On 5 May 2006 at 14:29, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Thank you for pointing out that distinction. Back on this issue: Anti-Islam bias (regardless of whether it's systematic or systemic) results in one-sided articles on certain topics, which is IMHO derogatory to an encyclopedia. And putting the JP cartoons in the article increases systemic bias by driving away muslim editors.
But suppressing some content that's otherwise relevant simply because it offends some particular group and thus drives them away, is itself a form of one-sidedness, in which the group with the thinnest skin about such things gets to dictate the content and tone of the related articles.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 5 May 2006 at 14:29, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Thank you for pointing out that distinction. Back on this issue: Anti-Islam bias (regardless of whether it's systematic or systemic) results in one-sided articles on certain topics, which is IMHO derogatory to an encyclopedia. And putting the JP cartoons in the article increases systemic bias by driving away muslim editors.
But suppressing some content that's otherwise relevant simply because it offends some particular group and thus drives them away, is itself a form of one-sidedness, in which the group with the thinnest skin about such things gets to dictate the content and tone of the related articles.
I have agreed to the linkimage compromise long time ago. IMHO it is neither necessary nor favourable to suppress the cartoons. But it is necessary to show respect by accepting a compromise (i.e. a linkimage template).
charles matthews wrote:
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
But it is necessary to show respect by accepting a compromise (i.e. a linkimage template).
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia decisions should not be taken on the basis that someone might be offended.
As far as I'm concerned, WP:NPA, WP:Wikiquette and WikiLove are the best and most important guidelines Wikipedia has.
Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
charles matthews wrote: > As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia decisions should not be taken on the > basis that someone might be offended.
As far as I'm concerned, WP:NPA, WP:Wikiquette and WikiLove are the best and most important guidelines Wikipedia has.
All other things equal, I agree with Charles. I still have no idea what article you are talking about, but assuming the content is relevant to the article, meets verifiability, and does not give undue weight to something, the only other question that remains is whether it is somehow presented with more bias than the sources present it. The policies/guidelines you mention are not relevant to article content. They are for dealing with others on Wiki, not how the article is written or presented. My advice is remember this, archive it, and when you are involved in another article (or some other aspect of the article in dispute) where WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR favor your position, reference this and make sure that the rules are applied consistently.~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Cheney Shill wrote:
Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
charles matthews wrote: > As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia decisions should not be taken on the > basis that someone might be offended. As far as I'm concerned, WP:NPA, WP:Wikiquette and WikiLove are the best and most important guidelines Wikipedia has.All other things equal, I agree with Charles. I still have no idea what article you are talking about, but assuming the content is relevant to the article, meets
verifiability, and does not give undue weight
to something, the only other question that remains is whether it is
somehow presented with more bias
than the sources present it. The policies/guidelines you mention are
not relevant to article content.
They are for dealing with others on Wiki, not how the article is
written or presented.
I'd say, that at least WP:NPA would need to be rewritten to reflect what you say. WP:NPA starts with "Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia."
Regarding the presentation of the source: WP presents it equally anti-Islam biased as the original source.
My advice is remember this, archive it, and when you are involved in another
article (or some other
aspect of the article in dispute) where WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR
favor your position, reference this
and make sure that the rules are applied consistently.~~~~Pro-Lick
Apropos rules, which are applied consistently. Please compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArch...
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
I'd say, that at least WP:NPA would need to be rewritten to reflect what you say. WP:NPA starts with "Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia."
Yes, we don't want ad hominem discussion, Wikipedian on Wikipedian. But that is really not what is under debate here.
Charles
charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote > I'd say, that at least WP:NPA would need to be rewritten to > reflect what you say. WP:NPA starts with > "Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia."
Yes, we don't want ad hominem discussion, Wikipedian on Wikipedian. But that is really not what is under debate here.
Agree again. "Working with others" is the context of NPA. It appears very clearly on that and all policy pages, along with the policies/guidelines considered "Article standards".
