I think this is very good news. The billions of other non muslims shouldn't be expected to adhere to the belief of muslims. The image isn't a photograph, nor does it infer that. It's simply a depiction of him. Nothing is factually inaccurate, and there are THOUSANDS of other depictions on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, don't use it. They are a private company. Wikipedia's clear policy on censorship: Wiki is not censored. How to block images in Wikipedia Rioting and complaining about simple images isn't helping the overall world outlook on Islam.
I wish they'd stop being cry babies. Muslims should be trying to look a good religon, not what they are just now - unfriendly,
That's great, I am glad Wiki is upholding free speech and common sense. Place your bet here...Will there be ddos attacks or death threats?
They send in their petition peacefully stating their reasons for objections and Wikipedia has had its verdict and said no. IMHO I don't see them as cry babies.
That's cause they can't burn a car over the internet. Unless they're one of the most brilliant computer scientists, I don't see them being able to do anything except DDoS a company who has an abundance of bandwidth. Looks like the message they throw up when a page is heavily vandalized to me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Compare and contrast... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
This was no big deal in the first place either. However, the verbal aggression like "cry-babies", sorta makes you the same kind of person. And please, give a break with the "freedom". You guys are turning it to a lame cliche.
Wikipedia had the freedom to reject and they did as they feel that it is their right under freedom of speech but the 180 000 ladies and gentlemen had the freedom to launch a petition. Nothing wrong with both sides.
Sure thing, no problem when one puts it like you do. The counter point was related to misinformation as there are no real drawings of prophet, but if wiki wants to keep them, they keep them, i don't see a big deal about it.
180,000 petition to have harmless images removed. How many petition to show their condemnation of killing done in the name of their god? None. Interesting to see where their priorities are.
I'm glad they decided to keep them. For one, the conflict itself illustrates the contrast between the allowable depictions of Muhammad of years past, and the change in Islamic tradition of today. It also is quite ironic that the whole purpose of banning depictions of Muhammad was to prevent idolatry, which is precisely what this kind of reaction and effort towards something one could easily avoid in everyday life seems to be. Quite counter-productive, in my opinion.
The moslems have a right to their belief's. But this is not something that is worthy of any outrage. If they don't like it, don't look at it. Wikipedia is purely optional.
I applaud Wiki for standing up against this attack on free speech! If the muzzie's don't like it then they don't have to read it. They don't run the world or the internet. I'm sick of my right to free speech being attacked by these whining fascists who make real muslims, who are just trying to get through life like the rest of us, cringe with embarrassment. I have muslim friends who came to America to escape this fascist shit and their complaint is that this kind of stuff does nothing to change the opinion of most of the world's rather negative view about islam. They are appalled at the way some of the natural-born citizens here in America are even wanting to kowtow to the demands by these fascists that islam should be treated as 'special' and allowed special privileges. If they had wanted to live under sharia then they would have stayed over in the middle eastern world. They are happy to see that Wiki didn't back down.