User talk:Erdemsenol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia has a Neutral point of view policy. By removing references to Kurds from articles about eastern Turkey, I believe you going against this policy. If you have a reason for your edits, please discuss it. If you do not discuss why you are doing this, your edits will be treated as vandalism and your account may be blocked. --Gareth Hughes 22:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Selam 2 How to get image of Muhammad (PBUH) removed. 3 For your interest 4 Religions 5 Response. 5.1 From User talk:Joturner 6 CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED 7 Hey

[edit] Selam

Selam , Türk karşıtı kullanıcı Khoikhoi ingilizce wikipedia'da adminlik için şansını deniyor.Daha fazla türk gelirse bunu engelleyebiliriz. Oyunu burdan kullanabilirsin Teşekkürler. (85.97.143.5 18:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] How to get image of Muhammad (PBUH) removed.

Erdemsenol: if you get your many Muslim friends to vote to have the image banned/moved, then it will be banned/moved. This is how the democratic process works. L33th4x0r 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy -Maverick 01:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My Friend, it's consensus that counts, so without rationale, your efforts go down in futility. Эйрон Кинни 06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For your interest

Erdemsenol: for your interest, I have already voted to have the image of Muhammad (PBUH) removed and a link to the image put in place so that you won't see the image if you don't click on the link.

But unfortunatley, people holding my opinions are in the minority. Like I said, if you want to produce some real changes, you've got to get your Muslim friends to vote on the issue, that's the only way to make a voice in a democracy.

I heard there were thousands of people protesting on the grounds of Copenhagen, if they all voted here on Wikipedia, then it is extremely likely that the image will be banned. L33th4x0r 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the protest in Copenhagen was in favor of the newspaper. There may have been other protests against it, in the middle east or elsewhere. Phr 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the picture being where it is, since I think its current placement and its unusually large size (WP style guideline recommends 120 px width, and the current version's area is 4x that large) is calculated to insult people. But I can't agree with the idea of removing it entirely. At minimum, I feel the picture has to be available someplace where people can find it if they want to see it. People have to be able to make their own decisions and I don't like taking that decision away from them in either direction. Sorry. Phr 00:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop saying Wikipedia is a democracy, because you are wrong. Just look at the userbox situation, and you will see tyranny in the making. [1] Эйрон Кинни 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religions

It's about presenting information even if some people are offended by it. Read Wikipedia's content disclaimer. Wikipedia has content that offends Christians, Jews, Scientologists, and Muslims, too. We expect are readers to be familiar with the concept of a free press and to choose for themselves what they want to read and what they don't. Unless you think we should make a special exception for Muslims but no one else, then you can't really argue that the pics should be removed. Thanks. Babajobu 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response.

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 01:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is about freedom of speech. If there was something that I found offensive, but it was encyclopaedic, I would have no cause to complain about its inclusion in wikipedia. Vanky 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Erdemsenol, are you posting the above statement on the talk page of every single person that has voted for keeping the picture? You can continue if you want, but I'm almost certain all those voting for keeping the picture were already aware of the information you mention in your posts. joturner 01:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And also, what happens if people (Like myself) take the time to write out extremely long rebuttles on our talk pages, and you don't answer them because you don't double back? :/ Homestarmy 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From User talk:Joturner

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As you may have been able to tell by my user page, I am a Muslim. And judging by the tone of your above post and the fact that you're Turkish, I'm guessing you're a Muslim too (I hope that's correct). I agree that the pictures are blasphemous to Islam and that it is outrageous that they were printed not just in September 2005, but also on February 1. But that does not trump the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all people. These pictures aren't inoffensive to a large portion of Wikipedians. And even to Muslims, it should not be considered offensive in this context as it is put in the article simply to illustrate the issue at hand. If you want to look at the article, you can do so while averting your eyes from the picture at the top of the article (that's what I do). If you really don't want to look at the pictures, you don't have to visit the page; no one is forcing you to look at the page or the picture.

This is one thing I hope all Muslims can understand: unfortunate as it may be, not everyone is a Muslim and we have to respect that. At the same time, I do think the Europeans that published these cartoons need a lesson in tolerance as well. But, maybe we, and the rest of the world's Muslims, should take the initiative and let the picture be. It is outrageous, yes. It is sacreligious, yes. But the response seen (in the media) throughout the Muslim world as well as the fervent comments on Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy are not going to improve the image of the true religion, Islam.

