6

Take for example this question. Is religious discrimination legal in the USA. Numerous attempts to remove the offensive image were made, with the attempt to remove the offensive material and soapboxing. You can view the differences by looking at the revisions, with the side-by-side link

-After years and years and changes in minds and behaviors by education and communication, it seems terribly ugly and unbelievable - This statement doesn't appear to have any bearing on the question, and could only be used to influence and prejudge the answers.

-A link and quote to the news article bringing context to the sign was removed - Even with the original post unchanged, but only addition information to bring context to the sign (instead of trying to influence people to believe the sign was just discriminator because someone hated someone else.

Reports from Houston about signs in front of a parking lot have some people upset.

The Westview Shopping Center is across the street from the El Farouq Mosque in a Houston neighborhood. Some worshippers have been known to park in the shopping center's lot while attending services at the mosque, but it seems like the shopping center could've handled the situation a little more delicately. Several "No Muslim Parking" signs were posted on Westview's property, leaving worshippers feeling unnerved and upset.

-Attempts to generalize the question were removed - Removing the picture, and inserting a generalized question so as not to offend a particular group were ignored, (I.e. "Are [NO ' signs legal in public in the USA?")

-Even including all the OPs original question, but hiding the offensive image in a spoiler block were rejected.

This appear to me to be soapboxing. The OP hasn't provided justification for why the proposed edits diminish their question in any way.

It would be as if a user asked if protesting at dead soldiers funerals were legal in the USA, and insisting that we are inflicted with the super offensive image below

enter image description here

  • It's a good question. I've tried to comment when I see it. That usually leads to more noise than anything. :) – user1530 Aug 18 '13 at 1:47
  • +100 for showing me that you can spoiler-hide images. – user4012 Aug 19 '13 at 14:50
  • 4
    The image in the question you complain about is not offensive to me, as the intention was not to give offense but to document an actual situation that gave rise to the question. The image that you include in this question is not offensive to me except if used intentionally to give offense. – Eugene Seidel Aug 20 '13 at 1:37
  • @EugeneSeidel, Is the soapboxing offensive to you? (I.e. when context is given to the image with a link to the news article, and those changes are rejected, it gives the impression that the question isn't genuine.) – user1873 Aug 21 '13 at 1:45
  • 1
    The system is set up so that Askers may reject edits to their Questions. Poor questions will be downvoted, closed, and/or deleted. There is a risk that if you fiddle with the system, it will do more harm than good. – Eugene Seidel Aug 21 '13 at 5:40
  • 4
    on a related note, you shouldn't engage in an edit war with the OP like that. IF you believe the image is a problem, flag it for moderator attention. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Aug 23 '13 at 20:34
1

I think attempts to edit the image out are being overly sensitive, the image is no more offensive than listing the text of the sign or a generalization of what it says, unless you find clip art or poorly made signs something terrible. The rest of the text in the question is drivel that should be cleaned up. The actual question at the end and the sentence explaining where the picture is from are the only useful bits of text in the question.

  • Agreed, but even those attempts were thwarted. As the only editor trying to correct the issue, and with no help from they moderators. Perhaps you can flag the question, or edit it appropriately. – user1873 Aug 20 '13 at 14:17
-1

Attempts to generalize the question were removed - Removing the picture, and inserting a generalized question so as not to offend a particular group were ignored, (I.e. "Are [NO ' signs legal in public in the USA?")

In my opinion, such attemts should be removed, because they make unclear, what's the actual issue here. You generalize the question to the place where noone knows what is really about. It could be, actually, a convenient way to sweep the issue under the carpet, which should not be accepted here.

The picture is documenting a part of our reality, and should be handled a such.

  • I tried multiple things. Even leaving the original questions wording, and adding context from the newspaper article that explained why the sign was posted. I suppose that adding "more information" is an attempt to sweep under the rug what is really happening, an attempt to blow out of proportion some people's disrespect for the law rather than any racism. – user1873 Apr 10 '14 at 15:02
  • @user1873 adding context should be welcomed, but you should leave the original photo as the document of the reality. – Danubian Sailor Apr 10 '14 at 20:15
  • I did leave the photo. I guess the reality is that some people want to claim victimhood, regardless of the truth. – user1873 Apr 10 '14 at 21:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .