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.
--
User:Raphael1