On 21/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe an approach like one of these would serve as a compromise on the issue of images on the [[Muhammad]] article.
It's been suggested already. My objection to it is that there's no neutral way to decide which images to "censor" and which not to.
NPOV violation is where censorship (or censorship-lite) of sexually explicit imagery has also fallen down in the past.
In this case it's a bit different - if you go to a page called [[clitoris]] you shouldn't be surprised to see a clitoris, if you go to a page called [[autofellatio]] you shouldn't be surprised to see an act of autofellatio.
But if you go to [[Muhammad]], what would you expect to see? For what values of "you"? A calligraphic image at the top and historic artistic depictions lower down? I'm sure [[Talk:Muhammad]] has addressed this by the megabyte ...
- d.