+1. While I think there are many good arguments against inclusion of images of Muhammad in Wikipedia, the "false" or "unreliable" does not seem to be such an argument. We have plenty of images of Jesus and lots of other famous people of whom we have no photographic or _primary_ artistic sources...
Also, what's with the venom in some of the posts here? -m. On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:18 PM, John Vandenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> wrote: >>... >> >> That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big problem, >> not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're doing >> something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tough". And >> you don't possess, and will never possess, an authentic image of >> Muhammad. > > Are our images of Muhammad any less authentic than our images of St. > Paul, Jesus or Krishna? > > -- > John Vandenberg > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
