Autochecked users, Bureaucrats, Editors, oversight, recentchangescleanup, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
19,746
edits
User talk:Sahab: Difference between revisions
→semen claim
m (→semen claim) |
|||
| Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
Concerning the references for claims made by apologists; Axius is right that most of them were missing. But the reason why I removed those last two links from the "Miscellaneous" section was because (as I've advised other users) we're not an "interfaith" or "dialogue" site, so unless it's someone very notable, we do not respond to specific apologists. Instead we respond to the general arguments raised, if those arguments merit a response at all. The last thing we want is to get drawn into a slagging match with some insignificant guy on a blog. Ideally their claims wouldn't even be quoted; they would be presented in our own words. Take for example, "[[Responses to Apologetics - Muhammad and Aisha|Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha]]". I refuted most of those claims after I encountered them from apologists, but {{underline|I did not quote or reference a single apologist}}. Every claim is summarized in my own words, and this actually makes the page stronger because my words are a lot more concise and easier to understand than the words of illiterate apologists. Now what way is more universal and professional; refuting the arguments as a whole or refuting only individual, obscure internet apologists? So, no, I would say we do not need the claimer's name at all. In fact, aiming the response at a specific non-notable guy would unnecessarily weaken the page because it would then necessitate proof that (quoting Saggy's words) "such claims have been made". With my approach, it wouldn't make a difference if an individual removed a claim they made, because we are dealing with the argument, not the person who is making them. Besides, that particular claim would not be limited to that one particular person. Many others would be using it too on forums, blogs etc. Take [[Responses_to_Apologetics_-_Muhammad_and_Aisha#Mary_married_90-year-old_Joseph_when_she_was_only_12.2C_so_Joseph_was_a_pedophile_too|argument number 23]] as an example. That same Osama guy uses that argument. But why should we direct our response to one individual when thousands of people make the same claim? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:42, 16 March 2014 (PDT) | Concerning the references for claims made by apologists; Axius is right that most of them were missing. But the reason why I removed those last two links from the "Miscellaneous" section was because (as I've advised other users) we're not an "interfaith" or "dialogue" site, so unless it's someone very notable, we do not respond to specific apologists. Instead we respond to the general arguments raised, if those arguments merit a response at all. The last thing we want is to get drawn into a slagging match with some insignificant guy on a blog. Ideally their claims wouldn't even be quoted; they would be presented in our own words. Take for example, "[[Responses to Apologetics - Muhammad and Aisha|Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha]]". I refuted most of those claims after I encountered them from apologists, but {{underline|I did not quote or reference a single apologist}}. Every claim is summarized in my own words, and this actually makes the page stronger because my words are a lot more concise and easier to understand than the words of illiterate apologists. Now what way is more universal and professional; refuting the arguments as a whole or refuting only individual, obscure internet apologists? So, no, I would say we do not need the claimer's name at all. In fact, aiming the response at a specific non-notable guy would unnecessarily weaken the page because it would then necessitate proof that (quoting Saggy's words) "such claims have been made". With my approach, it wouldn't make a difference if an individual removed a claim they made, because we are dealing with the argument, not the person who is making them. Besides, that particular claim would not be limited to that one particular person. Many others would be using it too on forums, blogs etc. Take [[Responses_to_Apologetics_-_Muhammad_and_Aisha#Mary_married_90-year-old_Joseph_when_she_was_only_12.2C_so_Joseph_was_a_pedophile_too|argument number 23]] as an example. That same Osama guy uses that argument. But why should we direct our response to one individual when thousands of people make the same claim? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:42, 16 March 2014 (PDT) | ||
:Yea. I think its a good idea to have a response thats 'generic' and doesnt name or quote specific mini blog sites. That way it can be used against any site that makes such claims, not just one. It makes it tougher to deal with the rebuttal because we need to generalize the claims being made but its a better way in the long run and I agree, it makes the site look better. And yea thats the way we've tried to go in the past. So I guess ideally the other claims would also be generic first and then name certain people. How about putting these tips in the Style Content Guide, in a section called "Writing Responses to Apologetic Claims" (or 'for Apologists'). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 19:48, 16 March 2014 (PDT) | |||