On 23/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:23 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You appear to have mistaken your personal viewpoint for a neutral viewpoint. This is of course an eternal hazard.
And perhaps you, yours.
Definitely. It's a hazard for any of us.
(Personally, in [[Muhammad]] I'd put a current representative calligraphic depiction at the top and maybe one veiled picture in the subsection on representations. Then put a full representative selection of depictions in [[Depictions of Muhammad]]. I expect this is one of the options hashed out over the past year as well.)
The hard part is for everyone to realise even the apparent idiots have to be worked with. "Assume good faith" is written over the gates of WikiHell.
It seems to me that we cannot achieve a reasonable simulacrum of neutrality (for it is probably impossible to be entirely neutral in the face of aniconic/anit-censorship dogmatism) without accepting that some compromise has to be made.
Ignore the censorship and anti-censorship arguments. Ignore the upset petitioners. Think only of the articles.
- d.