Jesse W wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
I'd reckon the cartoons displayed on the Islamophobia article not to be an affront, because it would be clear, that "Wikipedia" considers the cartoons to be a sign for hatred towards Muslims.
And there, concisely, is how you're arguing that Wikipedia abandon its core principles.
Which one?
WP:NPOV. Specifically, (paraphrase) "Wikipedia does not *consider* anything to be anything. Wikipedia reports that other people consider things to be other things, and tries to take as few positions as possible."
That's a noble goal, but experience shows, that sometimes "Wikipedia" *has to* take a position.
OK. That was why I said "as few positions as possible." No argument here.
Nevertheless, I continue to fail to see how displaying an image *on the article about it*(i.e. J-P cartoons controversy) is taking *more* of a position than displaying the image on an article about a general topic of which the image is an (arguable) example. (i.e. Islamophobia)
But we've been over this before. You have said nothing new. This is my last comment (or even reading) of this thread. Have a nice day.
Just in case you're still interested in my view:
IMHO it's not a question of more or less position taking, instead it's a question of which position Wikipedia takes. Either we support stereotyped hostility towards a religious group by imitating that Danish newspaper, or we reject any advocaction of religious hatred?
As you might know already, I prefer the latter. :-)