On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 7:10 PM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
It is a belief that no image can adequately portray the greatness of the man. By comparison, imagine the uproar if we were to depict the Crucifixion with an overweight Jesus with acne and a bulge in his loincloth, while Mary Magdalene mourns in fishnets and a corset.
No, imagine the uproar if *someone else* made such a depiction a few hundred years ago, and Wikipedia included it an article. OK, now imagine how such an uproar should be responded to.
I don't see how the current image is well integrated into the article. It does seem to me like the image is currently mainly being kept there simply to spite those who don't want it there (or as a backlash against censorship, which is basically the same thing). But if the picture is somehow notable to this article, either in itself or as an example of a depiction which was typical in a certain culture/at a certain time (*), then I can see how it *could* be well integrated into the article.
(*) I don't know if this is the case or not. I've read a small bit of argument on each side of this, but most of the current debate seems to ignore this IMO key question. And I'd say the burden of proof in this particular case should be on those who want to include the image.