Problem: On certain subjects, it's impossible to have a free discussion because certain ideas and viewpoints are automatically labelled "inflammatory" and deleted.

Context: Typically, the "inflammatory" ideas are selectively deleted while whatever they were a response to is left in place "to promote discussion". This is just an example of DisagreeByDeleting.

The situation promotes WikiButcher''''''y.

Solution: Suppress the entire topic.

''Never discuss politics or religion in polite company, unless in PatternForm.''
-----

''Alternatively, the comments really were "inflammatory". Not that that justifies deletion. A point is  better made politely, and without hyperbole and exaggeration. It's not actually necessary - and reduces the impact of the point you're trying to make - to be arrogant, over-opinionated, or intolerant ''

''So, unless you can point at cases where the ideas and viewpoints have been deleted despite not being worded in an inflammatory way, it seems there's a possible simpler interpretation of the actual deletion events''

You're missing the point of this page. "Inflammatory" is purely subjective. What's inflammatory to you is pure fact to me. Evolution is "inflammatory" in a room full of Creationists. There is no distinction between "inflammatory" and "really inflammatory". If you think there is an objective basis for something being "inflammatory", you'll have to provide your definition of the word.

Examples: on Al Gore, someone questioned the fact that GeorgeBush is regarded extremely negatively by every country on the planet save for the USA. It was pointed out that before Americans went into a war frenzy, their own media portrayed Bush as corrupt, witless and incompetent, and they accepted that image. This is obviously relevant. It's also obviously true. Yet it was repeatedly deleted, prompting the creaation of this page.

So is it inflammatory to point out that Americans had an extremely negative view of their leader in the recent past? To most Americans, it certainly is. Is there any way to reword the salient facts to put them in a form palatable to most Americans? No, there is not. There is no exaggeration nor hyperbole to remove, and if it's impolite it's because the truth is impolite. The same way that in many circles, mentioning the fact that your parents abused you is completely verbotten.

(Incidentally, the French President is currently being mocked in the French media as corrupt, calculating and incompetent, and nobody over there seems to have any problem with it.)

Another example I can bring up is that Americans are complicit in any crimes against humanity committed by the US government. I made this argument on WhyClublet. I made it ruthlessly, without any sympathy, but I did not do it gleefully nor arrogantly. In fact, at the time I congratulated myself on my dispassion. The reaction? RichardDrake, and several others, went through the roof.

There are many other examples I could bring up.

----

Could this please be moved to another page, one that already exists? We already have a million WikiOnWiki pages as it is. -- FrancisHwang

OverStatement -- less than 20000 total pages.

I wonder why people are so hypnotized with the total number of pages on wiki. It's not like anyone goes through WikiList, or is it?

This page was meant to be a reference to explain why discussion on a page would be suppressed. Sort of like DeletedButWelcomeToWiki. It would prevent the cyclic reemergence and deletion of inflammatory topics or pages.