On 15/02/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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.