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 2ยข/min or less.