User talk:Rgulerdem/Archive 2 (Mar 18, 06)

Resid, good evening to you. I posted a reply to your topic in the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy arguments talk page, and whenever you have a moment I'd love to hear back from you.

I don't really check my watchlist as frequently as I should, so if you reply, and wish me to respond, feel free to leave me a message on my own talk page.

I look forward to hearing from you soon! ekedolphin 11:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To reply to your response on my talk page and in the article, thanks for your kind words. Like I said, I'm not angry that you generalized and said "all Westerners", because I know you're upset and oftentimes people who are upset say things that aren't true or that they don't mean.


 * I know that the differences between these cultures seem insurmountable at times. But I believe, as you do, that when people with different viewpoints take the time to try and understand each other, sometimes they find that they're really not all that different, after all.  ekedolphin 08:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing the image at cartoon article
The poll is ongoing. Consensus is against it. Since you have decided to repeatedly (at least twice) change the article, I have blocked you 24 hours for disruption. NSL E (T+C) 09:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My point of view
Think if your country would go to a killing line, and will stop only after the force is suppressed. Now after years, you feel miserable and extremely sorrow for your relatives, your friends, your nation, your brothers, and maybe your parents who were killed for no reason there. Then some idiot comes and openly tells "no one died there". How would you feel?

It is a completely different case to when a slew of magazine editorials publish cartoon images of Muhammad then the whole Europe gets boycott for that and the way to deal it seems to be violence by burning down embassies just because it read in the Qu'ran that no one should see or draw pictures of Muhammed under the expression that it may provoke paganism (someone starts thinking that Muhammed is God). I think that some years in prison and a bit of fine is not so bad compared to over 50 death casualties and people injured, violent protests, diplomatic problems between many countries, and hellota' boycotts (read: and where did two of those begin from?)

A quick comparison...

Holocaust

Event? 6 million innocent people slaughtered.

Outcome? A few arrests and some prison time

Muhammad cartoons

Event? Stupid magazine publishes joke-mannered cartoons of Muhammad

Outcome? 50 die, army base gets attacked, economical damage et cetera

Do notice though that I apologize you for the ignorance and abuse of freedom of speech that our fellow Scandinavian country has caused. My point was that the hypocrisy (from my view) lies in your point-of-view, and that you shouldn't compare (as Russians say) an ass to a finger. :) — nlitement [talk]  00:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial and the cartoons
Resid, I am understanding of where you are coming from. I'm sorry that you feel offended by the cartoons, and I apologize if I was being an ass to you and other Muslims when this story first broke.

That being said, I believe your comments on the talk page of the artice were misguided. Wikipedia isn't about offending or pleasing anybody, it is about documenting the truth of the world to the best of our knowledge and abilities. It is a country that is being hypocritical by charging holocaust deniers, not our community of internet "junkies", if you will. In fact, as it has been stated on said talk page, Wikipedia has a picture of the most (in)famous book on holocaust denial, and not only that, but provides a link to the full text of said book.

Just like you ask us not to blame the entire Muslim community for the violent actions of a few, we ask you not to blame every Westerner on here or elsewhere for the actions of one country's judicial system.

I ask you (and all Wikipedians) to take a deep breath, and remember that above all, understanding and truth leads to peace. And that is the true message whether you call Him Allah, God, Jehovah, Buddah, etc.

Yours in the quest for the ultimate truth,

-Maverick 01:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation
Even if I argue against you in the article most of the time, I want you to know that I consider your intelligent input invaluable, for several reasons. There are perhaps ten times more people here that argue their case with a taint of the western point of view, so I appreciate it can be a bit hard sometimes.DanielDemaret 12:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Without your input, we would have been even more ignorant than we already are. I go by Wizard's Rule.DanielDemaret 12:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Danish humour
"People hardly ever make use of the freedom they have. For example, the freedom of thought. Instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation." Søren Kierkegaard DanielDemaret 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Will you join the policy page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Censorship Perhaps we can make some headway there. The mohammed-article is not the best place to argue a wikipolicy. :)DanielDemaret 11:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Submission : The film
I just saw the film "submission". Please me it is not true. Please tell me that muslim men are not allowed to tell their wives off if they do not obey. I can not believe that they are allowed to hit their wives, so I will not even ask.DanielDemaret 20:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Never hit
It makes me happy to hear you say that muslim men never tell their wives off for not obeying them, and that muslim men never hit them, even if they women "push them from their shoulders", whatever that means. :) I have never hit anyone at all in my life, and I have never told anyone off for not obeying me, not even at work to my employees. *deletes "submission" film*. DanielDemaret 06:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 'I can not remember as far as baby-hood, but my parents assure me it was always thus. Smiling, sitting Buddha, they used to call me.' DanielDemaret 08:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fethullah Gülen’s
I read some of Fethullahs articles, even if the only thing that I was confused about was your idiom "push from shoulders", which is very unclear.

