I personally think that this should be done. Even if it doesn't solve the problem entirely, it will help, it's proportionate and consistent with the sources for that article, as well as the goals and policies of the wikipedia.
On 22/02/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad". Illustrations are greatly overrated in my opinion.
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions" article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
As someone who's been following the debate on images in the Muhammad article for the last year or so, it's my definite impression that few editors from either side are likely to find this an acceptable comprimise.
But feel free to suggest it at [[Talk:Muhammad/images]]
Cheers WilyD
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l