User talk:The.valiant.paladin
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Sam Spade 18:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With regard to your comments on Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and do not add rude remarks on Wikipedia talk pages. It is inappropriate to insinuate the sensitivities of many Muslim editors could be "some groups silly religious notions". --Raphael1 20:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if it were just one Muslim editor, who takes offence of the Muhammad cartoons, it would not be appropriate to call him/her notion silly. Please notice, that neither mike4ty4 nor me is arguing for an outright removal (censorship) of the cartoons. --Raphael1 22:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If bareboned facts were the only thing appropiate for Wikipedia, we probably wouldn't need WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. Please don't ignore the fact, that Wikipedia is written and read by humans. Therefore our editing needs to adhere civility and respect as a basic principle (which does not necessarily need to be motivated by religios ideas). --Raphael1 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, that it would be very difficult if not impossible to take "every little strange and silly religious idea" into consideration. But this is a red herring argument, since calling a prophet with a billion adherents a "crazy bloke" is neither "little" nor does it take much empathy to understand the offence taken. Luckily the cartoons are currently too small to read the text. And btw. I'm sure there are many "truths" out there, which might hurt you one day. --Raphael1 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do you consider it a silly idea, that people take offence, if their revered prophet is called a crazy bloke? I wouldn't regard it a silly idea, that you are disgusted by child sexual abuse (though I don't think the sexual behavior of anyone living > 1300 years ago can ever be considered a fact) and I would never ponder to add an image to Child sexual abuse no matter how informative and correct the image could possibly be. --Raphael1 10:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)