> 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If > we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on.
It's the very core of the whole this issue. That's why it's so ...mission critical to stay very firm with WP:5P with all due respect to all and every particular group. Sincerely, Pavlo On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Excirial <[email protected]> wrote: > *There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it > is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a > mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?* > > 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an > encyclopedia. > 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If > we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. > 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a > personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a > problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't > erase them from history. > 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't > offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group > outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not > forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on > specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked. > > As said before, we should be careful with content that could be deemed > offensive, to prevent needless friction - For example we shouldn't be > placing images of Muhammad on article's that have only a partial relation > with him, such as "Prophets of Islam". In other words, the are in which they > are posted should be contained, but not exterminated. > > ~Excirial > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
