User talk:24.252.101.35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Reverted again

Anonymous, please rethink your approach to the Undergarment article. The way you're going about it will simply lead to your being blocked again, and it bolsters the arguments of others that people are trying to censor the article. I personally think it would be better if the image were not part of the article, but unless and until the consensus to remove it can be obtained, I have to respect the Wikipedia process and leave it there. Your actions make it increasingly difficult to gain that consensus, as they reinforce the notion in people's minds that there are no rational, Wikipedia-compatible reasons to remove the image - simply emotional ones. I invite you to share your thoughts and rationale behind your desire to remove the image; this may help you let off steam and perhaps start formulating a rational argument that you could make on the talk page. Your own talk page might be a good place to do this, or if you like you can post your thoughts on mine. In any case, I urge you to take a more measured and patient approach to this issue, and give the Wikipedia process time to work. If you reverse course now and stop trying to fight the system, you might find that some people (though, alas, not all) will be more willing to consider your perspective. alanyst /talk/ 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're willing to talk it over some. Let's acknowledge that there are some editors, of whom probably most if not all are LDS, whose motivation for removing the photo from the Undergarment article is most likely to protect what they consider sacred from public display. ("Censorship" is a loaded word but for the lack of a better, let's call it that.) Let's also acknowledge that there are some editors, LDS or not, who wish the image to be removed from that article, but for other reasons (for instance, excess of pictures, or the anti-LDS POV implied by its origin and contributor, or aesthetics, or perceived lack of illustrative value). I hope so far you would consider this a fair assessment of the "remove" camp.
The "keep" camp is also one we should look at objectively, if we can. I think some editors, but only a small few, perhaps just one or two, want to keep the photo for POV reasons, because it makes Mormons uncomfortable, and mocking LDS belief is their goal. Let's call this the "provocateur" group, again for lack of a better word. Then there are others who have different reasons for wanting the photo to stay in. A lot of them seem to be reacting against the "censorship" they perceive, and might not feel strongly about the photo remaining if it were not a religious matter. Others might want it to stay for aesthetic reasons, or because they feel it does add illustrative value, or for voyeuristic purposes.
The problem is, we have the censors and the provocateurs shouting at each other, and the legitimate arguments get swept away in the noise. And at this point, the noise benefits the provocateurs, who have established the image in the article and have a lot of people shouting censorship. Things have to quiet down before "censorship" can reasonably be shown to be mostly a straw man (at least, for this article), and that editors on the "keep" side of the debate can open their minds to arguments from the "remove" side without appearing to support censorship. The painful reality is, a great deal of patience is required in order to get a fair hearing of the non-censoring "remove" arguments. Getting emotional and attacking the provocateurs, or those you perceive to be a provocateur, doesn't advance the debate and doesn't persuade those reacting in good faith against perceived censorship to examine other possibilities.
You're impatient and frustrated with the provocateurs. I understand that, but consider well whether you're reacting in just the way they want, to make themselves look good and you look bad. Don't play their game -- get on the high ground, stick to the rules in spirit and letter, and if they are true provocateurs they will eventually get themselves in trouble as they go to greater lengths to provoke a reaction. Even better, they might get bored and leave, or they might have a change of heart and decide to start working constructively and considering others' points of view. Not saying it's terribly likely, but it's worth a shot, and at least this way you don't sink yourself trying to bring the other guy down. alanyst /talk/ 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)