Actually, to clarify; it's a particular Islamic sect which has a problem. A lot of the smaller groups really don't care.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the > > specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him > > trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell? > > > > Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that > > *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole > > and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see > > just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of > dignity. > > > > > > > The first link goes to the "depictions of Muhammad" article, which > includes all kinds of images and not just obviously offensive ones. > The idea of banning images of Muhammad is not limited to just this > template on Aceh Wikipedia - they didn't invent it, it's an article of > Islamic faith that *all* images of Muhammad are prohibited. On the > English Wikipedia there have been many, many debates (and protests, > boycotts, online petitions, etc.) about whether and how the > [[Muhammad]] article should be illustrated with images of its subject. > > Nathan > > _______________________________________________ > 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
