All question of censorship aside, does it really make sense to have any image of historical persons that is not based on the actual likeness of that person on any page except [[depictions of...]] pages?
Maybe there are a few exceptions, where a particular depiction has become universally identified with the subject. But that's not the case with most historical figures, Jesus and Muhammad included.
Many, many depictions of Jesus look very European, which doesn't seem to be encyclopedic to me. But there's also a trend lately to have other depictions of Jesus that are targeted to a particular audience, without any concern for historical accuracy. This may be fine in liturgical settings, but not in an encyclopedia. But this is only more obviously wrong than a more "historically accurate" depiction. They're both still wrong.
-Rich Holton
On Feb 4, 2008 4:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
If this thread is going to continue, maybe we can fork it into something with a different title?
It's a direct quote from a signatory, considering they are campaigning to censor Wikipedia, it would be rather ironic for us to censor their comments. Yes, the subject line is disgusting, but that is what the signatory said.
Eh not to worry the standards on the other side are so much higher:
"Really. I keep saying this: give me 15 minutes with damn near any moslem, and I can get him bounced into 72-hour psychiatric detention; and the judge will back me. They are that crazy."
"Leave the pictures.
Pictures are proof that not all Arabs are animals."
Littlegreenfootballs comment section
Those are some way from being death threats... still not particularly friendly, though...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l