User talk:Sahab: Difference between revisions

User talk:Sahab (view source)

Revision as of 01:00, 17 March 2014

812 bytes added , 17 March 2014

m

→‎semen claim

Sahab

Bureaucrats, Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Suppressors, Administrators

48,466

edits

@@ Line 191: / Line 191: @@
 :::::::::Thats a big wikipedia article and cant be used for a ref. I know the other responses arent using many refs but if you used some it would make that section "rebuttal" proof. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 12:01, 16 March 2014 (PDT)
 ::::::::::I vote for this response to be deferred to the tasks page until there can be more references and a stronger response. I dont know enough to evaluate it. One way to refine these kinds of responses is to debate them on forums and see the responses and then adjust the rebuttal as needed. Anyway its up to you and Sahab. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 14:36, 16 March 2014 (PDT)
-:::::::::::I agree with Axius' suggestion for this response to be deferred to the tasks page. If that route is taken we could always keep the material that is already there in a hidden comment. The problem I now see with the response is that it's pretty hard to understand.
-:::::::::::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. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:42, 16 March 2014 (PDT)
+{{Outdent|10}}I agree with Axius' suggestion for this response to be deferred to the tasks page. If that route is taken we could always keep the material that is already there in a hidden comment. The problem I now see with the response is that it's pretty hard to understand.
+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)