Consider this example: There are politicians in jail convicted of taking bribes. Admitted, uncontested, and no retrial requested. If their family and political party join Wiki and complain that it is a personal attack, should we remove it or call it "accepting donations for future personal and political goals"? Should we call them "controversial allegations"?
Raphael, I don't doubt you that Islam receives a far more negative spin on Wiki than Christianity. I'll try to reply to some of the detailed aspects later, but my my view regarding article and user interaction policy isn't going to change. If you want a different "bias" than the current sources, you need to present better (or more equivalent) sources that have a different "bias". Even then, there's no guarantee it will change, especially if you're correct about the systemic bias. Those types of biases arise from the people in the majority positions. I.e., those with consensus. There's nothing written in the article standard policies that favor one religion over another.~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
Cheney Shill wrote:
charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote > I'd say, that at least WP:NPA would need to be rewritten to > reflect what you say. WP:NPA starts with > "Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia." Yes, we don't want ad hominem discussion, Wikipedian on Wikipedian. But that is really not what is under debate here.Agree again. "Working with others" is the context of NPA. It appears very clearly on that and all policy pages, along with the policies/guidelines considered "Article standards".
Consider this example: There are politicians in jail convicted of taking bribes. Admitted, uncontested, and no retrial requested. If their family and political party join Wiki and complain that it is a personal attack, should we remove it or call it "accepting donations for future personal and political goals"? Should we call them "controversial allegations"?
Why should any politician, who admitted taking bribes, complain for that allegation?
Raphael, I don't doubt you that Islam receives a far more negative spin on Wiki than Christianity. I'll try to reply to some of the detailed aspects later, but my my view regarding article and user interaction policy isn't going to change. If you want a different "bias" than the current sources, you need to present better (or more equivalent) sources that have a different "bias". Even then, there's no guarantee it will change, especially if you're correct about the systemic bias. Those types of biases arise from the people in the majority positions. I.e., those with consensus. There's nothing written in the article standard policies that favor one religion over another.~~~~Pro-Lick
There's nothing written in policies, that WP is a democracy, Ochlocracy or Mobocracy either.
Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Apropos rules, which are applied consistently. Please compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArch...
I see a block for censorship and another for vandalism, the other is a 3RR violation for reverting it, which isn't enforced because the changes being reverted are rule violations. This is consistent with what I've seen before, which is a nice change. Because the page is in fact about the comics, the comics (or a link to it if the copyrights were enforced) really does belong on the page.
My position on censorship is that if we permit this comic to be removed, anything critical or that parodies any religion becomes subject to removal if it offends some of the believers. If it makes you feel any better, a South Park episode had Bush and Jesus shitting on each other on top of the USA flag. I can send you the P2P link if you'd like to watch. I could also submit a couple screen shots under fair use that you could add to the South Park articles.~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
Cheney Shill wrote:
Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Apropos rules, which are applied consistently. Please compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:66.108.42.9 andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArch...
I see a block for censorship and another for vandalism, the other is a 3RR violation for reverting it, which isn't enforced because the changes being
reverted are rule violations.
This is consistent with what I've seen before, which is a nice
change. Because the page is
in fact about the comics, the comics (or a link to it if the
copyrights were enforced) really
does belong on the page.
WP:BP does not mention "censorship" as a case for a block. No admin would block anyone for removing the Goatse.cx image from the Goatse.cx article or any porn from any porn stars article. What rules do the reverted changes violate, so the other 3RR violations are not enforced?
My position on censorship is that if we permit this comic to be removed, anything critical or that parodies any religion becomes subject to removal if it offends
some of the believers.
I don't want the cartoons to be removed. I want them to be moved behind a link. I'd wish, that Wikipedia distances itself from the incitement of religious hatred against any religion by either linkimaging such examples or by putting such examples on articles like anti-Semitism or Islamophobia.
Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote: > I see a block for censorship and another for vandalism, the other is a 3RR violation > for reverting it, which isn't enforced because the changes being reverted are rule violations. > This is consistent with what I've seen before, which is a nice change. Because the page is > in fact about the comics, the comics (or a link to it if the copyrights were enforced) really > does belong on the page.
WP:BP does not mention "censorship" as a case for a block. No admin would block anyone for removing the Goatse.cx image from the Goatse.cx article or any porn from any porn stars article. What rules do the reverted changes violate, so the other 3RR violations are not enforced?
Blanking, whether in whole or "significant parts", is considered vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. Also, this is policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored.
You do bring up a good point about the consistency of application, and you probably are correct, but you need actual examples of that happening. I'd keep in mind that shock material, like goatse images, is considered vandalism unless it's within the context of an article that's clearly about it. Most people don't know what to expect reading goatse. An article titled "Extreme sex acts", however, because people know by the title that they aren't entering an article about goats or facial hair, would be allowed a lot more discretion on what is and is not shock, at least as long as it involves sex. Consider these articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision ~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Cheney Shill wrote:
Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote: > I see a block for censorship and another for vandalism, the other is a 3RR violation > for reverting it, which isn't enforced because the changes being reverted are rule violations. > This is consistent with what I've seen before, which is a nice change. Because the page is > in fact about the comics, the comics (or a link to it if the copyrights were enforced) really > does belong on the page. WP:BP does not mention "censorship" as a case for a block. No admin would block anyone for removing the Goatse.cx image from the Goatse.cx article or any porn from any porn stars article. What rules do the reverted changes violate, so the other 3RR violations are not enforced?Blanking, whether in whole or "significant parts", is considered vandalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism.
Also, this is policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored.
True. WP:NOT censored states: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." It doesn't state: "It is Wikipedias mission to publish tasteless articles or images and breaking social or religious norms or requirements."
WP:Profanity is more specific in that matter. It states: "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
The current state of the JP article *is* offensive, whereas a linkimage compromise would still include all information about offensive material.
You do bring up a good point about the consistency of application, and you probably are correct, but you need actual examples of that happening. I'd keep in mind that shock material, like goatse images, is considered vandalism unless it's within the context of an article that's clearly about it. Most people don't know what to expect reading goatse. An article titled "Extreme sex acts", however, because people know by the title that they aren't entering an article about goats or facial hair, would be allowed a lot more discretion on what is and is not shock, at least as long as it involves sex. Consider these articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
Where would you expect to see the cartoon image?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten-Muhammad-dr.png
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
. WP:NOT censored states: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." It doesn't state: "It is Wikipedias mission to publish tasteless articles or images and breaking social or religious norms or requirements."
WP:Profanity is more specific in that matter. It states: "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
So, Wikipedia editors need not self-censor, while engaged in writing the encyclopedia articles. As decent people, they will self-censor in talk page discussion. Self-censorship is of course a basic social requirement.
This is comparable to the common understanding about academic freedom: you can say anything, independent of the popularity of the opinion. WP should be dealing with facts, though. In both cases, there is a clear understanding about _how_ you say things, which comes as a responsibility of the role. That is a matter of reputation-management rather than policy, though.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
. WP:NOT censored states: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." It doesn't state: "It is Wikipedias mission to publish tasteless articles or images and breaking social or religious norms or requirements."
WP:Profanity is more specific in that matter. It states: "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
So, Wikipedia editors need not self-censor, while engaged in writing the encyclopedia articles. As decent people, they will self-censor in talk page discussion. Self-censorship is of course a basic social requirement.
So decency in article pages is forbidden, even if you can be decent without loosing any informational content? The problem with this approach is, that you will loose a lot of readers and editors that way. Some of you will even be happy about that, but NPOV is in severe danger, if you are offending editors, who are members of a cultural resp. religious minority. In the end you will have an American/British/Christian encyclopedia. If this is what you're aiming at, I would not be interested. You'd waste a big chance for intercultural exchange and a true neutral point of view.
This is comparable to the common understanding about academic freedom: you can say anything, independent of the popularity of the opinion.