Fethullah seems to be a peaceful fellow, and I like that.

Funnily, among other things, Fethullah asks: "How would they react if you said, with the excuse of press freedom, that you would publish something negative about “royal family in the UK” or “the revolutions of the French. . . the land of Robespierre” or “the bandits of Denmark”? You cannot simply say, “This is freedom of the press, I am freely expressing my thoughts.”"

I could answer him, if he had a Wiki. JP already did that many many years ago. No reaction, as far as I could tell. Danes may be Xenophobic, but they do not lack self-criticism. It would be a mistake to assume that. DanielDemaret 07:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As an example of how Scandinavians do not regard cartoons as insulting, this morning the leader of the second largest party in sweden commented on a satirical cartoon made by the largest party. He was pictured as an evil Vampire. His reaction to the cartoon was, allegedly : "I must have forgotten to shave that morning.!DanielDemaret 08:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Resid, I had read the womens issues that Fethullah, and I am happy about it. Even more happy to know that Fethullah's ideas are mainstream. :) Is he mainstream everywhere? In Iran too? Or is he influential in a certain group of countries?

Q: 'I am sure as Muslims, an insult to Mary, Jesus would hurt Danish people and all other Christians. I am sure it would hurt you too... Right?' A: By a silly cartoon? Hehe. No way. DanielDemaret 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What would offend me as a Christian?
Many consider me a good Christian, since even if I sometimes disagree with some Dogma, I uphold the basic values of Jesus (Love), and many, but not all, of the ideas of St Augustine, one of the fathers of Catholic Church(Do not Hate, Belief in superstition (like belief that there are witches) is a sin, Free Open Source, Free thought and Free speech, No Death penalties: Sin should be absolved by open regret and making things right, not by any punishment. If you steal bread, regret it, ask forgiveness and pay the bread later, never punish just for the sake of punishment. There is no point. And the person who lost the bread must accept the money and forgive. If there is just punishment, people will not repent their sins, and they will censor their own acts, and therefore they will continue doing sins. If they confess, and all accept, they are likely to never do it again. ), and I like John Paul II (Darwin is good Dogma, All religions should be friends).

You ask me what offends me: Censorship offends me, since censorship leads to limits on freedom to horrors and war.

Censorship lead to these horrors being possible:


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abu_Ghraib_55.jpg
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IslamicDivorce.jpg
 * 3) Censorship lead to the invasion of Iraq.

On Iraq: If you censor anything in the west, then many in the west will be certain that there is something to hide, and will invent horrors that must be behind the censorship. That it why Iraq was invaded. Not because Saddam had murdered hundred of thousands, but because he refused to show the arguably neutral IAEA, under Hans Blix, everything that the IAEA asked to see. Since they obviously hid something, Bush decided he could not trust Saddam, so Bush, by normal west logic, deducted that anything censored must be so terrible that it can not be shown, hence it is WMD. Censorship in Iraq was the reason Bush invaded. All other reasons may be supportive, but this is the core. Had Saddam not censored anything from IAEA, there would have been no invasion, since there were no WMD.In fact, had there been no censorship at all in Iraq, I think that the trade limits of Iraq would have been lifted.

I am pretty certain that Saddam had nothing to hide that would have mattered to Blix, and he was a fool not to show IAEA everything they asked for. DanielDemaret 09:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually before the invasion Saddam didn't hide anything to Mr. Blix. You can listen to an interview to find out. In his book, Mr Blix writes:


 * "In November 2002, a new round of inspections had been initiated to identify key remaining tasks in the disarming of Iraq.


 * Although the inspection organization was now operating at full strength and Iraq seemed as determined to give it prompt access everywhere, the United States appeared determined to replace our inspection force with an invasion army. " Added here by User:Raphael1

About Jesus Cartoons
Your Question: 'I am sure as Muslims, an insult to Mary, Jesus would hurt Danish people and all other Christians. I am sure it would hurt you too... Right?'

