On 23/02/2008, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:23 PM, David Gerard
> You appear to have mistaken your personal
viewpoint for a neutral
> viewpoint. This is of course an eternal hazard.
And perhaps you, yours.
Definitely. It's a hazard for any of us.
(Personally, in [[Muhammad]] I'd put a current representative
calligraphic depiction at the top and maybe one veiled picture in the
subsection on representations. Then put a full representative
selection of depictions in [[Depictions of Muhammad]]. I expect this
is one of the options hashed out over the past year as well.)
The hard part is for everyone to realise even the apparent idiots have
to be worked with. "Assume good faith" is written over the gates of
It seems to me that we cannot achieve a
reasonable simulacrum of neutrality (for it is probably impossible to
be entirely neutral in the face of aniconic/anit-censorship dogmatism)
without accepting that some compromise has to be made.
Ignore the censorship and anti-censorship arguments. Ignore the upset
petitioners. Think only of the articles.