Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RiskAficionado (talk | contribs) at 15:00, 12 October 2006 (npa2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Quran and science

I nominated The Quran and science for deletion again. Ibrahimfaisal removed all my additions after the article was saved. Will you weigh in? Also if you could include that same link to Zakir Naik's talk that would be great. Arrow740 21:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Comments

You posted the following comments to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR :

Adding the same image? Now, that takes nerve, for this image was already present: it is User:BostonMA who has been blanking it. User:BostonMA is the latest wave of a rising tide of fundamentalist editors who blank images of Muhammad on various articles, in his case without bothering to make an argument on talk - and even so, what can the argument be, other than that the image must be censored to make Misplaced Pages Halal? And the diffs show that the image is not the only thing that User:BostonMA saw fit to arbitrarily censor which HungryHun valiantly restored, knowing he was taking he risk of being reported here and possibly sanctioned by an admin less reasonable than Jaranda. If anything, this report only underscores the need to take action against users who adopt User:BostonMA's approach to editting Misplaced Pages: for every blip on the noticeboards there are two users who give up editting - really defending - these articles because there is no established mechanism for dealing with this madness, other than to stay glued to Misplaced Pages and revert them all day or the even more laborious path of arbitration. User:BostonMA should be blocked for his ceaseless and unashamed disruption.Observation Post 08:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Observation Post, there are a number of points that I would like to respond to regarding your comments.

• You characterize with "User:BostonMA is the latest wave of a rising tide of fundamentalist editors". I have views regarding the content of Misplaced Pages, and I have views regarding many other topics. The latter views I consider my private business, and I do not share them on Misplaced Pages, no more than I would present my views on religion in a lecture that I might give in school. So, you should realize that you know nothing of my views on religion. You, as everyone, is entitled to form your own opinion of me, based upon whatever comments or edits I may make at Misplaced Pages. However, I think it is inappropriate to attach labels to editors, such as "fundamentalist". I think it is inappropriate in general, but it is especially inappropriate when the labels that are attached have the capacity to Poison the well, and to shift attention from the issues before us, to political controversies that exist outside of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not the place to fight out such controversies.

• "Without bothering to make an argument on talk." I made arguments in my edit summaries. I have also made arguments on the talk page of the user with whom I have had this edit conflict. There are also some good arguments on the talk page of the article in question that I did not make. I don't see the need to repeat every argument every time I make an edit.

• "and even so, what can the argument be, other than that the image must be censored to make Misplaced Pages Halal?" Again, your reference to Halal is inappropriate. That aside, I have raised arguments in my edit summaries, but I shall expand on them here. From my perspective, I am following this guideline which says in part:

"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

In my opinion, the image is a) considered offensive by some Misplaced Pages readers, and b) is not informative. It doesn't illustrate what Mohammed looks like, and we really have no idea what the image is supposed to be illustrating at all.

• "And the diffs show that the image is not the only thing that User:BostonMA saw fit to arbitrarily censor which HungryHun valiantly restored" could you give an example? If I removed something else, it was by accident. You mention censorship. I do not favor censorship. The image belongs on Misplaced Pages, just as the image of Piss Christ belongs on Misplaced Pages. However the image of Piss Christ does not belong the Jesus page. There is a difference between appropriate placement of information, and censorship.

• "If anything, this report only underscores the need to take action against users who adopt User:BostonMA's approach to editting Misplaced Pages:" Please note, that some of the editors who have been removing the image have been with Misplaced Pages for years. You may wish to re-evaluate your opinion, that this is a "rising tide of fundamentalist editors".

• "there is no established mechanism for dealing with this madness" please read Dispute resolution

I would very much like to hear from you again. --BostonMA 14:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

no personal attacks, please

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)