No subject

clear straw man argument without standing, as you posit, but
nevertheless hold 2. (a) to be a valid stance, without internal
contradiction.

If, to play the devils advocate here for a moment, I wanted to
attempt to justify 2. (a), I would probably do it something like
thus:

Since our editorial judgements are intended to attain to the
highest useful standards of presentation of factual information
and not the lowest, any low-ball standards are always irrelevant.

For text, we don't write "Josh is Gay", but use more encyclopedic
forms like "Josh has a relationship with lifelong companion Kevin."

So in attaining to the best, we need not concern ourselves, in
ultimo with avoiding the worst. Since the worst is not the best,
it is enough for us to note that what it is is not-best, without
any need to make note of the fact that it is the-worst.

> So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform
> in a mature, responsible way.
>
> It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who
> might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the
> moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general
> desire to not censor Wikipedia.
>
> --Jimbo
>

I really think what should be done is to approach the situation from the
viewpoint of what is the *best* way to encyclopaedically illustrate
articles about any legendary figure.

Personally I do think some of the images in that muhammed
article do not infact serve to inform the reader about any relevant
matter of encyclopaedic note.


Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]