On 23/02/2008, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
truth? You can't handle the truth!"
Feel free to check the references from the [[Muhammad]] article
itself, I did and was unable to find any images at all (except for the
references from the images, but I firmly believe that those were found
by begging the question and searching *for* images).
The problem is the way you are defining a minority opinion.
But that's the thing. I'M not defining a minority opinion.
By searching google I get IT to give me what google thinks are
representative. By looking at the existing references in the article I
get the ARTICLE to say what the wikipedia's editors think are
However, I cut it, I get the same answer; these kinds of images are
not very notable at all, in fact, I was unable to find exactly how not
notable, because no usable sources for the Muhammad topic I ever found
had these kinds of images.
Islam is a
minority thus it's POV that you should not have or show images of
historic people is a minority so lets see what other POVs there are.
Sure, it's POV. But as you well know, NPOV is when you have all POVs
in the article, in representative amounts.
The point is, that the representative amount of these images is one or
less. I was unable to find the images via any straightforward means,
short of actually explicitly searching for them.
<bunch of irrelevant comparisons to entirely different subjects deleted>
You are aware that appeal to popularity is a logical
The term 'popularity' usually refers to popularity among *people*; but
I'm referring to a form of popularity among *references*; otherwise
known as 'NPOV'.
Are you really referring to NPOV as a logical fallacy?
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.