May Allah bless you in this world and the Hereafter. joturner 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you and others like you need to take a chill pill. Just because something bothers you dosn't mean you get to tell other people that they can't do it. Rape is a pretty strong word my friend... Maybe you should worry about something a little more important, I mean that isn't really Mohammed unless you beleive it is. In reality they are just some silly cartoons. They were trying to get a rise out of you guys and you are letting them! Don't try and manipulate my vote. As a humanist I feel as strongly about full disclosure of all information as you do about Islam and hiding and covering up imformation is just as much "rape" to me. --The_stuart 01:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Although you are allowed to, Erdemsenol, it is unethical to go around asking everyone to change his or her vote. joturner 01:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think you are? We are not in one of your Middle Eastern totalitarian "democracies" where you get to tell people what to do. This is Wikipedia, a FREE encyclopedia -- I know that the concept of freedom can be a bit foreign to you Muslims, but you I guess you are going to have to live with this one. We in the West do not abide by Muslim rules. Lenineleal 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lenineleal, note Wikipedia:Civility. You cannot base the beliefs of an entire group of people on the beliefs and actions of just one member. Note that I am a Muslim and have opposed the deletion of this picture from the beginning. See the post just above the one you made here as well as my longer post for more. Lenineleal, don't talk about tolerance if you yourself can't be tolerant.

May Allah bless you in this world and the Hereafter. joturner 01:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the middle east, and it never will be. We don't cower out when someone gets offended by something. Hell, I've seen a lot of the media in the middle east, and they have no problem mocking Jews and Christians. I guess Allah blesses that. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. You act like we single out the bad Muslims, but this proves that you're all the same. There will never be a tolerant strain in Islam because the religion is so monolithic and unchangeable. Why is pictures of your prophet so offensive? No one bothers to explain this. And 'because it is against Islam is not a valid reply. --UltraSkuzzi 02:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess Allah blesses that...You act like we single out the bad Muslims, but this proves that you're all the same. There will never be a tolerant strain in Islam because the religion is so monolithic and unchangeable. UltraSkuzzi, note Wikipedia:Civility. The reason portraying the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is so offensive is that Islam prohibits shirk, associating another god with the one god, Allah. In fact, this is stated in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article:

Islamic tradition bans any depiction of the prophets either in drawing or statues, even respectful ones, out of concern that such images could lead to idolatry, and thus worshipping of Muhammad instead of the One God.

May Allah bless you in this world and the Hereafter. joturner 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tradition exactly. How far back does this tradition go back? Since his death? This proves my point that Islam cannot change. Christianity has depictions of various prophets (some of which are shared between the two), and they haven't had to worry about them being worshiped. Tradition isn't dogma. Traditions change. I think this tradition is ready to die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraSkuzzi (talk • contribs)

That is your opinion. There are many aspects of all religions (including Christianity) that have remained the same since their existence. In the same way I'm going to respect your religion and beliefs, I request that you respect mine and Erdemsenol's. joturner 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also note Lenineleal that this guy is Turkish. Not a totalitarian state. joturner 02:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite a democracy either, Joturner. Lenineleal 02:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, Lenineleal. joturner 02:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ask the Kurds or the Armenians what they think about it, Joturner. Lenineleal 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Turkey pretends to be a modern state, but it isn't. Christians are being persecuted even in the "open minded" Istambul, the most western/modern city in Turkey. Cyprus is not being accepted as an independent nation and suffered tukish invasion some decades ago until today. Not to talk about the genoicide commited on Armenians beginning of the 20th century(you are being punished if you say that there) and the toruture still ongoing in turkish jails. Long way to go, still... 16:10, 3 February 2006 (CET)

Erdemsenol, yes, many Muslims think they are an insult to Islam and hence the controversy. And since there has been a big controversy, there is a wikipedia article on the subject. The publication of the carton here is quite relevant for informative purposes, insult or no insult. Wikipedia is based on a number of principles, and one of them is to present information in an objective and useful way, even if things presented may be insulting to some groups.

You say that "I'm going to respect your religion and beliefs", but you demand that we violate one of our most "holy" principles of freedom of speech. Don't you find that a bit hypocritical? Bottom line is that the two beliefs are not compatible. You can't respect one without disrespecting the other. Ultimately wikipedia is based on western values, its servers are in western countries and a vast majority of the users are western. If you can't accept that other people have another set of values to which the adhere, well, that's too bad. You always have the choice of not visiting this site. Incidentally, had there values not existed and had they not been followed, there would be no wikipedia at all. There would be no internet, computers or even cars. The technological development happened in the west when we stopped burning people for heresy.

