Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (proposals) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

Proposed shortcuts to WP:EIW sections, using pseudo-space "EIW" redirects

Per the posting at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Creating a bunch of redirects that are shortcuts, I'm proposing to create up to a couple of hundred redirects of the form EIW:Topic. These will be shortcuts (links) to the major sections of the Editor's index to Wikipedia. If you have any concerns about such redirects (specifically, about this pseudo-namespace), please comment at the bot request page. I note that the matter was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Namespace#Procedure for creating a new pseudo-namespace?, where (I believe) there was no opposition to the concept, once it was clearly explained.

This proposal is primarily intended to aid editors answering questions at the help desk, but will be useful to any editor wanting to point someone to a particular topic in the index that is relevant to a question or discussion. The EIW pseudo-namespace will make these shortcuts much easier to understand (and shorter). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Really, the way that only some words in an article are linked to other articles seems arbitrary. Couldn't there be a system where clicking on a word automatically links to the article with that name, and manually defining a hyperlink would only be required for multiple-word phrases or relevant articles with different titles? One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its linked-ness, but this would improve it greatly. 216.45.231.50 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Build the web#Wikipedia does not use Allwiki -- Wavelength (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussions

There should be a feature that enables one to discuss with others subjects that are not policy related, like wars, elections, protests, etc. Wikipedia should be more than an encyclopedia, it should be a community that cares about others.

--Tom.mevlie (talk) 07:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:05, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)
It is a community that cares about others. I care about others. (Does anybody care about me? :)
We also have WP:IRC. • Anakin (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WIKIDRAMA

Besides answering the question, "Is wikidrama bad?" I would also like to introduce the idea of using avatars for each point of view to make debates more amusing, as was suggested at http://www.communitywiki.org/WikiDrama Thespian Seagull (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cute, but I think it might tempt people to "choose a side", who otherwise might not have. Debates, at least the Wikipedia kind, should steer as far from two-sided arguments as possible. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:42, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

"Slow Wikipedia": A next step for the encyclopedia

I've been considering this issue for some time, and I believe I have a solution for our Sisyphus problem. Too often quality articles (especially those on popular topics), once they are raised up to a high level, only suffer entropic decay. Vandalism is just the smallest problem; more significant are POV insertions, bad rewordings, and the addition of random facts which maybe "belong somewhere", but don't fit in the article. And it is hard (or even undesirable) to prevent such changes, because we are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, and always up-to-date.

Perhaps, indeed, it is impossible to fully satisfy both "reliable" and "up-to-date". So, I suggest a new namespace as a refuge for articles that have already been found to be of high quality (FA or GA). This would be a complementary process, not a replacement to our current set-up. Changes to such articles would be slow and deliberative, with more of a conservative tilt to this process. And I think elevating and preserving FAs and GAs in this way will only encourage further high quality submissions, as the hard work that is put into these will no longer be in danger of random entropic decay. "Slow Wikipedia" would not be up-to-the-minute; but it would be the most reliable, most readable and most accurate resource out there.

I propose:

  • a new namespace for "Slow Wikipedia" articles (any name suggestions?)
  • "Slow Wikipedia" is populated by versions of articles that have achieved FA or GA
  • "Slow Wikipedia" articles are overseen by the relevant WikiProject
  • All "Slow Wikipedia" articles are protected by default
  • "Slow Wikipedia" articles are not updated more than once a month (also cuts down on admin load)
  • "Slow Wikipedia" are updated by a new positive review of FA or GA status
  • All other changes must be specifically proposed and met by a clear consensus on the talk page

So, what do you all think?--Pharos (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs will cover this, won't it? Nihiltres{t.l} 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
FlaggedRevs will only cover blatant vandalism, which is actually the smallest of the problems.--Pharos (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
FlaggedRevs will include both "sighted" (against vandalism) and "quality" (for GAs, FAs, etc.) flags. I think the latter addresses your concern. Nihiltres{t.l} 04:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
"Flagging" is just a method of tagging a static version in the article's history. We already have the capacity to link to the FA or GA version of an article; flagging in this case would just be a technical shortcut. And it will be a good thing when it's implemented. But a purely static version is not what a wiki is all about. What a "Slow Wikipedia" would allow is the continued development of high quality articles in a sheltered but wiki-driven environment, without any significant risk of decay.--Pharos (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds to me very much like Wikipedia 1.0. Kevin Baastalk 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would actually see this as a practical implementation toward that goal.--Pharos (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This was very close to my Wikipedia:Stable versions proposal. I think each article should have a "stable" version that only sees small fixes and a "development" version for major refactoring and development, analogous to software forking. But I don't see software support for this happening any time soon. A more modern proposal is meta:Reviewed_article_version. Dcoetzee 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should wait any longer for software changes that will never come, and that even if they do come, might not be really what we want. I am proposing a process that tries to work within the existing processes of Wikipedia as much as possible.--Pharos (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this idea already taken up by Veropedia? Captain panda 01:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Whatever process the Veropedia people are attempting, I wish them well in it. But I do not think we should rely on outsourcing the goal of reliable articles outside of Wikipedia—and certainly, any process that works inside Wikipedia would have the greatest chance of attracting participation and success.--Pharos (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I **really** want Flagged revisions to be implemented! Why oh why has it stalled? By the way, "Slow Wikipedia" sounds negative. Alternatively, flip things around so that only FA or GA class articles are in the main namespace, and everything else is considered a draft, in the Draft: namespace. • Anakin (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking of an analogy with Slow Food, and trying to look at the issue counterintuitive to our usual perspective. I would agree in regarding uncertified articles as "drafts", though it might be too drastic to consider putting the "regular" articles in the new namespace. Of course, any "regular" article would continue being edited at its breakneck pace, alongside its more placid "Slow Wikipedia" sister article, and I expect a fruitful dialogue would develop between the two.--Pharos (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I had proposed the idea of making and "Edu" version of Wikipedia at Wikipedia Suggestions but never got any replies. This is what happened: <snip> It doesn't seem that any significant suggestions will get ever implemented. This has frustrated the heck outta me and I don't think I'll be giving any more ideas. ~RayLast «Talk!» 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ray, I've removed the large discussion you copy-pasted into this section. You should know that Jimbo's talk page is not the place to make proposals. Instead, you should start a discussion on this page, but under your own section. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Korea Entertainment

Korea has made some video games, manwha(their version of manga), animation,movies, etc.. I can't find any articles about Korea's entertainment section. It seems their manwha, video games, and animations are neglected. I think we need a Korea Entertainment Project.71.142.242.233 (talk) 06:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals is probably the place for you. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest rewording of the Prod template

The current wording in the {{prod}} tag is not very helpful or consistent with the deletion policy, WP:DP. I may not be able to claim newbie ignorance any more, but the first time I was confronted with someone tagging an article that was near and dear to me with a {{prod}} tag, I did what I thought the {{prod}} tag was indicating should be done to avoid deletion. Much to my surprise the article was then AfDd! I reacted rather badly, and accused that editor of bad faith, which I later regretted after being referred to WP:DP.

If the text in the {{prod}} tag was more accurate and consistent with WP:DP this could be avoided. In fact, it would probably be a good idea if the {{prod}} tag contains less text and does include a reference to WP:DP.

See also here: Template_talk:Prod#Proposed_rewording. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed that the current template does include a link to WP:DP, although a very small one. So I still think a rewording would be a good idea. --RenniePet (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Embeded Google Map Applets

Google Map allows users to embed its navigable maps in the users' webpages, blogs, etc. but it comes with the Google Ads. However, Wikimapia.org (yes a non-profit) is also using Google maps, yet there is absolutely no advertisement running in the page. The only thing (I guess) you can call as advertisement there is the "powered by Google" logo. Maybe Wikipedia may make arrangements with Google to allow embedded Google maps in Wikipedia that comes with no ads. It will be very helpful in some articles, especially those that discuss the terrain and scape (e.g., cityscape) of a place and that no appropriate available free map is available. Wikipedia’s objective is to collect knowledge and make it available to millions of users worldwide. I believe Google maps can help booster Wikipedia’s current knowledge base.

As an example, in one of the articles I authored, Policies, activities and history of the Philippines in Spratly Islands, I have to phrase:

Aerial photos of Pagasa Island show that a rectangular portion of the coral base around Pagasa is reclaimed to serve as extension of the airstrip.

just to describe how the airstrip is constructed. Only Google maps can provide the visual information for that. And I tell you, visual informations are way better. I have thought of having a screenshot of the map, edit it, and upload it with a non-free fair use tag (specifically, {{Non-free fair use in|Title of Article}}). However, I have doubts if that is acceptable.

