Ian Woollard schrieb:
On 22/02/2008, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't "solution" require the petitioners to agree to the idea that showing drawings of people they consider to be prophets can shown when the title of the page is called "depiction of X"?
Forget them. I checked, there's no references with those kinds of images in the Muhammad article, except those *directly* associated with those images. That they should be in the article is an extreme minority position in the references.
Yes, I'm actually arguing that we should do that, even if we weren't being petitioned. The NPOV seems to be NOT to include them.
It's an *indirect* effect of the prohibition within Islam, acting via the references, but we're not directly doing it because of that, we're doing it because of NPOV.
OK, but how do you plan to get this through? There are already admins protecting the images in the article using blocks and protection as necessary.
I guess they wouldn't even tolerate, if one would try to add a question like "Why we still should consider to change the image display?" in [[WP:OWN|their]] [[Talk:Muhammad/FAQ]].
-- Raphael
A small band of Spartans is not a problem if we have a consensus to avoid needless offense. The images have some utility in articles on art or in an article on depictions of Muhammed, but add nothing useful to the article Muhammed. They only give needless offense, and not just to religious kooks, but to mainstream Muslims.
Fred