On a more personal note, I think your time would be better spent figuring out how strong your faith is. If it is so weak that you think that a few scribbles on a paper made public in a far away country by some infidels is a threat to your religion, well, then your faith can't be very strong, now can it? And no, of course I won't remove my signature. --Denoir 07:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

also, could you stop the spamming about those cartoons? Islam related talk pages, fine, but why Talk:Odin? Because it was the bloody Vikings who drew those cartoons in the first place? dab (ᛏ) 08:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Erdemsenol, There are 6 billion people in this world - all with their different beliefs. Naturally, some beliefs will be different from others. In an international forum such as the Internet, we can't show particular favour towards just one of those beliefs, giving it special status. You should be aware that in 2005, the BBC broadcast on TV a very controversial program called "Jerry Springer, The Opera" - in which a figure of Jesus Christ was shown wearing a baby's nappy, and declaring that he might be a little bit gay. This was in ENGLAND... which is predominantly a country of Christians. So I hope you can see that it is not just Islam which is a target for jokes. No serious harm is meant... please understand that. We just value our right to express ourselves. Thank you. EuroSong 09:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing you to look at the pictures. Don't go on to that article if you can't accept them. It looks like they will be staying there. If the muslim world doesn't like the concept of wikipedia prehaps they should start up islamopedia which they can censor to their hearts content. Slamdac

In most of the european countries we have something called freedom of speech. It took us some centuries to get rid of the censorship power of the religion (in this case the Christian religion) and gain freedom of speech. Now everyone is free to say and write what he thinks, and satire is a form of free speech. We have some problems here in Italy with people trying to censor satire, but it is one of the sign of the democracy and freedom of a state. I shouldn't answer you in the first place because you are probably a troll, but I think you should respect at least the right of other people to say what they want. Then if you don't agree, you shouldn't boycott or kill or use violence to impose your point of view. This applies to what is happening now in the muslim community, but the Americans did the same thing when France and Germany didn't want to invade Iraq; they tried to boycott them and impose their point of view with violence. Pay attention to what you are doing, you are acting very similar to the same people you commend. --giandrea 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You may post to everyone's user page who opposes you but that will not intimidate us. If freedom of speech means anything it means it most when the speech is the most insulting, the most outrageous, and inflames the most passions. I sincerely hope that Turkish opinion does not on the whole coincide with yours or the prospects of Turkish accession to the EU is dim indeed. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't really matter who they are offending. In a free and democratic society, freedom of the press is sacrosanct. It may well have been in poor taste, and a bad idea; but the cartoons are now the story. There is no reason they shouldn't be shown in the article about the cartoons. To do anything else would be offer a particular religion extra protection that is certainly not offered to any other religion! Nfitz 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a Muslim encyclopedia. Muslims should not receive special treatment over everyone else. The pictures stay. --Vagodin ^Talk 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your signature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Understand that these cartoons are receiving support not because of their content, but because of the reaction against them. Do not equate this defence of freedom of speech with an actual insult to the Muslim faith. I for one could never imagine creating images that Muslims would find offensive or insulting. However, Western free speech traditions do not simply protect speech that we like, but speech that we might disagree with or find offensive. Wikipedia contains numerous images that many people find offensive, including depictions of ethnic and racial stereotypes. They may be disturbing, but I believe that an open society is stronger when it can deal with these difficult ideas in context and out in the open. Intimidation, death threats, violence, angry protests, boycotts and the like will only harden the resolve of many people in the West for whom freedom of speech is a hard-won, sacred right. --tranquileye 03:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont not wish to offend those who have been already offended by these Cartoons, but did any of yous (All those Muslims who protested and run a muck all over the world.) think that maybe if yous just ignored the cartoons the whole world wouldnt have made such a big deal out of this and over 50 other countries wouldnt have published, I mean the only real reason the other countries followed suit to publish them again was because of the retaliation of cauos and destruction the muslims caused after the Danished publish them. Dont get me wrong Iam not sticking up for the cartoons but really think about it, yous aint the only religon that gets persicuted buy cartoonists, the other religons dont lower them selves to take note of such childish cartoons and therefore dont retaliate in such a way that the whole world gets to persicute them also.

[edit] Hey

Hey Erdemsenol can you please help me to keep the Category Muslim musicians you can see it here Category:Muslim musicians Bazel 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)