Prasad J wrote:
But then again, Mr.Wales, isn't the term
"inflammatory" a subjective
one? A userbox which seems inflammatory/divise to one user may not
appear that way to another. An example of such a scenario would be
when a user named Anwar Saadat declared, using such a template, his
opinion that Kashmir should be granted independence. Clearly, this did
not seem divisive/inflammatory to Saadat who was of the view that he
was merely expressing his personal feelings on that issue. However a
Wikipedian named Bhadani took this matter very seriously and accused
Saadat of committing "treason" against India. Here it is apparent that
Bhadani (being an Indian and hence, presumably, opposed to the
separatist movement in Kashmir) obviously considered the userbox to be
a a divisive/inflammatory one. So the aforementioned adjectives are
themselves subject to ambguity.
It's been a long-standing tenet of Wikipedia (and, in my view, a crucial
and necessary one) that contributors should leave their political
opinions at the door. Accordingly, any actions designed to divide the
editing community into political factions can be seen as unhelpful.
Frankly it sounds like everyone in the case you mention above needs a
good sound slapping.
Cheers,
N.
--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW:
http://nick.frejol.org/