On 5/15/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]
[[Proof that 0.999... equals 1]]
[[Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars]] has a tendancy to be inflammatory
[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct]] is a case where being
inflammatory appears to have been built into policy (RFC on articles
ok RFC on people.. less so)
People seem to find our copyright policies inflammatory.
[[Alan S. Chartock]] is either heading in the dirrection of WP:OFFICE
or in the dirrection of being inflammatory posebly both (see some of
the history to understand why).
I hate that people keep bringing examples such as these up. There is a
HUGE difference between NPOV articles being inflammatory to religions
or people (such as [[Piss Christ]] and the cartoons thing), and
posting inflammatory statements on your userpage! I can't even begin
to understand how people can compare putting "I think GWB is an
asshat" on your userpage with including one of the most notable
cartoons in history in the encyclopedia.
Look, if an article is needlessly POV-style inflammatory, then
ofcourse that should be fixed. But if an article presents just the
facts in an NPOV fashion, then it's a good article, no matter how many
people it offends.
So stop using the cartoons controversy to justify behaving like asses!
It's not the same thing!