--Estarapapax Talk! Contribs! 12:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While it may be technically legal to have Google Maps embedded in a Wikipedia page, there are various reasons why this can't be done, since the map data is copyrighted and it would need to be released under a free license that covers all reusers, not just Wikipedia. However, it is possible to follow the instructions on Template:Coor which will give you the latitude and longitude of the place you want and lets you click on the globe icon to open a javascript-based map which, although it isn't as good as Google Maps, will provide maps and aerial photos on the page. Tra (Talk) 13:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Right to vote

I have patched up my old proposal. Please reconsider! Park Crawler (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is reworded slightly ([1]), but essentially identical. Problems identified during the last go-round have not been addressed; the proposal remains {rejected}. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow administrators to flag autopatrol for users

Recently I've run into some difficulties with the Special:Newpages page. Users are frequently creating large numbers of articles in a relatively short period of time, clogging up the queue and making it harder to find actual articles in need of patrolling. Normally this isn't a problem in articles, but in the category namespace patrol where I do the bulk of my patrols, where a user can easily create many categories with little difficulty, this has become quite a nuisance.

It's a waste of the time and energy of patrollers to go through users whom we know aren't vandals. There are many examples to choose from:

  • Dimadick (talk · contribs) created 219 categories about elections and political parties as well as an early smattering of valid categories I have personally looked through. The majority of these were created within a 48 hour span.
  • Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) created 567 total categories, 178 of which are recent and unpatrolled, of religious people by country. All are valid and conform to our naming conventions. Most of them were created within the page two weeks.
  • Plasma east (talk · contribs) has created 342 categories relating to transportation, including rail transport and aerospace museums over the month of February alone.
  • 16@r (talk · contribs) created 82 categories relating to telecommunications, television and the Internet.

Some are even from mainspace:

Giving administrators the power to flag trusted users, like the ones above, so that their creations are automatically patrolled would help reduce the strain on a greatly burdened system. It would allow us to actually evaluate questionable articles instead of developing carpal tunnel syndrome clearing out the backlogs of these users above. Please help us. Thank you. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. Even the categories, for example, should be checked for typos in the category name. I'd only think we should flag a few things, like the next Rambot - or a bot taking entries from Wikispecies as the basis for stubs here. GRBerry 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Typos would indeed be a possibility and a valid concern, but I disagree that the issue should prevent us from autoflagging worthy users. The ability to clear out massive valid chunks of our backlog is, to me, slightly more important than the rare and easily noticeable category typo. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
A brief scan of the talk page of at least one of the users mentioned above will demonstrate that 'trustedworthyness' is not necessarily evidence of good sense. Similarly, the user who created 4,805 articles in the space of one month is probably in need of a good talking to. Does that user have permission to run a create-article bot? Judging from the edit history, this is quite obviously what he/she is doing.
While someone who has a particular interest in television or transportation or whatever will eventually run out of categories to create, and these creations are all part of normal "interest", the other -- and very abnormal -- edit patterns are just the sort of thing that should be seen on Newpages. No one who creates oodles of categories outside his/her sphere of interest is ever going to bother to maintain those categories, and an editor who creates 4800+ one line geo stubs in a month is without question asking to be hit over the head with a non-wp:notable trout. Both editors are gaming the system in that they are counting on it to be too much effort for anyone to bother to clean up their droppings.
-- Fullstop (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Articles about cites defined by a government are inherently notable - like the Rambot stubs. Also, IIRC, he is not running a bot, he's just using a standard template for each page, and probably tabbed browsing. Also, how much maintenance do categories need, and since when is it solely the responsibility of the creator to maintain a page? Mr.Z-man 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know which user you're speaking of, but these are just recent examples. And if your concern is that these are just one-time things, which is an understandable one, keep in mind that there are other category creators whose interests are far more diverse. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs) has a one-month category creation log (I wish we had ones that went further back) of category creations, all valid, that cover topics such as cinema and health and countries ranging from Kosovo to Korea. My own log is just as diverse. As for the 4800+ article creation, it's hardly different from when we uploaded the U.S. Census data a few years back and created 30,000+ articles on towns in the United States. But that to me is more of a debate over worldliness and systemic bias than my proposal.--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
My point was... While there is no question that most established users are inherently trustworthy, which criteria would one employ to flag an editor as such? i.e. Where does trustworthiness begin: Doesn't AGF tell us that all users inherently trustworthy, or is it some arbitrary number of creates that determines the threshold of trustworthiness?
But isn't someone who is trusted to create new articles without oversight not also trustworthy enough to wield a mop? Or even, to efficiently revert vandalism (read: hold the new rollback bit)?
In any case, it ought not to be very difficult to have a javascript routine 'hide' Newpage entries that are by editors that have any trusted bit set (rollback, admin, bureaucrat whatever).
-- Fullstop (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You're reading way too far into this. I'm just proposing this to allow us to more effectively comb through the Newpages backlog by not wasting time on users that we know aren't creating crap. Their ability to wield a mop or fight vandalism is irrelevant. It's a different kind of trust.
Your questions about criteria are valid though. This ability wouldn't really be something that could be abused, so any criteria should be loose in that regard. I would go personally by more of an "I know it when I see it" philosophy; that is, I weigh each individual's contributions and creations separate from other individuals and go by my own personal judgment, and trust my fellow administrators to do the same. Likewise, if we later determine that a user is probably not suitable for autopatrol, we remove it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have the ability to hide users who have created more than a certain amount of articles (say 1000) in the same way you can hide bot created articles? This would mean that patrollers could concentrate on the articles more likely to be troublesome if they wish, while not bringing in autopatrolling with all the problems that this could bring. JASpencer (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I like that idea a lot, but I would like to see a lower number. Personally I'd love 150, but 300 is probably more reasonable. Would this be sum creations (that is, the number's based off of articles created since the beginning) or monthly? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimers-A proposal

When someone is googling for something, he or she probably clicks on the first option without being aware of the contents of the wikipedia disclaimer. Wikipedia disclaimer does not show up anytime in the process and even I, as an editor to wikipedia, was not aware of it before certain issues were brought up. If the main point of wikipedia is to provide information, then what's the point of not telling the readers about what they may see.

Here is my suggestion:

As we have a "Did you know" on the main page that talks about interesting things about the article, we create a box at the top of any article and put up there notable facts about the article. Its content can range from the date of creation of the article, its status, its stability, the expected time to read it, important stuff, or even certain interesting content issues if there is a consensus for that. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What would the purpose of that information be? Jmlk17 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
To provide information about the history of the article on wikipedia. For example if the article has been in DYK, what the content of DYK had been (of course if there is no disagreement that it is POV). Anything notable about the article that worth mentioning. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. But I think putting it on the top of every article could be annoying, I'd like it in the sidebar. I'd probably include date of creation, Wikiproject rating if available, basically stuff that can be generated automatically. I'd be more sceptical towards a human written box. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. the side bar format, if noticeable, would be good as well :) --Be happy!! (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
{{dyktalk}} is a "This page was listed at DYK" (+date) banner template for talk pages. The template could probably be extended to hold the text of the DYK as well. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but one can have a short notice at the article's page as well. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This stuff can be found by looking on the article's talk page anyway, and including information on controversies involving the article would violate WP:ASR. This sounds like another Muhammad image proposal anyway. Hut 8.5 21:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to the disingenuous way in which this has been presented - the real agenda here is hidden in "or even certain interesting content issues if there is a consensus for that. ", this is an attempt to create a thin end of the wedge, what this editor is actually interested in is getting religious disclaimer stuck on the Muhammad article, once the disclaimer is in place, the next step will be "well we have the disclaimer in place, so we might as well hide the images". I have no issue with a statistic box making of objective facts about an article but under no circumstances should we start slapping subjective POV content disclaimers on article based upon the perceived offence of sections of our readers. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've got to wonder why we are bothering with this charade, if the proposer is going to run to Jimbo and make emotional special pleading about "forcing people to sin" and try and get him to overturn our normal policy on disclaimers. If you have that much contempt for the views of your fellow editors, why bother with this? --Fredrick day (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not support the idea of including disclaimers at the tops of articles, even when tucked away in content that is not a disclaimer. We are not subservient to Google and do not have to engage in any special behavior merely because our articles come up high in the search results. - Chardish (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Jmlk17 09:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If the idea is good, but some potential applications of the idea are bad, support the original proposal and oppose its being used for the specific purposes to which you object. Addressing the merit of an idea (which may be lacking here, or may not) is usually a more constructive way to approach a discussion than attacking the person. That's called ad hominem circumstantial. Discussions of Good Faith don't enter into it, because this is not a situation in which you MUST trust the person to evaluate the idea. By analogy, if someone you considered a 'problem editor' painstakingly copy-edited a few thosand words in an article, you would not be justified in reverting those edits SIMPLY because you thought the editor might be up to something bad later. Balonkey (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the idea. - Chardish (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Jmlk17 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimorgue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think the Wikimorgue (see Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia: Positions) is a great idea and should be implemented ASAP to see what not to rewrite or to argue a point to bring back the article. The deletionists can be a little unreasonable at times (this is just my opinion; I am an inclusionist), and the Wikimorgue could help bring Wikipedia even more coverage on many subjects. It's a great idea and should be put into practice! Rdbrewster (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What in Jimbo's name is the Wikimorgue? Feedback ☎ 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[2].--Patrick (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of most deletions? I'm all for accountability, but the point of deleting something is to get rid of it. Sure, occasionally deletions are made that aren't great, but that's why all revisions are "kept" but made invisible to non-admins. That's why we have deletion review. It seems like making a so-called Wikimorgue (awful name too, IMHO) would simply give more power to trolls who repeatedly repost articles or fight for POV, OR, or spam. If someone has a doubt about a deletion, isn't it easy to ask an admin in the category "Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles", or start a deletion review? I happen to be in that category, and I've fulfilled a few requests without any trouble. Why do we need some system that defeats the point of deletion in the first place? One might as well suggest that we just make some template {{ThisPageIsDeleted}} and use that instead of deletion. Nihiltres{t.l} 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
All these arguments have already been raised and addressed at WP:PWD (see specifically Wikipedia:PWD#Material_is_never_actually_deleted) and Wikipedia:Trash namespace. Ron Duvall (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Forgive me for bringing this back from the most recent archival, but I just thought it was interesting to note that this proposal was mentioned in New York Magazine (this very proposal, along with the name "Wikimorgue"): "Someone recently proposed a Wikimorgue—a bin of broken dreams where all rejects could still be read, as long as they weren't libelous or otherwise illegal. Like other middens, it would have much to tell us over time. We could call it the Deletopedia." Words to ponder. I know we're working on Wikipedia:Trash namespace, but maybe this might be a source of some renewed interest. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:36, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. I will cite that article in Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. –Pomte 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad image controversy, a proposal to revisit

