What definition of "neutral" are people using when they say the boycott template violates NPOV?
I'm struggling with this. Where the WP servers are located, clearly it is acceptable to show pictures of Mohammed both legally and culturally. Amongst (some of, most of?) the speakers of the language wiki it is not. I'm not sure questions of "neutrality" are the best way to frame this argument. The two viewpoints are in direct contradiction to each other, so can it not be argued that we are not neutral because we are pushing our Western POV which says "sure, go ahead and show images of Mohammed"? Don't misunderstand; I am hostile to pretty much all religions and would find it mildly amusing that anyone could consider murderous activity because someone published a picture if it were not that people do actually get killed over this nonsense. My argument would be that the language wiki is supported by the WMF and that it would be absurd of the WMF to support a boycott of itself; communicate that to them as a starting point for dialogue. I need convincing that an argument from a neutrality standpoint can work. en.User:Bodnotbod _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
