In a message dated 2/23/2008 2:53:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, shimgray@gmail.com writes:
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.>>
-----------------------------------------
No this doesn't represent my point-of-view. My point-of-view is, we have images of each major religious figure. That is standard, consistent, and neutral, from *our internal* point-of-view. That point has been made clear cross-wiki, it's not new. In general, we add images to any article, we are encouraged to do so because readers like images.
The *extremists for*, are arguing, that images are standard, helpful, and informative. That we include them, regardless of whether they are photographs, paintings or drawings. That they do not necessarily represent the actual truth of what a person looked like.
The *extremists against* are arguing from the point of their own religious dogma, asking us to support that dogma. They are, in general, only here to argue against the images, and have very little to no edits in other articles.
Those two positions are in no way the same. All right-thinking, enlightened, torch-bearers of justice, truth and other things, agree with me :)
Will Johnson
**************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:
The *extremists for*, are arguing, that images are standard, helpful, and informative. That we include them, regardless of whether they are photographs, paintings or drawings. That they do not necessarily represent the actual truth of what a person looked like.
The *extremists against* are arguing from the point of their own religious dogma, asking us to support that dogma. They are, in general, only here to argue against the images, and have very little to no edits in other articles.
Aha, here's the problem. The ones you've quoted as "for" are the people making rational points and trying to engage in discussion, certainly not the extremist end of the argument.
Both sides have basically two groups of proponents, and you're comparing the *rational* position for, with the *extremist* position against.
The rational position[s] against the images are "these images aren't really helpful or informative; the small benefit they provide in this case is outweighed by the fact they are idiosyncratic, or by the fact that they cause a lot of annoyance"
The extremist position for the images can basically be summed up as "fuck the Muslims, we should include them because we can" - believe, me there are some who are basically asserting that - and really doesn't bother having any viewpoint on the encyclopedic merits (or otherwise) of the images; or "we're not censored, we can include what we damned well like regardless of what anyone thinks".
In a message dated 2/23/2008 2:53:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, shimgray@gmail.com writes:
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.>>
No this doesn't represent my point-of-view. My point-of-view is, we have images of each major religious figure. That is standard, consistent, and neutral, from *our internal* point-of-view. That point has been made clear cross-wiki, it's not new. In general, we add images to any article, we are encouraged to do so because readers like images.
The *extremists for*, are arguing, that images are standard, helpful, and informative. That we include them, regardless of whether they are photographs, paintings or drawings. That they do not necessarily represent the actual truth of what a person looked like.
The *extremists against* are arguing from the point of their own religious dogma, asking us to support that dogma. They are, in general, only here to argue against the images, and have very little to no edits in other articles.
Will Johnson
What you say is not true. I am not a Muslim; I simply counsel avoiding offense. I have about 20,000 edits, very few to do with Islam.
Fred