Most of you probably know that there is a strong controversy regarding some images posted on Wikipedia article on Muhammad. More specifically these are the images that show an attempt to draw his face (i.e. this and this ). About one year back, on behalf of the community some editors and admins have decided to retain those images on the article. However, because of the changed circumstances (widespread awareness about the issue and a strong opinion against that decision) we need to revisit that decision. I have the following proposal to make in this regard. I have made this suggestion on designated Article talk page, but I have been told there, unless I get my proposal validated here, it is "hot air". So here I am. I request Wikipedia admins to go through this post and if it sounds reasonable, please request the admins who are deciding the fate of article Muhammad to atleast nullify the erlier concensus and reopen serious discussion.

The earlier consensus evidently still holds. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Pointles revist please accept the earlier decision Oxyman (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Context of the Proposal

There are some arguments to retain the debated images on Muhammad. They are summarized at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. While some of these arguments have merit, there is a more compelling counterargument for not including the images. And the counterargument can be summrized in short as "the images are misrepresentative".

The FAQ page on this subject tries to refute the argument that the "Muhammad images are false" by comparing it with other pages like Homer, and Jesus. First of all, that's not a logic, that's an analogy and secondly, it is a very incorrect analogy indeed. It is a fact that Muhammad did not have any photograph or any painting drawn by any person that actually met him. This is probably the same case as Homer or Jesus. So no currently available image of Homer, Jesus or Muhammad can give a reasonable representation of the subject person. Saying so, the images of Homer or Jesus used on their respective Wikipedia articles have been regarded as the mainstream/popular view of their resemblance by many scholarly and/or popular sources. So these images, statues, etc. though probably have little practical value of exactly depicting the subject, have attained a symbolic value of representing the subject in the mind of modern people. This symbolic value may justify their inclusion in the articles on these subjects. However, this symbolic value is exactly what the images on Muhammad’s article lack. The images used in Muhammad page have seldom been used by any scholarly or popular source as the mainstream or popular view of his resemblance. These are isolated imaginary paintings arbitrarily labeled as "Muhammad", which have never ever received any acceptance as his representation (outside Wikipedia). So, these pictures have no more information value as to depicting Muhammad than a stick-man image that I can draw and label as Homer or Jesus. The fact that these images are old definitely increases their antique value and make them precious collection items for museums, but does not increase their value as a media portraying the subject. The "Fact" with respect to Muhammad's physical depiction is: Since Muhammad strongly discouraged portrayal of living things (including himself) his contemporaries never tried to portray him, or such paintings don't exist. However, throghout history there has been isolated attempts to paint him by both muslim and non-muslim sources, but such imgaes never got widespread acceptance as reasonable representation of Muhammad. And because of this fact, respected encyclopedias like Britannica, Encarta etc. have never used any arbitary image drawn by some historical person on their articles on Prophet Muhammad. By posting these images on the article and locking it permanently, a handful of Wikipedia admins are trying to distort this fact, and trying to give these images some sort of "recognition" of importance as the available pictoral depiction of Muhammad. Wikipedia's task is to establish and present the facts, not to give some arbitary imaginary paintings new value/recognition that they never received before, no matter how old these images be.

Let me also clarify that I am not comparing my "straw-man" drawing with the drawings on Muhammad’s article in terms of quality, or historical significance; I am only saying they are comparable in terms of their relevance in illustrating the subject. Of course those images are important and have their place on Wikipedia. They can be good examples of historical works of art. They are even quite relevant for the article on Depiction of Muhammad, because they indeed are early attempts to draw Muhammad. But they should not be placed on the article on Muhammad because historically they have totally failed to establish their value as a representative illustration of Muhammad.

Why is Muhammad’s case so unique that it has to be different from that of Homer, Jesus, or Buddha? It is simply because unlike all the others mentioned, it is a historically recorded fact that Muhammad forbid drawing living objects (especially himself). And because of this explicit prohibition, Muhammad’s followers as well as non-muslim scholars while researching on Muhammad have not recognized these images as an acceptable representation of the person. When I say, the images of Homer or Jesus are the mainstream view of the resemblance of these subjects, what I mean is these are iconic images that have helped serve as the representation of these people. For example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represents a group of people who have used those specific images of Jesus as a faithful representation of the person. Even if they don't qualify as mainstream, there is still a group that believed those images are good representation of Jesus. If the number of people believing they are good representation of Jesus is absolutely minimum, then those images have no place in Jesus’s article either. The point that I am trying to establish is, when we add an imaginary painting to a biography, it should meet a minimum test: does a significant number of people believe this is the available representative depiction of the person? Or in more “Wikipedia-like” words, can it be shown that independent reliable third party sources have reproduced these images or their likeness as a means to depict the subject in question. This is the test that Muhammad’s images fail. The references that have been provided in the article, include, University of Edinburgh and Ali, Wijdan. Both these scholalrly sources analyze these images as a part of analysis of histrory of art, not as part of their commentry on Muhammad. When it came to discussion of Muhammad, all respectable scholarly sources (including mainstream encyclopedias) have refrained from reproducing these images, because no matter how valuable they be in the study of art history, these images have not recieved any notable acceptance as good representation of Muhammad. Furthermore, by refraining from inserting these paintings in their respective articles, all these scholarly sources have tried to respect the fact that there is no widely accepted pictoral depiction of Muhammad. By going against this tradition, Wikipedia (or more specifically a handful of editors from Wikipedia, who have decided to establish censorship – in terms of limiting people’s edit right on article) is distorting the long established fact, trying to establish these handful of images as the “best available pictoral depiction of Muhammad”, which they are not, and perhaps least importantly have offended millions of people.

The Proposal

In view of my argument above, I am proposing: since Wikipedia’s task is to faithfully reproduce facts and information as they are available in scholarly sources, these images should be removed from Muhammad article, placed on other relevant articles, where they are appropriate (Depiction of Muhammad for example), and the article on Muhammad can mention:

As in absence of any widely accepted images of Muhammad most notable scholarly discussions on Muhammad have refrained from using any image to portray him, Wikipedia continues to follow the tradition. However, there are historical evidence that many sources have tried to prortray the subject, but never got widespread acceptance as reasonable representation of Muhammad. If you are interested in such images, please refer to Depiction of Muhammad.

