In a message dated 2/23/2008 1:32:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, fredbaud@fairpoint.net writes:
But they ARE us, as are those such as myself who would avoid needless offense. There are sharp criticism to be made of Islam, that is unavoidable, displaying imaginary images is.>>
------------------------------------ Our project is not here to support or criticize a religion. We do not remove images based on religious dogma.
Next problem.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 23/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Our project is not here to support or criticize a religion. We do not remove images based on religious dogma.
I find it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist viewpoints demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as extremist viewpoints demanding their removal. We can't just say that one side is evil, so should be ignored, and that the other is justice and light.
If we're going to flaunt the extremist demands, we would be just as justified to remove them now.
But, you know, guess what? We are capable of making decisions not driven by what the extremists *on either side of this debate* are demanding. Your constant, insistent, repetitive statement that everyone should just stop discussing it is not, in any way, helpful.
It has been pointed out above that, for quite some time, the generally accepted approach was to have no illustrations. If we were having this debate *then*, when someone first insisted on their inclusion, would you be loudly arguing for them to be kept out on the grounds that we don't mess around with articles on religion-based grounds?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23/02/2008, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 23/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Our project is not here to support or criticize a religion. We do not remove images based on religious dogma.
I find it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist viewpoints demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as extremist viewpoints demanding their removal. We can't just say that one side is evil, so should be ignored, and that the other is justice and light.
If we're going to flaunt the extremist demands, we would be just as justified to remove them now.
But, you know, guess what? We are capable of making decisions not driven by what the extremists *on either side of this debate* are demanding. Your constant, insistent, repetitive statement that everyone should just stop discussing it is not, in any way, helpful.
It has been pointed out above that, for quite some time, the generally accepted approach was to have no illustrations. If we were having this debate *then*, when someone first insisted on their inclusion, would you be loudly arguing for them to be kept out on the grounds that we don't mess around with articles on religion-based grounds?
I don't think the term "extremist" applies to either side with any accuracy, and the use of the term implies impotence of the position without giving any good reasons why. The term just marginalises anything which isn't some form of difficult half-way solution. I'm yet to see a compromise which appeases both sides (i.e. the protestor's notion that no one can see the Prophet's face and Wikipedia community's wish to remain neutral, informative and educational), and I doubt there will be one.
- -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
On 23/02/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Our project is not here to support or criticize a religion. We do not remove images based on religious dogma.
I find it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist viewpoints demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as extremist viewpoints demanding their removal.
Since when was [[WP:NOT#CENSORED]] an extremist viewpoint?
James Farrar wrote:
On 23/02/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I find it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist viewpoints demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as extremist viewpoints demanding their removal.
Since when was [[WP:NOT#CENSORED]] an extremist viewpoint?
In a complex world (such as, for example, the one in which we live), almost any viewpoint, no matter how valid, can be taken to extremes.
Consider: why is there no modern or hard-core pornographic imagery at [[Pornography]]? Why has there, at various times, been no image at all at [[Autofellatio]]? Why do derivatives of the word "fuck" (which, as George Carlin has observed, is one of the most versatile words in the English language) appear in only a small percentage of Wikipedia articles?
I'm no fan of censorship, either, but there is no sharp line between "censorship" and "being reasonable".