This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 19:54, 7 November 2010 (w). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:54, 7 November 2010 by Nableezy (talk | contribs) (w)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Recently, an editor made a comment in a discussion at Talk:Rachel's Tomb about where this site is located. The comment included the line what the sources say is an irrelavant straw man argument. The diff is here. I placed the quote on my userpage and provided the diff, making no commentary about it. The quote and diff were removed as being "uncollegial". A discussion at AN/I ensued in which users claimed that including this quote is "uncivil", and the user who made the quote claimed that quote was taken out of context, ignoring the point that the context is provided, in its entirety, by the diff.
Currently, a number of users have made the assertion that the quote cannot remain on the page, but nobody focused on the fact that a user actually said that in a dispute about where a certain place is located that what the sources say about where the sources are located is "irrelevant". What matters to the people commenting on this issue is that it is not "civil" to point out that a user said such a statement. Never mind that this is supposedly an encyclopedia based on sources, "civility" among users is far more important than users removing sources to replace with their preferred propaganda.
To me, this episode demonstrates the problem with Misplaced Pages in dealing with certain topics. There is a preference for garbage articles but "collegial" editors. What serious source would claim that an editor quoting a user saying sources are irrelevant is more important than an editor actually saying sources are irrelevant? The answer, of course, is no serious source would do such a thing. That people involved in a serious publication would be much more upset with somebody attempting to argue that the sources are irrelevant than they would be with another person quoting that person making that argument. This leads us to the obvious conclusion that Misplaced Pages is not a serious source and that it does not even pretend to be one.
This leaves us with only one question, one I am trying to figure out an adequate answer to. Why the fuck am I here?