This is not a request to compromise, or impose cencorship; neither is this Islamic law – this is simply a request to follow the scholalry tradition and stick to the facts, refraining from misrepresentation, which not only goes against Wikipedia values, but also destroys its credibility and acceptibility to millions of people. The request here is to stop distorting a long established fact that there is no acceptable pictoral depiction of Muhammad, because distorting fact goes against the fundamental value of any scholarly work. The request is to the Wikipedia admins to follow the tradition of majority of scholarly sources of not including such images while discussing life of Muhammad, than going its own way and setting a precedence not acceptable to a high number of people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its goal is to present facts as they are, not starting new trends. Thank you. Arman (Talk) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Yahel Guhan

  • Oppose How many times do we have to go through the same old arguements over and over again? Almost a year of mediation that lead to a general consensus, and now we have to do it all over again? What more is to be said? Everything said has already been argued. Any futher discussion is just repeating things and arguements already presented, and is therefore pointless. Yahel Guhan 06:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have three comments about your post. 1) Consensus can change. 2) When you are deciding whether or not to break a tradition that has been established through an evolution over several 100 years, 1 year discussion is merely the beginning. And 3) I challenge your comment that I am repeating old argument. If you can prove this exact line of argument has been refuted satisfactorily before, I’ll withdraw my proposal. Arman (Talk) 02:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lor

