I personally think that this should be done. Even if it doesn't solve
the problem entirely, it will help, it's proportionate and consistent
with the sources for that article, as well as the goals and policies
of the wikipedia.
On 22/02/2008, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Tony Sidaway
<tonysidaway(a)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.
As someone who's been following the debate on images in the Muhammad
article for the last year or so, it's my definite impression that few
editors from either side are likely to find this an acceptable
comprimise.
But feel free to suggest it at [[Talk:Muhammad/images]]
Cheers
WilyD
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.