Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (2 Viewers)

[davin]

well, first of all...that bit he said isnt' even FROM wikipedia. so i'm not sure how ti can be used in an arguement against it.

and CNN being on tv doesn't make it reputable. wikipedia i would consider more reliable than a media source, less reliable than an expert in a given field.

 

[somechick]

take a look at the link of additional images. to give a more direct link, its http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/isla/hob_57.51.9.htm
its circa 1425, and shows his face.

Look closer. They have anknowledged the REPRESENTATION by placing a fire symbol above his head. The fire symbol usually represents a representation, as i have said before. I see that you havn't mentioned the other paintings.
Now if it is going to be your lifelong quest to find pictures of the prophet, i will not doubt that you will perhaps find one, whether it be from the hands of an non-muslim, as there certainly have been biographies of the prophet written by non-muslims. However, as you have clearly said, they are of different contexts and periods, and definetly differs in content and purpose.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Omg you're qouting wikipedia? LOL!
wikipedia is a website blog for anyone on the internet. How is that reputable? Anyone from ol' hick ville can write up an essay and post it online.
Goes to show. Get your sources right buddy.

um yah :/

http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Owned?

 

[davin]

the point is, they portrayed him. your statement was

Not even Muslims of the lowest order have ever even so much as POTRAYED Muhammed (pbuh), let alone a 'humourous' cartoon animating him. In history there has never been a depiction, represention, painting WHATSOEVER about him, partly because of what had happened as a reaction to Christianity.

which is an absolute statement, and is also not true. Though yes, many portrayals of him do not show the face. Just, not all of them. You're the one that tried to use absolutes.

 

[somechick]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Dumb fuck. It was a quote from EncyclopediaDramatica on Islam and I just said it was from Wikipedia. If you took it seriously, then I can't help you.

Well, if you had seen who i was qouting you would have known i wasn't responding to you, but a qoute from "Good sir lancelot", at his arguement sources supplied from wikipedia. That makes me an idiot for believing him that it was from somewhere else? That makes sense !
See, some people choose to believe in some good in the human race, and if you cant take this srsly, "then i cant help you".

Although i dont choose to use such profanities, but qouting you,
Whose the "dumb fuck", now?

 

[davin]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

the point is, before you attack a source, check that it came from said source

 

[somechick]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

the point is, before you attack a source, check that it came from said source

ok, even though they had so called supplied me with the source and misled me? And that is my fault for believing him? Yep, got it, completely.

 

[davin]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

oh, i didn't mean to imply he was faultless...morally, don't think its right to put out false info like that...but it does seem fairly blatant

my point was more that you started to argue that wikipedia in general is an invalid source based on something that wasn't FROM wikipedia

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

My point is that you claimed wikipedia was a bad source for information when it's really not much worse at all than the encyclopedia britanica :/

 

[somechick]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

um yah :/

http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Owned?

Have u read this? It says clearly itself,
"Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has always maintained that the service and its community are built around a self-policing and self-cleaning nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate. "

Self policing? So a klu klux clan member will be sure to remember to not express anti-african american sentiments.

"All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123."

Not only that but the articles in question have to be measured as stable variables.
But go right ahead, i more than recommend these in your university essay.

 

[davin]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Self policing? So a klu klux clan member will be sure to remember to not express anti-african american sentiments.

no, the COMMUNITY is self policing. in other words, if someone puts something inappropriate, other people fix it, and articles lacking sufficicent sources or containing biases not yet fixed are labeled as such

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Self policing? So a klu klux clan member will be sure to remember to not express anti-african american sentiments.

Umm... what? Self policing had to do with the articles themselves, if a kkk member decides to post some bs as a genuine article, it will be contested by other members and if need be a moderator will step in to make a decision.

Not only that but the articles in question have to be measured as stable variables.

A blind peer-review was conducted :/

But go right ahead, i more than recommend these in your university essay.

Well I don't have any more problem with using wikipedia than using the encyclopedia britanica however generally I just use these for basic information to lay the groundwork for my essay... it would be stupid to actually reference them as that's really not what they're for at the university level. However, I might check out some of the references for more detailed information to go along with my peer reviewed sources and build up the groundwork I gained from reading the wikipedia article.

 

[davin]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

yeah...now that i think about it, i don't think i've used an encyclopedia as a source for anything i've written in YEARS...its not detailed enough of a source for higher level work.

 

[HotShot]

a question, if i found the Quran offensive, does that give me the right to say taht it can no longer be printed so that i don't have to feel 'offended'?

there is difference of finding it offensive and somethin that is offensive! Clearly the cartoons are offensive.

 

[davin]

no, because offensive is subjective. what is offensive to one person is not neccessarily offensive to someone else.

all you're doing at this point is trying to say that what you feel or believe has superiority over waht i would feel or believe.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Universities will fail you if you use wikipedia.

I used wikipedia 2-3 times in most of my assignments this year, and cited it as such. I ran into no problems because of it.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Ok, I'll conduct an experiment just for you somechick. I'll include in the GWB article that at the age of 13 he joined the KKK, and by age 24 he had links to NAMBLA. We'll see how long it takes them to correct it.

 

[HotShot]

no, because offensive is subjective. what is offensive to one person is not neccessarily offensive to someone else.

all you're doing at this point is trying to say that what you feel or believe has superiority over waht i would feel or believe.

so if i say fuck, and someone says thats offensive and say its not offensive. So therefore its not offensive?

It can be subjective, but it rarely is. A better word is inappropriate, the cartoon was inappropriate.

 

[Jordan.J]

no, because offensive is subjective. what is offensive to one person is not neccessarily offensive to someone else.

all you're doing at this point is trying to say that what you feel or believe has superiority over waht i would feel or believe.

If you're offended, then you have the right to be offended

But the Quran doesnt get published in newspapers across Europe

 

[Not-That-Bright]

As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection.

aww