  • Oppose - While I appreciate your effort, and admit there is a little merit in your arguments, I'm afraid that the very scarcity of depictions of Muhammad, and the taboo against depictions of him, are one of the main reasons that pictures such as these are interesting, and valuable to an article about him. The lack of accurate depictions make those few that do exist all the more interesting. An article on Muhammad as a man, Muhammad as an individual, would of course need to consider very carefully whether to use non-contemporary pictures of him - however, an article about Muhammad as a Prophet, and as a religious symbol can, and should include examples of the very few interpretations of his likeness in art. Compare this with the few, and probably inaccurate depictions of Shakespeare.
It's also quite interesting how this controversy over the pictures being included in Muhammad's article will, in all probability, only reinforce the reasons to have the pictures in the article, by reaffirming the existence of the taboo, and increasing public interest in depictions of Muhammad. Lor (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this seriously, very few editors have shown this decency so far. You have four very interesting points, I’m refuting them one by one:
Thanks for the clear and concise counterarguments - I'll follow suite and add my further comments to each point below --
  1. Scarcity of Image and taboo against depiction make it more interesting: There is no scarcity of image. The very first image used in the Wikipedia article, the one with “Muhammad” written in Arabic calligraphy, is indeed the best and so far only iconic depiction of Muhammad. Christians don’t write “Jesus” in Hebrew and hang it on their wall; Buddhists don’t write “Buddha” in Sanskrit and post it in their temples, but Muslims, including those who cannot even read Arabic, indeed write Muhammad in Arabic calligraphy and use it at their prayer places and homes to remind them about this person. So, this is the true iconic depiction of Muhammad. (Are you thinking, how come it does not have eye, nose beard etc?). Remember, in the first place we established no true depiction of the subject exists, we are only looking for the iconic depiction. Many other articles on people don’t have physical image. Should Wikipedia being and encyclopedia assign an artists to draw them all based on imagination, or should it look for images that have some sort of scholalrly or popular acceptance as an image of the subject? Without such acceptance an imaginary cartoon drawn today and one drawn 1,000 year back will do the same justice to the subject.
  • I've re-written my response to this several times. Let me put it this way: The article is about both Muhammad as a man, and Muhammad as a religious figure. The physical depictions of Muhammad only show what some Muslims of the middle ages thought he may have looked like. While "Muhammad" written in Arabic calligraphy may be the only true iconic depiction of Muhammad TODAY as a religious figure, this does not mean that physical depictions of Muhammad in Muslim art are valueless as tools to show what some Muslims might have thought Muhammad looked like. They were probably wrong - but there's value in looking at their art and seeing what they thought he looked like! This helps us see how they felt about him religiously, which in turn helped to shape their sect of Islam, whatever that may have been. What's more - if there has NEVER been consensus as to what Muhammad looked like (which there probably hasn't), and throughout history many people have depicted him many different ways, then the individual works of art depicting him become even MORE interesting and important - illustrating to us the variety and diversity of people's concept of him and his appearance!
  • The bottom line is that there is value in physical depictions of Muhammad in Muslim art to the Wikipedia article, because as a religious figure it is important for us to understand how different people throughout Islamic history have viewed Muhammad - physically and symbolically - and this value is only increased by the relative scarcity of physical depictions of Muhammad. Lor (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we have to include "all" imaginary cartoons and paintings of a person in his biography, or should there be a limit? If all is justifiable, then why aren't we including the "Muhammad cartoons" with bomb in his head, or "Muhammad in Hell" by Gustave Doré? Or are we just waiting for them to go into public domain? If for everything that goes into Wikipedia we have to verify whether other reliable third party sources have said that, while inclusion of an imaginary image into a biography article we have to ignore that test? The bottom line, is, my friend, you or me, as Wikipedia editors have absolutely no right to decide what is important to include in an article and what is not. Our task as Wikipedia editors is to faithfully replicate what other mainstream scholalrly sources have viewed important in the context of that topic. Arman (Talk) 02:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you totally - Wikipedia editors have both the right and the duty to, as a group, decide what is important to include in an article and what is not. It is up to use to decide what will make an article good, and what will make it bad. Wikipedia editors do not just blindly follow tradition established by encyclopedias that came in the past - nor do they blindly follow "scholarly tradition" - whatever that may be. You really need to clarify what this 'scholarly tradition' is that you speak of, and please elaborate on why you think it's a policy of Wikipedia to follow it? Beyond ensuring that articles are 'encyclopedic', and procedural things such as citing sources, I can think of nothing policy-wise that binds Wikipedia to following the traditions of any previous scholarly publications at all.
By scholarly tradition I mean "a tradition followed by all scholalrly sources", and more specifically in this discussion's context, I am refering to the tradition of not pictorally depicting Muhammad in his article. This tradition, being followed by all mainstream Muslim and Non-Muslim sources is not coming from Islamic law, it is coming from a respect to Muhammad's personal prohibition against depicting him and the resulting absence of any widely accepted image that can or should be used in a discussion about him. Arman (Talk) 04:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Careful here, that's irrelevant. What matters here are the policies of the wikipedia, the wikipedia doesn't have to follow anyone's prohibitions in any way, we're not censored. BUT OTOH if most or all other scholars follow *any* tradition, it's my opinion that the wikipedia probably does have to follow it, because that's the neutral way.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Now let me explain why by Wikipedia policy, it is bound to follow such scholalrly traditions (assuming we agree such a tradition exists). The very policy that requires us to follow this tradition is WP:NOR. Say, I am a very good scientist and I have just come up with a new interpretation/extension of Theory of Relativity. And let's assume that my interpretation is right and in a matter of next 5 years it will be widely accepted by scholarly sources. As of today, before that acceptance is established, If I add that interpretation in the Wikipedia article on Theory of Relativity, even though I may be right, and it may in fact improve the quality of the article in true sense, I will be violating WP:NOR. This example illustrates, Wikipedia editor's judgement about what to add and what not to add in an article, must be guided by what reliable 3rd party sources say about that topic as of today, any judgemental call beyond that is indedd Original Research. Arman (Talk) 04:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a false analogy. The inclusion of these pictures does not suggest any original fact or idea. I further propose that Wikipedia's divergence with 'scholarly tradition' in this instance adds no new or unsupported fact, idea, or suggestion to the article about Muhammad. Please see my new comments regarding WP:NOR below. Lor (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
But is it not true, that by including them in the Mohammad article, you are implicitly and unavoidably stating that they are particularly notable to that topic? If they are notable, fine. But you would need to show that they actually are notable, by evaluating a reasonable number of notable sources, and showing that this is position is representative as a neutral point of view. I don't see any evidence that this has been done, it's not in the FAQ for example. If what you say is true, that Wikipedia diverges from scholarly tradition then we probably have no evidence that this is notable in Mohammad (which is very, very different from Depictions of Muhammad, which is trivially easily sourced).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't need to include all imaginary depictions of Muhammad. We include those that complement the article, and provide additional information. Wikipedia editors use their good judgement in deciding what to include and what not to, using consensus, just like we're doing here.Lor (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, that often works, and when it is non contentious that is not a problem.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. The taboo makes the images more interesting: I agree – but all laws make breaking the law more interesting, so should we start breaking all laws?
  • There is a difference between novelty that comes from doing something you aren't supposed to do, and the true value a piece of art gains by being one of only a few examples of its kind - whether that be in terms of genre, author, subject matter, etc.
  • Furthermore, you are letting your own Islamic sympathies show here - we are talking about a taboo for Muslim people, NOT a law. If I'm a non-Muslim, and it's interesting for me to do things that break taboos that Muslim people hold, then you'd better believe I'm going to start doing those things. It'd be fun. Not to purposely make Muslims mad, but for my own personal enjoyment. Lor (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Just like some Muslims personal feeling about the image has nothing to do with the decision of inclusion or exclusion of the image, your own personal enjoyment cannot be a reason to keep these images there. The whole problem with the earlier consensus is that it was driven by personal enjoyment of a handful of editors, not an intention to discuss a subject in accordance with reliable 3rd party sources.Arman (Talk) 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me rephrase this - I stated that the Muslim taboo against portraying Muhammad makes images of him all the more interesting. You replied by arguing "I agree – but all laws make breaking the law more interesting, so should we start breaking all laws?" - Your point is, presumably, that there may be temptation in breaking taboos, but that doesn't mean it's right to break them. My response to this is that you are correct, but this is only a taboo for Muslims. Not for Wikipedia. So the whole idea of succumbing to temptation to "break the law" is meaningless. We can safely ignore Muslim taboos, and if there is good reason for Wikipedia to do so - it should.Lor (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Compare with the image of Shakespeare: Like I did compare it with Jesus and Homer in my original argument, the image of Shakespeare represents the mainstream view of how he looks. Even if you ask someone to draw Shakespeare today, she will paint a person with very wide forehead, beard and Victorian dress, like in the images. These images represent Shakespeare in the modern mind. But look, the images on Muhammad don’t. Today if you ask someone to draw Muhammad, in all probability, either she will refuse to draw in the first place, or draw based on imagination (like the Danish cartoonists did), not base their drawing on the images given on Muhammad article. Arman (Talk) 03:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • First, we must not limit ourselves to people's view of Muhammad TODAY as you seem to be espousing. How he has been viewed through history is also important, as it helped to shape Islam.
If we are discussing how the view of Muhammad has evolved over the history or discussing religious symbolism, these images are very relevant, and we can dedicate separate articles for that, but inclusion of these images in the Muhammad article implies they are relevant in understanding Muhammad as a subject - and that view, my friend, is not supported by reliable sources. Arman (Talk) 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you on this point, and retract my statement above. My other points still very much stand.Lor (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In any case, my point was not to say that there is similar lack on consensus about physical appearance between Shakespeare and Muhammad, but that the lack of good, reliable portraits of Shakespeare makes the few portraits that exist all the more important, and also that this lack creates uncertainty regarding what Shakespeare DID IN FACT look like - in response to which the best we can do is provide all existing art that depicts him, no matter how dubious or imaginary. What we certainly cannot do is settle for a symbolic representation of him, whether or not the symbolic representation suffices for a significant portion of theatre fans. Lor (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree to your interpretation. But look my friend, the association between the portraits of Shakespeare and Shakespeare as a subject was not "introduced" in Wikipedia. This association has been introduced and maintained by other reliable 3rd party sources, and Wikipedia has just replicated that view. But in case of Muhammad, Wikipedia is trying to establish the relevance of these images in the discussion on Muhammad for the first time, going against the scholalrly tradition. And Wikipedia has no business in doing so. Arman (Talk) 02:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
See my comments above about 'scholarly tradition' and Wikipedia. The fact that these portraits are OF Muhammad is not in question. The relevance of them to the subject of Muhammad, and an article about him in Wikipedia is for us to decide, which we are doing now. It is not up to 'scholarly tradition'.Lor (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, but we're supposed to do the decision based on the five pillars; and there's a failure to show that these particular images are notable here right now. That makes the inclusion currently OR, because the synthesis of an article on Mohammad and images is rarely if ever done. In fact the body of notable literature on Mohammad points firmly towards these images being non notable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. This controversy over the pictures being included in Muhammad's article will, in all probability, only reinforce the reasons to have the pictures in the article: I agree, and that is how Wikipedia is about to set a new "trend" here! This is exactly why I am opposing this. Today if Wikipedia breaks the tradition of not using portraits in discussion on Muhammad and uses these images and over the years establishes their iconic value – inevitably in future other sources will start to mimic this, and very rightly so. Why shouldn’t they? The iconic value of these images have been established by Wikipedia. But the question we need to ask our selves is NOT whether Wikipedia CAN do it, rather whether Wikipedia SHOULD do it? Starting new trend, breaking taboo, giving some images iconic value they did not have before are all part of a deliberate agenda to manipulate how the world views the subject today. Is pushing such agenda a mandate of Wikipedia? Or is it simply mandated to reproduce facts and analysis from reliable 3-rd party sources as they are? This is the question we need to answer first.
May be you are thinking we already reached the consensus to break the tradition, because it is the right thing to do. Instead of going into debate whether breaking this tradition is right or wrong, let’s assume a group of influential Wikipedians come to a “Consensus” that the Election of Hillary Clinton as US President will help USA and Humanity in general. Do they have a right to manipulate the article on Hillary to make her look like Saint, or should they stick to how Hillary is depicted by other mainstream scholalrly sources? Please think. Arman (Talk) 02:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In your hypothetical situation, they would not be right in manipulating the Hillary article to bring about her election - however, this is a false analogy (and quite a blatant one at that). The inclusion of medieval depictions of Muhammad in the article about Muhammad is done in good faith in an attempt to improve the article, and has been done with the proper goals of Wikipedia in mind. Altering an article to help a candidate in an election is not done in good faith, does not improve the article, and specifically goes against the goals of Wikipedia. (I can even name the specific policies that it would violate, if you like - policies that the inclusion of Muhammad's pictures do NOT violate). Lor (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
My example may be a bit over dramatic, but the point none-the-less remains the same. While editing Wikipedia, editors cannot guide themselves by what is good for the world. Their goal should be to replicate other mainstream scholalrly sources as faithfully as possible. And talking about policy, in my opinion the insertion of these images violates WP:NPOV, as it gives POV of a few editors prominance over the POV of mainstream scholalrly sources and WP:OR because these images are being inserted in a discussion on Muhammad for the first time. Arman (Talk) 03:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No one has ever suggested that editors are guiding themselves by what is "good for the world" - merely what makes a good article. You mention WP:OR, which is an interesting point. I don't believe this falls under the realm of WP:OR, because it is well-established that this pictures are OF Muhammad. What is in question is whether or not they are beneficial to the article they are in. No Wikipedia editor is actively trying to make these images to be anything more than they are. Any stronger association between the pictures and Muhammad beyond "these are pictures of Muhammad produced in the middle ages" is a figment of the imagination of the reader. Editors go to quite painstaking lengths to include in the labels of the pictures the dates when they were created. Nowhere does it say they are 'faithful depictions', and I don't think the act of including them in the Muhammad article constitutes a proposition that there is a connection between the two, scholarly or not, that does not already exist. Again, please see my comments regarding 'scholarly tradition' above.Lor (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"Good for the article" is a mere subset of "Good for the world". Wikipedia editor's shouldn't start "judging" what would be good for an article - because that value judgement, my friend, is debatable. Is a lengthy discussion of how virgin birth is scientifically impossible good for the article on Jesus? Is a detailed review of a politician's sexual life good for an article on him? - These are all value judgemets that Wikipedia editors should try to avoid. Their goal should be to discuss a topic in line with reliable 3rd party sources without going into an analysis of whether adding something extraordinary (read: not done before by mainstream scholarly sources) would be good for the article. Arman (Talk) 03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you entirely on this point, and I propose that you are wrong. The whole idea behind Wikipedia is that the judgement of many editors together forms a consensus about what is "good for an article". The examples you provided (virgin birth, sex life of politicians, etc) - these are perfect examples of things that would be discussed at length on articles' talk pages, before a consensus was reached.
Regarding WP:NOR - let's take the definition from Wikipedia's own page:
"Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."
To be strictly accurate 'good for an article' is not one of the pillars of the wikipedia; that would doubtless cause huge problems, 'good for an article' wouldn't necessarily be accurate, truthful, or in any way unbiased. The information in an article is supposed to be an expression of the neutral point of view, and is supposed to follow emphasis elsewhere. This article very much overemphasises the images of Mohammad in this context.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be that the inclusion of depictions of Muhammad in an article about him constitutes the advancement of a position that is unsupported, unpublished, and speculative in some way. What, exactly, is the unsupported position or thought that is advanced by the inclusion of depictions of Muhammad in an article about him, that violates WP:NOR? I know you have probably explained it to me before, but now we are discussing WP:NOR I think it is important to explicitly state (or re-state) these things. Is it simply the position that: "These images are generally considered to be relevant to a discussion of Muhammad as a subject."? Lor (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. That interpretation, when push comes to shove matters a lot in any article. Otherwise anybody can add practically anything, and I think that's the problem here. You need to be able to go from Mohammad to the images, not from the images to Mohammad, the direction matters (if that's in any way clear). It's clear that the images have a connection *to* Mohammad, but it's not clear that Mohammad articles usually have such images, in fact it's pretty clear they don't.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In defending WP:NOR you are saying: "I don't think the act of including them in the Muhammad article constitutes a proposition that there is a connection between the two, scholarly or not, that does not already exist." Well, that totally nullifies my argument, then. But is that true? It has been argued (by you or someone from your community) that amid numerous images of Muhammad these few were cherry picked for the article on Muhammad. This very act of cherry-picking is impling that the editor is engaging in a judgement that these images are better representation (or more historically significant representations) of Muhammad than the rest of the images. I have no problem in someones taking that position outside wikipedia, or wikipedia taking that position after other reliable 3rd party sources take it, but when someone on Wikipedia makes that call for the first time, it does qualify as a violation of WP:NOR. Arman (Talk) 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not read the edit-summary/talk page archives regarding why these two images were selected above others for inclusion in the article. I trust that it was because they have some unique or distinguishing qualities, or was more clear, or more was known about the author. I cannot imagine that you truly think that picking one image that depicts Muhammad physically over another for inclusion in the article constitutes WP:NOR. If that is the case, then what of every other instance where an editor has chosen one picture over another for inclusion in an article - because one is clearer, or more is known about its author? If you mean that these images were cherry picked over other images of Muhammad that do not depict him physically - then again, I simply suggest that there are plenty of other images in the article showing different forms of representation, and I do not believe that the inclusion of two images depicting him physically constitute WP:UNDUE.
In summary, I believe that you have the incorrect impression that Wikipedia editors should not use their own judgement at all when it comes to creating/improving articles. This is incorrect. More accurately, it is the sum total of the judgement of all editors, and the consensus this forms, that is adhered to when creating/improving articles. Each fact must be VERIFIED by a reliable 3rd party source, but the RELEVANCE of that fact to the article at hand is entirely up for debate among editors. Suggesting the RELEVANCE of a fact to a subject does not constitute WP:NOR. What is more, I point out the following phrase in WP:NOR, that refers originally to pictures and photographs produced by Wikipedians, but I feel applies equally here: "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy [...]. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." Again, see my comments above. Lor (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that that really only applies to images produced by wikipedians, whereas these are images in the public domain. The intention of those terms are due mostly to the limited number of images that are often available. But it's not OR of the images themselves that are contested here, it's the OR of the relationship from the article topic *to* the images. There is pretty clear precedent that the emphasis is that they are not signicantly notable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I know I've already opposed this proposal above, but as this proposal seeks to reopen debate about the inclusion of the pictures - not on the grounds of censorship due to religious sensibilities - but on the grounds of what the pictures contribute to/detract from someon's understanding of the article, wouldn't it make more sense to examine the pictures on a case-by-case basis, individually? And discuss the inclusion of each one in terms of its merits, how it complements the article, and its context within the article?
We are looking at these pictures: [here|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg] and [here|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg]. It just seems to me that, despite saying that you don't seek to censor Wikipedia, and that you are not doing this due to religious sensibilities of Muslims, you are still seeking a blanket policy against any picture depicting Muhammad in the article. Let's look at them one by one and judge them on their individual merits, as their historical context, content, and importance are, I'm sure, very unique to each one. Lor (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussing the images separately does not add any value, because the arguments of keeping and removing them are commun. I, indeed, am seeking a blanket policy, but not because of sensibilities of Muslim, but because that "blanket policy' - respected widely outside Wikipedia, is an outcome of 1,000s of years of evolution and all mainstream scholalrly sources including encyclopedias follow that policy/guideline. Let other mainstream sources break that tradition first and then Wikipedia can be the follower. Arman (Talk) 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is fair enough.Lor (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Nihiltres