That's not true for Wikipedia. For example you cannot write a half-decent article about a controversy concerning Islam. Decency is blasphemy for some members of the free speech cult.
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
So, Wikipedia editors need not self-censor, while engaged in writing the encyclopedia articles. As decent people, they will self-censor in talk page discussion. Self-censorship is of course a basic social requirement.
So decency in article pages is forbidden, even if you can be decent without loosing any informational content? The problem with this approach is, that you will loose a lot of readers and editors that way. Some of you will even be happy about that, but NPOV is in severe danger, if you are offending editors, who are members of a cultural resp. religious minority. In the end you will have an American/British/Christian encyclopedia. If this is what you're aiming at, I would not be interested. You'd waste a big chance for intercultural exchange and a true neutral point of view.
Too many assumptions. I don't know why you think that Christians might not be offended, at some things: experience suggests otherwise. A secular point of view itself offends some religious people. I would certainly defend the idea that you can be secular and 'decent'. Who knows, even Richard Dawkins might be offended by something here.
I don't want to lose editors from any point of view. But there is a real problem with modifying articles, in order to incorporate the sensibilities from any one side. Think for example if we had to write about Armenia, in a way so as not to offend any Turkish readers. Or Nanjing, in a way so as not to offend any Japanese readers. The list goes on.
Actually the only way not to offend anyone is to avoid all controversial topics. It was decided, long ago, not to do that, and not to give the kind of treatment you might find in government-approved history books.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
So, Wikipedia editors need not self-censor, while engaged in writing the encyclopedia articles. As decent people, they will self-censor in talk page discussion. Self-censorship is of course a basic social requirement.
So decency in article pages is forbidden, even if you can be decent without loosing any informational content? The problem with this approach is, that you will loose a lot of readers and editors that way. Some of you will even be happy about that, but NPOV is in severe danger, if you are offending editors, who are members of a cultural resp. religious minority. In the end you will have an American/British/Christian encyclopedia. If this is what you're aiming at, I would not be interested. You'd waste a big chance for intercultural exchange and a true neutral point of view.
Too many assumptions. I don't know why you think that Christians might not be offended, at some things:
I never said so. But since Christians are the majority, their opinion will be heard in the poll surveys, that are IMHO carried out way too often. Why do you distract the discussion to countries like Armenia or Nanjing? I am talking about 1.3 billion people, who happen to be a minority on the english language Wikipedia.
[...]
Actually the only way not to offend anyone is to avoid all controversial topics. It was decided, long ago, not to do that, and not to give the kind of treatment you might find in government-approved history books.
I disagree. It is possible to present controversial topics in a non-offensive way by presenting the differing point of views, balancing their weight and establishing a consensus among all interested parties. It happens all the time on Wikipedia.
Unfortunately sometimes polls decide how a controversial topic should be presented. Thereby Wikipedia will become an Ochlocracy resp. Mobocracy, which is bad - even for articles like Armenia and Nanjing.
Raphael- I understand and am aware of the controversy regarding the Armenian Genocide article. What is the issue with Nanjing (which article, what's the problem etc?) I haven't heard of this before now.
-Swatjester
On 5/8/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
charles matthews wrote:
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
So, Wikipedia editors need not self-censor, while engaged in writing
the
encyclopedia articles. As decent people, they will self-censor in
talk
page discussion. Self-censorship is of course a basic social requirement.
So decency in article pages is forbidden, even if you can be decent without loosing any informational content? The problem with this approach is, that you will loose a lot of readers and editors that way. Some of you will even be happy about that, but NPOV is in severe danger, if you are offending editors, who are members of a cultural resp. religious minority. In the end you will have an American/British/Christian encyclopedia. If this is what you're aiming at, I would not be interested. You'd waste a big chance for intercultural exchange and a true neutral point of view.
