re looking for reinforcement everywhere but on your argument’s own merits. Another bad tendency.
Not quite. His phrasing was unclear, lending the impression that he was stereotyping all Muslims — something we all agree he clearly did not mean to do. He has since edited the post to reflect this (adding the “some”).
I don’t understand what your problem is, then. Which clearly means I’m stupid, and you’re not a bad communicator.
The dispute has been extruded too far. It’s too small a matter to get to this point. I’m inclined to just drop it now that you’re resorting to personal insults.
Let’s not confuse sarcasm with personal insults. I honestly don’t understand what your problem is, since you seem to be saying I didn’t say something I clearly did, and that I meant something I clearly didn’t.
Hrm, those terms feel familiar somehow…
You understood my complaint against your criticism well enough above. If you’ve grown confused since then you can simply re-read it. It’s stated plainly enough in comment 9 & 12. Your rebuttal that followed, such as it was, hasn’t changed my opinion on it, so you’re not missing out on anything new.
But here we are on comment 27, still arguing about unnecessary criticism and advice for Chris and his post. It’s pretty silly. If you are under the impression that you will be vindicated in relevance by taking this discussion to comment line 28 below, go ahead, but I’m through with it. Your criticism isn’t gaining relevance by course of debate. For me at least, it’s merely becoming increasingly tedious and boring.
Again, nice job on the maturity. Comment 9, you assert it is an unnecessary clarification to stipulate that “muslims are protesting” is not meant to mean “all muslims,” merely “some Muslims.” You then note that many Muslim countries don’t even have access to Wikipedia.
I respond that it is in fact an important distinction to make, given the reputation of this blog for media criticism and its sharp eye for lazy writing in the outside world. I agree that your point about access is a good one.
You respond that Chris’ meaning was intuitively obvious and I’m just saying what I said because I am either stupid or I wanted to engage in a “lengthy, unprovoked, and sanctimonious soapbox speech about the evils of hypocrisy and religious generalization.”
You then declared victory. I expressed confusion at why the discussion was declared over.
I’m with you that this is tedious at this point, but I don’t think it’s on my end.
I wish I’d lost.
In fact that’s actually what happened, now that i think about it… It’s clear now that your point was completely relevant. No, it was beyond relevant, it was a mandatory clarification and you rose to the occasion to demand it. You’ve now convinced me that an online petition isn’t representative of the entire Muslim world’s opinion, even though I’d been certain that it was due to Chris’s poor writing skills. Your lecture on the hypocrisy of generalizing about Muslims as a “monolithic group” was also something that was profoundly new to my ears, and represented a well needed clarification. I was previously under the impression that they were all, you know, a monolithic group.
I just don’t know what I could have been thinking to have suggested that this was all a completely unnecessary point. Congratulations to Joshua the victor, I am slain. I also apologize unreservedly for any tediousness I may have caused.
Thanks, Lee. I’m glad we’ve cleared this up.
Chirs wasn’t unclear, he was being gracious.
As for 80 million, the polls are not based on a reading of the entire population, so 80 million is far too large a number. Also, still disaffected, and still a minority.
The point about the minority still being relevant may be true, but hardly to do with anything I have written. The point I made on the appalling ignorance was an aside, since you linked to the poll. What I will say, is that the appalling ignorance, or willful delusion/mendaciousness (since sites that represent opinions quite similar I will not claim are in fact ignorant) makes their opinion irrelevant to any thinking on the issue I will do, since I am not a political consultant trying to gather their votes. I think it does say something about the media, which has made a vastly improving story a far smaller one than when it was going badly.
Your point about media criticism here is rather unfortunate. Our criticism is not that some people might tendentiously read something into their stories that isn’t there, but that they have often tendentiously misrepresented events, or sloppily misrepresented events. Neither of those is unforgivable, but it certainly should be pointed out.
I don’t actually do much of that criticism, but to take one example of where I did, the misrepresentation of Bill Clinton a few days back, the problem was not that someone could have misunderstood what they were claiming Bill said, but that they plainly had the man saying something completely opposite of what he did say. They then said and analyzed him as if that is what he was saying. That is what I see the criticism’s I read here complaining about, not that someone with prejudice might read what the media writes as different than what they mean, or that they could have written it a bit clearer (which I don’t, in this instance, think Chris needed to be.) I give the media, and us, a lot more slack than that.