On 22/02/2008, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad". Illustrations are greatly overrated in my opinion.
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions" article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
That's what I suggested early on in the initial thread. Since then, I have realized that the petition doesn't mean that these people don't want to see the image; it means we shouldn't have one at all. So, all move-to-other-article, hide-with-opt-in suggestions are moot.
This does not completely anull the value of it as a compromise, though - it does mean we are taking the decision to say "we will not force this on you", which is something.
The basic problem is that when a debate is binary - include or don't include - we can't really compromise with both sides unless we get interestingly creative...