On 21/02/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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 ...