Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio Vicipaediae:Imagines in disputatione" differant

:Eesh, the first one is tough. As for the Jyllands-Posten thing, if that's what you're getting at, we have that displayed, and I think rightly so. you need to have the image there to discuss its impact, and the fallout after it. But back to Saddamus, I don't think, unless we have an article ''explicitly'' on his execution, that we need to display such a picture. But if we did have such an article...ack that's hard. It was pretty barbaric, but I think maybe we need to be ok about that. We should not hide what is/was the truth. For instance, I think very much we should have pictures on Darfur for example, in order to display the truth about the world. Truth is hardly always beautiful, and we should be able to expose it as such. By that logic I would argue '''for''' the aforementioned execution photo. If it is displayed, there can be compelling stimulus to match the sentiment expressed by countless nations, condemning the action. I don't think we should ever hide from images, but avoid gratuitousness (ie, a Pompeiian frescoe of cunnilinctio at a ''Latin'' wikipedia is '''NOT''' gratuitous). The images that are picked shall then be explained as what they are, and sentiments from both sides can be presented.

:We also forget that we have this {{fn|celare}} template which does just the opposite of {{fn|monstrare}} template, so people may hide what they wish. This seems more in the spirit of an encyclopaedia (which should not compromise its integrity ad animos tenior es vulnerandi vitandum).--[[Usor:Ioshus Rocchio|Ioshus]] <small>^{[[Disputatio Usoris:Ioshus Rocchio|(disp)]]}</small>