You mean the content is offensive? I think sexually explicit material falls into a fundimentally different category. Plus, the [[Christianity]] page doesn't say, "Jesus Christ is our savior and he will eventualy come back to smite all of the people who aren't good christians" (sorry, I don't know much about christianity, I'm jewish). All it says is different opinions of different sects of christianity (hopefully) and doesn't present any as fact. If christianity is offensive, then so are half the articles in wikipedia. Just think of World Book, the current school encyclopedia almost everywhere. They report on Christianity, but they don't contain sexually explicit images. If we start to allow this, then who knows how far it will snowball?
-LittleDan
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
This should be part of a general category scheme, not a specific solution for images which are perceived as possibly offensive to a limited segment of the population. What if someone finds articles about Christianity offensive? Can they block them, too? Singling out the issue of sexually explicit material is not neutral.
Regards,
Erik
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com