  • Oppose - I'm afraid I'm more convinced by the argument to keep the images, as an uninvolved outsider. I would suggest that a fair solution would be to surround all such images with <div class="muhammad-image"> </div> and add a Gadget containing only the CSS code div.muhammad-image {display:none;}, which would be a simple way for any user to have the article personally censored for them while leaving users who do not mind completely unaffected. Nihiltres{t.l} 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don’t care whose eye’s hurt by looking at these images. Mine don’t. Removing/ hiding information because they offend someone is Censorship, and I have not come here for proposing Censorship. What I am proposing Wikipedia to do, is to stop misrepresenting a topic (which can only be done by sticking to the scholalrly tradition of how Muhammad is discussed), not to save people whose eyes or feelings will get hurt by looking at these images. Let's try to find the "right" solution, not the "fair" one. Arman (Talk) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

SP-KP

  • Question - Arman, if the illustrations of Muhammad were retained in the Muhammad article, but grouped together in the depictions section, would this be acceptable to you? SP-KP (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No it won’t. We keep discussion on A Beautiful Mind (film), separate from a discussion on John Forbes Nash, don’t we? We keep discussion on Gandhi movie and the person separate don’t we? Then why can’t we keep Depiction of Muhammad, and Muhammad as a person separate? The taboo against portrying Muhammad and his personal advice of not painting him are all the more reaosns we should keep these two topics separate. All other mainstream scholalrly sources do that. An imaginary painting should only be justifyably included in a Biography article, if that painting has attained wide acceptance as iconic depiction of the subject. Try to understand the rationale behind this proposed guideline, and you’ll see the right thing to do is not to use these images on article Muhammad at all. Arman (Talk) 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
On a second thought, that, though is not the best solution, would at least significantly improve the article from the way it is now. Arman (Talk) 11:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rmosler

  • Oppose The argument from inaccuracy of the images is not logically valid. You have brough up the point that Muhammed opposed his portrayal, but that has not prevented it from happening. No artistic portrayal is perfect, and your argument could effectively remove all paintings and drawings from Wikipedia. Is the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci a real and accurate portrayal of Lisa del Giocondo? I think anyone would state that Picasso did not illustrate true and accurate forms of his subjects. Rashid al-Di Tabib contributed an enormous amount of records to Islamic history. I can imagine your counterargument being that since it is his art, it should be quarantined to his Wiki page. This art, like it or not is a part of Muhammed's history and the portrayal, accurate or not is still a part of that history. These are FAMOUS paintings of a famous individual, and they should be retained on his wiki page as a part of the history of Muhammad. rmosler (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. This art, like it or not is a part of Mohammed's history - prove this from reliable 3rd party sources and I will withdraw my proposal. Rashid al-Di Tabib's work has been considered an important part of Art history but NO mainstream scholarly source recognizes this as a part of Mohammed's history.
  2. Your analogy of Lisa del Giocondo is absolutely inappropriate. Lisa's sole notability comes from Leonardo's attempt to draw her. How can that be comparable to Muhammad (Sm.)? Furthermore, if you have read my postings in full, you should have known already that I am not "fully" opposed to inserting imginary paintings into biography articles in absence of real picture, but arguing that such insertion is only justifiable when that image has some sort of scholalrly or popular acceptance as an iconic depiction of the subject. Without that acceptance, it can be a good piece of art, but not an worthy addition to a biography article. Arman (Talk) 02:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Arman, I respect you for taking up the charge for this. Do you think that it would be appropriate to fork the page and have a link to a censored Muhammad article at the top of the page in a warning section, that way English speaking Muslims who may be offended can read the article without the images. I think this would be an appropriate compromise that would allow those Muslims who might be offended the ability to read the article. rmosler (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Or, perhaps hide potentially offensive images something like this
It would probably be possible to spiff this up so that logged-in users could set a personal hide-muhammad-images setting to TRUE or FALSE by editing their monobook.js files, and have such images come up in show or hide mode according to that setting. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I had read it, it just didn't come to mind when this discussion came popped up on my watchlist and the above idea popped into my head. I've now read a bit further, and believe that those involved in this discussion should read
-- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

gren

  • Oppose, I see what you're trying to do and I have generally agreed that the article as it stands over represents images of Muhammad giving a skewed visions of the subject. I have thought that one or two images (a Persian and a Turkish) properly represent the minority form of representation. But, if that is to happen it will happen through consensus--not putting up a content disclaimer. The calligraphy and other representations not representing the body are just as legitimate, even if uncommon to Westerners, and the drive to put up drawings for aesthetic purposes is systemic bias to my mind. But, none of this is going to happen as long as we have an influx of single purpose users who know little about Wikipedia (along with some trolls) who argue for censorship. gren グレン 19:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear friend, a new consensus is what I am trying to achieve here. I agree thousands of people are asking to remove these images just because they don't like them. As an active Wikipedian with faith in its internal mechanism of healthy discussion to differentiate between right and wrong, I'd strongly say Wikipedia should not bend to such Censorship requests. But at the same time, that should not stop us from doing the right thing either. Outside activity, protest, petition should not influence Wikipedia's decision to keep or remove the images. If you allow that to do, you are encouraging autocracy in place of meritocracy. Arman (Talk) 02:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Therefore

