On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:29:12PM -0500, Nathan wrote:
I have some observations, but first a request: please don't post one-line response after one line response. Make a considered point, and post it.
Firstly, I agree with Ansell - this is a situation which should be decided on principle, and the principle should be agreed upon before technical implementation is debated. There are a number of ways to obscure, hide, move, remove or display images. The question isn't "How is it done?" but "Should we do it?"
Some have suggested that the principle here should be to accommodate, at least in part, the religious doctrine of a group of people. I strongly disagree - it seems to me like many decisions have been taken in the past on Wikipedia directly in contravention of this proposed principle, and rightly so in my opinion.
<snip/>
I'd expect a more wise response from someone called Nathan: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6198&pageno=92
The spectre of compromise is just that - it is an illusion, constructed by those of us who assume that compromise with religious fundamentalism is possible.
<snip/>
Yeah sure, label it fundamentalism. How about extremism, radicalism, t...?
Finally, if you look through the archives of [[Talk:Muhammad]] and the FAQ there, you'll notice that practically every possible compromise has been considered and discarded.
Unless of course the compromise has been discarded before consideration.
Not a single new argument has been made in any of the list threads about this subject - and all of these arguments have been considered and rejected by the editors who actually work on the Muhammad page.
And sometimes even rejected beforehand. One only has to read the pink boxes to understand what is allowed in the discussion. Change certainly isn't.