Too many assumptions. I don't know why you think that Christians might
not
be offended, at some things:
I never said so. But since Christians are the majority, their opinion will be heard in the poll surveys, that are IMHO carried out way too often. Why do you distract the discussion to countries like Armenia or Nanjing? I am talking about 1.3 billion people, who happen to be a minority on the english language Wikipedia.
[...]
Actually the only way not to offend anyone is to avoid all
controversial
topics. It was decided, long ago, not to do that, and not to give the
kind
of treatment you might find in government-approved history books.
I disagree. It is possible to present controversial topics in a non-offensive way by presenting the differing point of views, balancing their weight and establishing a consensus among all interested parties. It happens all the time on Wikipedia.
Unfortunately sometimes polls decide how a controversial topic should be presented. Thereby Wikipedia will become an Ochlocracy resp. Mobocracy, which is bad - even for articles like Armenia and Nanjing.
-- Raphael _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Dan Rosenthal IWVO National Legislative Director
On 5/8/06, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Raphael- I understand and am aware of the controversy regarding the Armenian Genocide article. What is the issue with Nanjing (which article, what's the problem etc?) I haven't heard of this before now.
I suspect he refers to the [[Nanking Massacre]].
-Matt
On 5/8/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
charles matthews wrote:
Actually the only way not to offend anyone is to avoid all controversial topics. It was decided, long ago, not to do that, and not to give the kind of treatment you might find in government-approved history books.
I disagree. It is possible to present controversial topics in a non-offensive way by presenting the differing point of views, balancing their weight and establishing a consensus among all interested parties. It happens all the time on Wikipedia.
Good luck. Many Turks find it offensive simply to suggest that Turks killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians, while Armenians find mention of the Turkish view equally offensive. The only way to offend neither side is to ignore the subject entirely -- and then you'll get accused of censorship.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 5/8/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
charles matthews wrote:
Actually the only way not to offend anyone is to avoid all controversial topics. It was decided, long ago, not to do that, and not to give the kind of treatment you might find in government-approved history books.
I disagree. It is possible to present controversial topics in a non-offensive way by presenting the differing point of views, balancing their weight and establishing a consensus among all interested parties. It happens all the time on Wikipedia.
Good luck. Many Turks find it offensive simply to suggest that Turks killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians, while Armenians find mention of the Turkish view equally offensive. The only way to offend neither side is to ignore the subject entirely -- and then you'll get accused of censorship.
[[WP:NOT]] censored for the protection of your puny brain, human!
More to the point, [[WP:NOT]] censored for the protection of your POV. I think we've got a policy about it somewhere... NOTPOV? NPOV?
Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Where would you expect to see the cartoon image?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten-Muhammad-dr.png
-- I don't think we're ever going to see the censorship policy the same way, so here's my suggestion regarding this question specifically. I'm fine with it either way, whether displayed on it or linked to. Assuming that neither side is going to be happy with just a link or with the comic on full display, consider suggesting a partial clip of the comic to be displayed that still links to the comic in full. Try to agree on a clip that is not the most offensive part to you.~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
On Sun, 7 May 2006 20:04:44 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
I see a block for censorship and another for vandalism, the other is a 3RR violation for reverting it, which isn't enforced because the changes being reverted are rule violations. This is consistent with what I've seen before, which is a nice change. Because the page is in fact about the comics, the comics (or a link to it if the copyrights were enforced) really does belong on the page.
What you actually see is multiple blocks for disruptive edit warring.
Guy (JzG)
On Sun, 07 May 2006 23:43:35 +0200, you wrote:
I'd say, that at least WP:NPA would need to be rewritten to reflect what you say. WP:NPA starts with "Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia."
Would that include raising RfCs against admins who block people for sustained edit warring?
Guy (JzG)
Raphael Wegmann-2 wrote:
I have agreed to the linkimage compromise long time ago. IMHO it is neither necessary nor favourable to suppress the cartoons. But it is necessary to show respect by accepting a compromise (i.e. a linkimage template).
Respect to whom? and for what?
Is this the kind of "respect" which is demanded by teenage muggers who then proceed to carve up their victims for insufficient amounts thereof?
Not the kind of respect we want to consider paying to anybody IMNSHO: rather they should be shown the door in short order.
Phil Boswell wrote:
Raphael Wegmann-2 wrote:
I have agreed to the linkimage compromise long time ago. IMHO it is neither necessary nor favourable to suppress the cartoons. But it is necessary to show respect by accepting a compromise (i.e. a linkimage template).
Respect to whom?
Muslims
and for what?
for being humans as well.
Is this the kind of "respect" which is demanded by teenage muggers who then proceed to carve up their victims for insufficient amounts thereof?
No.
Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Phil Boswell wrote:
Raphael Wegmann-2 wrote:
I have agreed to the linkimage compromise long time ago. IMHO it is neither necessary nor favourable to suppress the cartoons. But it is necessary to show respect by accepting a compromise (i.e. a linkimage template).
Respect to whom?
Muslims
Right. As a Christian, I *DEMAND* that you remove (insert long list of stuff which Christians might find possibly offensive); etc. etc. ad. absurdium. If you'd like some more grease on that slipperly slope of yours, just holler...
and for what?
for being humans as well.
I have a nice list of strawmen that we could clog the list with to argue... well, anything you want really.
Is this the kind of "respect" which is demanded by teenage muggers who then proceed to carve up their victims for insufficient amounts thereof?
No.
See above.
Alphax wrote:
Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Phil Boswell wrote:
Raphael Wegmann wrote:
I have agreed to the linkimage compromise long time ago. IMHO it is neither necessary nor favourable to suppress the cartoons. But it is necessary to show respect by accepting a compromise (i.e. a linkimage template).
Respect to whom?
Muslims
Right. As a Christian, I *DEMAND* that you remove (insert long list of stuff which Christians might find possibly offensive); etc. etc. ad. absurdium.
That's the worst slippery slope argument I've ever read. You didn't even bother to bring a single example.
If you'd like some more grease on that slipperly slope of yours, just holler...
It's your slippery slope.
and for what?
for being humans as well.
I have a nice list of strawmen that we could clog the list with to argue... well, anything you want really.
The "teenage muggers", Phil Boswell brought up, are strawmen:
Is this the kind of "respect" which is demanded by teenage muggers who then proceed to carve up their victims for insufficient amounts thereof?
Before you put grease on your slipperly slope, I'd like to note, that I definitely plead for respect towards Christians as well. Since the majority within the Wikipedia community is Christian, I don't see much disrespect towards them.
On 10/05/06, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
Before you put grease on your slipperly slope, I'd like to note, that I definitely plead for respect towards Christians as well. Since the majority within the Wikipedia community is Christian, I don't see much disrespect towards them.
Considering that 67.4% of statistics (incl. this) are pulled out of people's backsides, can we have something to support that claim?
Rob Church
Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/05/06, Raphael Wegmann wrote: > Since the majority within the Wikipedia community is Christian, > I don't see much disrespect towards them.
Considering that 67.4% of statistics (incl. this) are pulled out of people's backsides, can we have something to support that claim?
This seemed an interesting enough question, so... Currently 740 active admins. So I decided to sample. Everyone on the arbitration committee was sampled, a few admins active on this list, several I've personally come accross while editing articles, and a few random clicks down the admin list. Yes, you and JZG were included. No regular users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitrators
Christian 6 Jewish 0 Muslim 0 Hindu 0 Buddhist 0 Atheist 2 Unknown - based in a judeochristian country 19 Unknown - based in a non-judeochristian country 1 ~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
On Wed, 10 May 2006 16:37:10 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
Before you put grease on your slipperly slope, I'd like to note, that I definitely plead for respect towards Christians as well. Since the majority within the Wikipedia community is Christian, I don't see much disrespect towards them.
I think you'll find that there is a very strong rationalist presence on WP, and even among those who identify as Christian, few would consider it worthwhile censoring [[Life of Brian]].
Guy (JzG)