On 20/02/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No, imagine the uproar if *someone else* made such a depiction a few hundred years ago, and Wikipedia included it an article. OK, now imagine how such an uproar should be responded to.
In exactly the same situation but applying to the Jesus article, there would be no uproar, an ad-hoc coalition of users, admins and so forth would just appear and form a 'consensus' that that would not be permitted in the article. Generally when something ends up less offensive you get a lot less uproar than when it is, so no uproar.
I imaging that they would be much the same people that are currently trying to keep the Muhammad pictures in the article under 'consensus', but that's just my best guess.
In fact, if google is anything to go by, arguably it has already happened in real life. Googling 'jesus with an erection' gets more hits than 'images of muhammad', but even a link from the [[jesus]] article to [[Jesus with an erection]] is strangely absent ;-)
-- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.