On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hmm we have a pretty strong european base. -- geni

Steve Bennett wrote: The systemic bias, which stems from the fact that most contributors are living in anglophone countries, where islamist terrorist attacks occured, which resulted in widespread anti-islam bias, is IMHO bad enough. You don't believe me? Well, read it up on [[Islamophobia]] and it's talk page. The JP cartoon poll results have been no surprise to me at all, nor have been the hundreds of cartoon deletions ever since. I can even agree to the many bans, which have applied on editors, which continuously removed the cartoons without inserting a link to them, on the basis of vandalism. The cartoons, even if they are offensive, are indeed highly relevant material, and removing them without inserting a link can be considered a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. But I strongly disagree, that replacing the cartoons with a link to them, is vandalism, because the motivation of those, who do so, is not to reduce the quality. Instead those who do so (incl. myself) do in fact want to increase the quality of the article, because they think, that an article on a controvery needs to have editors on both sides of this controversy. The current state of this article and the editors backing it, already drove away resp. banned countless editors, who could have added valuable information regarding the muslim POV on this issue. As if common anti-islam bias among the editors weren't enough, even administrators, who outed themselves as free speech extremists on the Image-Display talk page, which has been created for this content dispute, abuse their administrator privilege by simply blocking editors they disagree with. -- Raphael

charles matthews wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: Who is right? Is the english Wikipedia supposed to have an American point of view, or is systemic bias whatsoever not acceptable in the encyclopedia? -- Raphael

charles matthews 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. -- Raphael

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: Please look at the talk pages. I've never shied away from any discussion. And 3 reverts in 5 days can hardly be called edit-warring, nor does it explain a block for 1 week. -- User:Raphael1

On Mon, 08 May 2006 19:45:17 +0200, you wrote: It can if it's against consensus, and you *know* it's against consensus, and you repeatedly do it anyway. Your version of debate appears to be to re-state your position. Which, to be fair, is pretty much where everybody else there comes from. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:37:32 +0200, you wrote: Wise words - I winder who said that? But the lack of 100% agreement does not mean you can go ahead and enact the minority view in the mean time. No, it means that most people think one thing and a small coterie of edit warriors think another. You've been responsive in the sense of not changing your view. As has pretty much everyone else. Come up with a new compromise. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

charles matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: Numerically consensus is something like 80% approval, but of course a purely numerical criterion is not useful. It's equally important that consensus is applied to the writing of policies and guidelines, not to the writing of articles. That is policy, which by definition already "reflects consensus".~~~~Pro-Lick --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase

On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:41:58 +0200, you wrote: I kind of agree, but only to this extent: the reader of an article on a porn "star" is unlikely to be looking for a neutral analysis of the star's life and work, and if they are they are probably going to be disappointed. A reader of the article on the cartoons might reasonably be expected to be looking for a balanced view of the controversy. Most porn articles I've seen link to the subject's website, generally that is the sole "reliable" source of information in the entire article, and most of the pictures used on the articles are asserted fair use, very few are free or released by provable authority. So I personally would not include the cartoons in the article, because they are considered offensive by many of the potential readers and that will colour their view of the neutrality of the article, but undoubtedly would link to them since the whole issue makes little (or at least much less) sense if you've not seen them. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG