, which was deleted (and I
think salted) due to NOTCENSORED.
On 21/02/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
> 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 ...
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: