[WikiEN-l] "I want to at least kill the responsible person."

[Thomas Dalton]

On 15/02/2008, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/02/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > The point is that we are a neutral encyclopaedia and those images have
>  >  encyclopaedic value
>
>
> Encyclopaedic just means that they should go in the encyclopaedia
>  somewhere; but not necessarily in the Mohammad article. The censorship
>  policy just says that we don't remove things from the entire
>  wikipedia, not that we don't move it from any particular article.

Images of Muhammad make sense in the article on Muhammad. I'm not sure
if moving them to another article would appease the people
complaining, anyway.

>  At present, the wikipedia is far from neutral here; for example, the
>  Muhammad in Encyclopedia Britannica has only a single veiled image in
>  18 pages, whereas the wikipedia has 4, and most of them are unveiled.
>  I don't think you can find many articles on Muhammad with lots of
>  images in; or nobody has so far.

"Neutral" does not mean "what everybody else does", so your point is
completely meaningless.