Comment: Strictly speaking, you noticed that Jesus is in one of the 12 cartoons, didn't you ? :) DanielDemaret 10:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

censorship
Humm, so we are now voting on two different versions? I think this is confusing...--KimvdLinde 08:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI
You might be interested in this: "42 Please Follow Along"

Haizum 18:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you move your comment from the thread I created because it does not pertain to the points being brought up; I'm trying to make sure the thread is easy to follow (=more productive). Thanks.


 * Also, I'm only trying to "get around" the censorship policy because I have no problem with it. I feel a viable solution can be reached without having to change existing policy; that is why I took the time to carefully to define what 'removal' and 'suppression' have to do with censorship. Since most people agree that outright removal of content is generally not acceptable, I'm trying to argue that linked material that is found to be particularly offensive/objectionable can be linked/moved down the page/etc without having the problem of "suppression of information." Haizum 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your comment refers to in my thread other than the objective, "get around." Feel free to expand upon your comment so that it pertains to the discussion and is informative for other editors. Haizum 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please move that or adapt it to the discussion? All relevant input is welcome, and you can see that I've welcomed it. Haizum 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Messages struck by Haizum 02:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, nevermind then. Haizum 02:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for telling me that the censorship was still being discussed. I have been away a bit, and the last I Recall was that some were arguing that the wikipedia policy "no censorship" did not mean that we should have no censorship, and was debated both in the cartoons and the policy department. I will not have time to read up yet, so I thought I would ask you if you know what happened to that particular argument.DanielDemaret 16:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is just that if there is no basic policy against censorship, then what is the point of a guideline that explains what the word means here?DanielDemaret 16:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: censorship
Hi, I appreciate your notice about the discussion. As I'm currently overcommited to other things, I can't join in the discussion at the moment. However, I do like your ideas on: Academic objectivity, collective consciousness, the culture of compromise. I came across the article Journalism ethics and standards and found some stuff that might be relevant, especially the section on "Taste, decency and acceptability". I'm also particularly interested in the section on "Harm limitation principle" which I hope wikipedia can adopt, especially for the protection of juveniles' identity and privacy. Among wikipedia policies and guidelines, there doesn't seem to be any that addresses these issues or ethical standard, not even the simple Golden Rule ("not to inflict harm"). I will check the "censorship" discussion regularly and will express my opinion if it is helpful. Thanks again. --Vsion 12:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Initiative
Interesting initiative, that new policy proposal. I shall follow it. I hope it leads to a policy. DanielDemaret 00:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

 * Hi
 * The problem is that I am not a native speaker. And sometimes I write something which implies slightly different than I meant. In that sense your help is very valuable. If you think that there should be some editorial standards clearly explained in Wiki, you can contribute to the project. Please do not hesitate to change the text if you think there is a better way to say something in the article. Thanks for correcting typos too. Resid Gulerdem 03:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood. I'll do what I can. I'm with you in spirit. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  03:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith with your pornography edits on the ethics page. According to your own rules you should bring this to the talk page to discuss any objections you might have. The original wording was mine, not yours. To distort my words and refuse to discuss is obsessive editing. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons
Hi Again. I have little time to write now, but I try to at least read what is happening. I noticed that you have not written in the Cartoon article for a while. I agree that that the discussion is a bit repetetive and that general policies are better places for that kind of discussion, but I also miss your input in the cartoons simply because I do not think there is a single muslim voice in there now, let alone a sensible voice like yours. That makes the talk page very surrealistic to me. Well, there are sensible voices in there, but they could use more. In the article talk, people who are not muslims are inventing what they believe muslims think. DanielDemaret 17:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just found out that there is at least one muslim still editing in the cartoons section. DanielDemaret 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a bit like a tug-of-war between several factions. The article can not move in any direction while all are tugging in different directions. I have several ideas for restructuring and analysis, but the talk can not seriously discuss too many things at once. I am hoping for some 100% concensus on the image inclusion question, but it may take months. Personally, I think that a compromise should have been reached, like the one you and I, and a few others agreed on. I do not think that putting the cartoons in on a sub-page, and keeping just the cartoonist drawing a cartoon would have really been censorship, and I am a die-hard non-censorship kinda guy. Perhaps the few of that agreed to that compromise could talk about this in a months time? DanielDemaret 20:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)