Talk:Muhammad/images: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Resolution on controversial images: r to Tarc - ok, no gloves. I can do that. |
|||
| Line 256: | Line 256: | ||
*::::::It was not a personal attack ,I'm afraid, you don't get to hide behind that oft-abused shield. Someone who says "I do not believe that the project should insult or offend anyone or anything except where we need to for the purposes of articles" is expressing [[political correctness]]; pointing out the truth about what someone said is not a derogatory statement. Secondly, there is no issue of [[WP:OWN|ownership]] here. What you have done here, and continue to do, is bring up an old, dead tired, suggestion that has been rejected again and again and again and again by an overwhelming consensus of editors. Much the same as some wish the CRU hacking case to be called "Climategate" or for Barack Obama's bio to note the skepticism of birthers over his birth certificate...tired, repetitive, dead-horse arguments eventually get flagged as tendentious and the pusher of such winds up with a good ol [[WP:BOOMERANG|bommerang]] to the face. I note over on the [[pregnancy]] article you are engaging in the exact same behavior as you are here, so I kindly suggest the the problem lies in your own behavior, and not with any of your perceived opponents. At the end of the day, consensus has determined that the encyclopedic value of images of Muhammad override any vanishingly small minority of religious conservatives that do not like to see such images. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 20:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
*::::::It was not a personal attack ,I'm afraid, you don't get to hide behind that oft-abused shield. Someone who says "I do not believe that the project should insult or offend anyone or anything except where we need to for the purposes of articles" is expressing [[political correctness]]; pointing out the truth about what someone said is not a derogatory statement. Secondly, there is no issue of [[WP:OWN|ownership]] here. What you have done here, and continue to do, is bring up an old, dead tired, suggestion that has been rejected again and again and again and again by an overwhelming consensus of editors. Much the same as some wish the CRU hacking case to be called "Climategate" or for Barack Obama's bio to note the skepticism of birthers over his birth certificate...tired, repetitive, dead-horse arguments eventually get flagged as tendentious and the pusher of such winds up with a good ol [[WP:BOOMERANG|bommerang]] to the face. I note over on the [[pregnancy]] article you are engaging in the exact same behavior as you are here, so I kindly suggest the the problem lies in your own behavior, and not with any of your perceived opponents. At the end of the day, consensus has determined that the encyclopedic value of images of Muhammad override any vanishingly small minority of religious conservatives that do not like to see such images. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 20:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
*:::::::Well said. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 20:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
*:::::::Well said. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 20:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
*::::::::Let me be clear: I ''like'' to play intellectually rough. I just keep getting in trouble for it, so I thought I would try the utterly civil approach for a while. But if you prefer the rough-talk-tough-walk paradigm, I am more than happy to oblige. at least for this one post. {{=)|wink}} With that in mind, a response… |
|||
*::::::::#You can accuse me of political correctness all you like, but from my side all I can say is this: the extravagant effort I see dumped into defending these ''trivial'' images is only explainable by deep-seated anti-Islamic prejudice. Say what you will, but it's obvious these images are being used to POV-push against the Muslim religion, and that that wholly-unacceptable-under-policy practice is being shielded by using NOTCENSORED to shut down any reasoned discussion. Don't think I have an iron in this fire - I'm an ex-Catholic and philosophical agnostic, so I don't really give a hoot - I just note the utter refusal on this page to pay even a ''trivial token'' of respect to Muslim practices and let that oddness speak for itself, as it does loudly and clearly. There is no identifiable purpose to these images on this article (or to the endless battleground that's been created in this talk) ''except'' to demean Muslim beliefs. It is shameful. |
|||
*::::::::#When you say ''"the images will not be removed from this article. Period. Full stop."'', you are refusing to discuss the issue and insisting that the page will not change from your preferred version. that is the ''very definition'' of [[wp:page ownership]]. Sorry. Would you like me to invite a non-involved admin in here for his opinion? I specifically asked for help from this page because I didn't want you to get sanctioned (i figured people here would go easy on you, and I was right), but if you're willing to take that risk I'll go looking. |
|||
*::::::::I will continue to bring up these issues (as is my '''right''' under [[wp:CON]]) until I believe they have had a fair, reasonable, and appropriate hearing. I don't care how long it takes, or how many previous editors have been frightened away, or which [[wp:DR|DR]] or administrative processes will need to be invoked to achieve that end; this issue '''WILL''' be resolved in the end by reasonable discussion, not by policy declamations, bad faith accusations, or strong language. The sooner you come to terms with that, the easier it will be for all of us. |
|||
*::::::::Your serve. (this should be interesting…) --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 03:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||