On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 7:10 PM, <daniwo59(a)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
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.