  • Support (idealistically) First, is Arman accurate when he says, "Wikipedia is trying to establish the relevance of these images in the discussion on Muhammad for the first time, going against the scholarly tradition"? Is it true that this is the first time outside of art history? I would like to see that statement contradicted, if possible (i.e., reliable, scholarly sources that do use the imagery when discussing his life). If (if) Arman's statement is accurate, then that would argue against their inclusion per verifiability from reliable sources and may violate original research. This argument does have merit even if it may not be a sufficient reason to exclude the images, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. In addition, Arman has stated that there are already iconic images of Mohammad: “Mohammad” written in Arabic calligraphy.
This is not a matter of censorship. Wikipedia is all about censorship, by definition. Editing others' additions is an on-going process that involves excising unverified statements, false characterizations of sources, etc. What Wikipedia doesn't do is remove verified, reliably sourced images or ideas that offend some. On that basis alone, the images should not be excluded. Arman is not arguing censorship but scholarship (whether you agree with his position or not). The suggested proposal includes a discussion of depiction in the article with a link to Depictions of Mohammad.
But, finally, my "idealistic" support for the proposal comes from the meaning of consensus. The problem lies in the "en." in "en.wikipedia.com" vs. the idealistic "world.wikipedia.com". Consensus, in wikipedia, society, scholarship, etc. is general agreement born of cultural mores, academic standards, and popular opinion, none of which are mutually exclusive. If this was world.wikipedia.com and that world had equal access to the net (the "en." does correlate to relatively greater wealth), then consensus would be derived from a larger collective of mores and opinions; the number of Muslims (and non-Muslims) arguing this position as cogently as Arman would change the dynamics of consensus. I've been in the middle of many controversial issues and have seen consensus evolve to a middle ground that respected and typically frustrated both sides. If our community was wider, then consensus would evolve closer to Arman's compromise.
I'll illustrate my point: If you added Piss Christ to the Jesus article, or populated it with, say, South Park illustrations and quotations, we know what would happen: it would be reversed and consensus would quickly reflect the majority opinion that it is inappropriate for many "academic" reasons. Why? Because the Jesus page's editors come from most of the Christian denominations along with many theologians and historians and only a minority would deem it appropriate even though some of the same arguments deployed here were used. ("censorship", fun to tweak "taboos", "not supposed to be realistic depictions").
You may well argue that Piss Christ and images of Mohammad are not equivalent -- but from a cultural standpoint, you would be wrong. The emotional impact is, at the very least, the same. But Piss Christ will never see the light of day in the article proper because of the community's consensus. And, realistically, the images of Mohammad will never be forked to Depictions of Mohammad because consensus will primarily reflect the "en." majoritarian viewpoint just as they do in the Jesus article.
That is the reality. Consensus is rooted in psychology and cumulative opinion. If Arman is accurate that the tradition of scholarly work avoids the use of the images, that has merit. If and when “en.” turns to” world.” (probably unrealistic idealism), then consensus would tend toward Arman’s middle ground: include iconic images of Mohammad (Arabic calligraphy), no censorship, discussion in the Mohammad article, link to the "main page" of Mohammad depiction. ∴ Therefore | talk 05:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've opposed this proposal above, however the point that has given me the most difficulty in formulating a response was exactly this question: "Wikipedia is trying to establish the relevance of these images in the discussion on Muhammad for the first time, going against the scholarly tradition"? - which Arman is suggesting. I have concluded that it is mostly irrelevant, my reasons are above - however (and my point here), you mentioned that you would like to see this contradicted - as would I, and I am in fact going to try to do a little digging around to see if I can't, but I would also like to point out that really, Arman should be bringing his evidence to us regarding these scholarly sources, and the fact that a majority of them do not include these images. On further consideration, I also think it would be important to establish that the images were not included as a policy decision, rather than mere coincidence. Remember that in most print encyclopedias and publications, space is at an absolute premium, and in black and white ones, colourful pictures do not print well. I would very much welcome Arman's evidence and comments regarding this 'scholarly tradition' that he keeps referring to. Sorry to tack this on to your comment, I just thought it a good place. =) Lor (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
To Lor: I have "brought the evidence" in the discussion of the context of my proposal, already. I did refer to Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta, didn't I? These are mainstream encyclopedias - not Muslim sources that would refrain from using image in fear of going to hell. I have looked for some more examples using Google scholar, and here is what I see. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman By William Montgomery Watt uses Maps, and caligraphic drawing (on cover page) but no physical image. Same goes to Muhammad: Prophet of Islam By Maxime Rodinson and Muhammad, Prophet of God By Daniel C. Peterson. To appreciate the significance of this finding, just compare these with "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" By Alfred Edersheim, which uses a painting of Jesus on the very cover page. (Please note, it may be possible to identify scholarly sources on Jesus without any painting - which is because some scholars are opposed to using any imaginary painting on a serious discussion of a biography of a historical person. To prove me wrong you have to find the opposite: where scholalrs are using "unveiled" paintings of Muhammad in a serious discussion of this biography). Your "hint" of this possibly being a "coincidence" is also rather naive. Encyclopedias like Encarta and Britanica (by the way, Britanica is in general much appreciated for its graphics, like Wikipedia is for its coverage) can have hundreds and thousands of pictures on so many diverse topics including comparable topics like Jesus and Buddha and much less important topics as well, but when coming to discussing "Muhammad", one of the universally accepted "Vital Topic" on any encyclopedia, they run out of ink and space? Anyway, please do continue your search to prove me wrong, I much appreciate your time and effort on this. But please also ask yourself a question, are you going to support me "if" you fail to prove me wrong? Let me guess the answer: you won't, because, like all the editors who reached the so called "consensus", the insertion of these images gives you profound "personal pleasure". Arman (Talk) 06:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
And Therefore: Thank you so much my friend for your comments. I fully agree with you. If I summarize your opinion, what I get is: the Systematic Bias on en.Wikipedia is so strong against this proposal, that it will never be judged from a scholarly perspective. You are probably right. And I'd also like to add to that, with every passing moment with those images on Muhammad article, the very basis of my proposal is getting weaker and weaker. Very soon other scholarly sources are going to replicate what Wikipedia has done. Who knows, may be in the next edition of Britannica or Encarta we'll see these or similar images on article of Muhammad, and over another 100 year or so, it even may happen that most but a few Muslims would also start to consider these images "holy" pictures of the Prophet. That day my friend, my proposal will have little but historical value. When a future scholars will try to analyze the role of Wikipedia on human society, they’ll say, "Wikipedia not only served as a source of information but also changed the way we used to understand and discuss different subject, for e.g. it broke the tradition of not using pictorial depiction of Muhammad on an article about him." At that point my friend, some Wikipedia believer would wonder, how come that happened, how come the community allowed Wikipedia to go its own way to establish new tradition on discussing a subject like this. On that day my friend this proposal, somewhere in the archive of discussions, will at least prove that some part of the community tried to resist this, but they failed due to the strong systematic bias against them.
Unless, of course, a miracle suddenly alerts the community right now that this huge mistake is going away in its name! Arman (Talk) 02:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Arman, I wouldn't characterize it as "systematic bias" of en.wikipedia.com, per se, more the inherent nature of consensus. If this was, say, bangla.wikipedia.com, consensus may elect to exclude images of Muhammad entirely. The challenge for any group is to rise above experiencing locally to thinking globally -- that is the idealistic hope that I'm supporting. Consensus may be a collegial agreement of standards but more often it is a compromise of competing interests and viewpoints. When one side (in this case, Muslims, in the case of "bangla.", non-Muslims) are underrepresented, consensus becomes biased; rarely do the participants attempt to take into account the viewpoints and arguments of those not sitting at the table.
Context impacts consensus. Some of the reactions you are seeing are due to the Danish cartoon controversy and what, to many non-Islamic eyes, appeared to be an unnecessarily violent reaction to the use of the image in a satirical context -- a context commonly used for Christian icons. South Park, frequently satirizes, savagely, Christian imagery and tenets. Certainly, the Catholic League rails and protests and U.S. politicians leveraged the outrage against Piss Christ to their advantage but the reaction to the Danish cartoons, though reportedly fanned by some governments, struck at the heart of freedom of expression. Hence why you see so many who react with the defense, "Wikipedia doesn't censor" even though that isn't your point.
To reiterate my position, Arman's proposal is the middle ground between inclusionists and absolute exclusionists which I argue is the "natural" consensus from a global standpoint. Additionally, Arman provides a scholarly argument that must be considered. It would be easier to rebut Arman's position -- finding reliable, scholarly, non-art history sources that use the images than to find all that don't. Arman would, though, strengthen his argument if he would provide reliable, scholarly sources that support his statement that it is common practice not to use the images as Lor has suggested. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is an interesting, unscientific survey but does show that some scholars use the image. This user page argues that given the scarcity of representational images compared to the abundance of calligraphic images, the pictures used in the article are given undue weight. Additionally, he uses Wikipedia:Profanity, a guideline, not a policy, to buttress his argument.
I stand by my support but have less belief in miracles than Arman. I love Wikipedia and believe in the process of consensus; it fails when there is a lack of representative viewpoints. Arman's proposal would frustrate both sides while respecting each. An effective test for a decent compromise. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The findings of the survey (that some of the books used such images while discussing Muhammad before) definitely weakens the basis of my argument. So I am now convinced that at least Wikipedia is not the "First" to break the tradition. However, it is quite obvious, that a good majority of the scholars (including mainstream encyclopedias) still follow the tradition. Whether or not Wikipedia is putting "undue" weight on the images by including them in the article by going against the convention followed by majority of scholarly sources remains an open question for the community to judge. Arman (Talk) 03:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Aecis

A lot has been said about this subject already. I will probably repeat most of it, but I will say what I have to say nonetheless. Several users have brought forward the argument of non-representation, that it hasn't been established that Muhammad looked anything like the images. To be blunt: that is irrelevant. It has been established that these images were made as portraits of Muhammad. The artists clearly intended the main figure to be Muhammad. Whether they succeeded in doing this, whether they remained true to the original, is not relevant. They could have painted him with blond hair and braces; if that was what Muhammad looked like to them, we add such pictures. I don't see any reason not to include these significant historical sources. AecisBrievenbus 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't add comments without reading the discussion first. No one is arguing that the images are misrepresentation because they don't look like Muhammad here. The argument is - the images are misrepresentation because they have not recieved any scholalrly or popular acceptance as symbolic representation of Muhammad before Wikipedia, proven by the fact that most mainstream scholarly sources have refrained from using these or similar pictoral depiction of Muhammad in a discussion about him. In other words, most scholalrly sources have kept the discussion on "Depiction of Muhammad" and "Muhammad" totally separate, and so should Wikipedia do if it is true to its values of verifiability and no original research. Arman (Talk) 01:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not that these are portraits of Mohammad, it's that articles on Mohammad do not normally have portraits in scholarly work. As another example, if I produce an image of a wizzo patented invention, do I get to add it to Timeline of historic inventions? No, merely saying that something is applicable doesn't count unless there is a general agreement of notable sources that it does count. You have to go from some idea of something being historical invention to the thing, not from the thing to historical invention, otherwise really bad things happen(tm). In most cases we don't care much about this, it sounds like a ridiculously anal thing to worry about, but it really does matter in this case; where the precedent in the literature is pretty clear (or at the very least nobody has come up with a set of clear notable, verifiable sources that what the wikipedia is doing is correct right now, until that happens the consensus is resting on sand.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Anakin101

Wholehearted support. I've never previously given an opinion on the issue of the Muhammad images, because I'm not Muslim, I've never really looked into it, and always assumed that WP:NOT#CENSORED adequately answered the question. Having read Arman's proposal, I think I've changed my mind for the reason he explains, and also some other reasons, and here's why (forgive the length of this, I beg):

  1. Validity of the images. Arman is correct that the two contested images currently on the article (links: Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, Image:Maome.jpg) are not "Muhammad", but "depictions of Muhammad", that have not received acceptance as being accurate. And the fact that they are old does not make them more significant. To present them on the Muhammad article constitutes a sort of original research (albeit a historical original research). To present them on the depictions of Muhammad article does make more sense for that reason. This alone is not a massively compelling reason to remove them, but it makes keeping them in the article less worthwhile.
  2. Interpretation of WP:NOT#CENSORED. This policy was never meant to be enforced to the letter — that wouldn't be helpful at all!! Who would honestly support adding a photograph of someone's freshly lopped head to our article on decapitation, a video still to 2 Girls 1 Cup, or a similar image to coprophagia? No one (well I think very few people at least). If you tried to add such images you'd be criticised as being in violation of WP:POINT. Likewise there have been endless debates about pornographic images on various sexuality articles. It's impossible to satisfy everyone — but WP:NOT#CENSORED is never wholly applied. There's always a bit of a compromise (e.g., smaller images, move images further down, etc.), and, depending on the particular case, sometimes a lot of a compromise (e.g., replace photographs with line drawings, or just remove them). I do not want to make any potentially immoral comparisons between Muhammad and some people's sexual fetishes / activities / etc. but the core point I'm trying to get at is this:
    • Every human being finds something offensive! There's an imbalance here because the Wikipedia is not censored guideline is being enforced on the Muhammad article by a small number of admins who are not Muslims and cannot understand or appreciate the reason the images should be removed. Yet most of them (I'm making assumptions...) would not even attempt to enforce such a policy on some of the articles we have (like the examples I gave above). Hence my argument that WP:NOT#CENSORED has never been enforced to the letter, but within the bounds of common sense and the reasonable good judgement of Wikipedia's editors. Or to put it somewhat more bluntly, within the bounds of each editor's personal opinions, and what they think is the boundary point between WP:NOT#CENSORED and plain old WP:VANDALISM. Does that make sense? It completely gets in the way of the encyclopedia if our articles just shock most readers. What's even the point of having a good article if its readers are afraid to read it?
    • The example articles I gave above are not actually very good, since they are about inherently gross or gruesome things. People who are put off by them know not to read the articles, or to stop reading early on. Whereas, Muhammad's teachings are at the core of the Islamic religion — Muslims want to be able to read about him, without having to encounter images they find offensive. We are not supposed to have offensive images on non-offensive topics — that's why we have MediaWiki:Bad image list.
  3. Can we not just compromise? WP:NOT#CENSORED is a generally applied policy — not an absolute law that we must cling to blindly in the face of compelling reasons not to. As far as I can see, the now lengthy discussions that have gone on around Wikipedia over these images have wasted an awful lot of time and caused a lot of disruption and are showing no signs of stopping. In other words, it's getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. If you agree with that evaluation then you must also agree that that is not the way it's supposed to be. Arman has very amicably suggested that the images would be acceptable on the Depictions of Muhammad article, which I think is an excellent solution. I do not think that doing so really lessens the value of our coverage on Muhammad. I don't think it really hurts the main article. It may add to it if we can unprotect it again so people like you and me can edit it! It just seems like such a small change that could save such a lot of arguing. While it would not make the contention over having any images at all go away, it would at least allow Muslims to read about their own prophet!

Now, please tell me your opinions on that, everybody. If I am completely misguided please correct me, or if you more or less agree with me please say so! • Anakin (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What about if we do remove the images, and then the exact same issue pops up for Depictions of Muhammad? Do we compromise again? Jmlk17 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thw1309

I understand and respect your position. For you, a devote Muslim, there is a problem to read an article with pictures of your prophet. For me, an average user of Wikipedia, the picture above can give me a much better impression of the unique position, this man Muhammad has in your islamic value system, than ten or twenty sentences would give me. Therefore, it's important for me to see images within the context of the article. If you can only follow the special interests of a special group by denying the interests of the whole community, then it's not the way of wikipedia, to give you the right to deny these other interests. We do not make improvements for some users, if this means a change for the worse for other users. Every removal of useful images or relocation to another article is such a change for the worse. I think, there is a possibility, to give you access to the article, without any violations of your religious instructions. If you open the article, you will see, there are no images of Muhammad to be seen. They all are in the lower parts of the article. On top of the article, we could place a disambiguation to a subpage of the article. There, the content of the article can be repeated without the images. This would improve Wikipedia for you and other Muslims, without reducing it's usefulness for me and other average users. If we can produce all these Introduction-to-versions of existing scientific articles for readers with lower knowledge on a subject, Wikipedia will survive a second version without pictures too.--Thw1309 (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and respect. However, let me contradict a few points you mentioned. As a devote Muslim, there is NO problem for me to read the article of my Prophet with the images, because I know there is no image of my Prophet, and even if Wikipedia reaches a consensus to eliminate all text from Muhammad article and have only images - that is not going to change my belief. Then why am I concerned? Believe me, I am worried, because I anticipate this article is going to "misrepresent" Muhammad to non-Muslims (like you) and Muslims grown up in western environment who are otherwise least exposed to Islamic teachings. Please have patience to read in detail why it is so.
You know Muhammad (PBUH) recognized Jesus as a prophet just like him, and he also recognized there were many more prophets throughout history, most of whom he didn't name. If that is the case, then what was "unique" in Muhammad's message that attracted Muslims? The new thing in Muhammad's teaching was devotion towards absolute "monotheism". "Allah" as taught by Muhammad is one and only and cannot be represented by any form or figure what so ever. And Muhammad strictly prohibited to confuse himself with Allah in every possible way and made it totally clear that he (Muhammad) was only a human being, not an extension / son / image of Allah. However, he maintained that all other "true" prophets before him (including Jesus and Moses) also prophessed the same teaching, but over thousands of years people gradually started to create and respect imaginary pictures and statues of their prophets and once there is a "form" in front of them, it is only human to start to love the "form" over the "spirit". This is the reason why creating any imaginary painting of Muhammad is a strict taboo among Muslims. YES, throughout history there has been attempts to draw Muhammad by a significant number of painters, but to Muslims, in general, until now these images are nothing but "Attempts to depict Muhammad". These images have no "wide acceptance" as a reasonable representation of Muhammad (read my posts above for more details).
So, why is all these relevant for Non-Muslims? The very fact that you think these images are helping you understand Muhammad, is an evidence that you don't understand Muhammad well enough to appreciate what is helping you understand him, and what is misleading you. To understand the key essence of the teaching of Muhammad - the differentiating factor between him and almost all other Prophets - it is essential to realize, appreciate and fully comprehend the fact that because of the unique teachings of Muhammad, there is no accepted image or statue of Allah and Muhammad. The perseverance of the integrity of this teaching in an article on Muhammad is far more important for the quality of the article (and understanding of Muhammad as a Prophet) than having a few paintings that prove or show nothing more than some historical "attempts" to draw Muhammad. If we destroy that integrity, it will be like putting a racially insulting word in an article on Martin Luther King, or presenting Gandhi in a way that he appears to be promoting violence. Yes, those historical images are true and they have their due place in history of Art or in articles like Depiction of Muhammad where they are key historical evidences. But, on the article of Muhammad, insertion of these images dilutes the single most important teaching of the person; the single most important "image" of the person; and in the process significantly misrepresents the topic.
This is the reason why most scholars, including non-Muslims, don't use imaginary paintings in a discussion about Muhammad as a person and prophet. This is the reason, why Encyclopedia Britannica shows no image of Muhammad, while it shows about 15+ images for Jesus and 10+ images of Buddha.
Should Wikipedia follow the majority of the scholarly sources and give upholding the integrity of the teaching of Muhammad more importance by keeping Muhammad and Depiction of Muhammad as separate articles, or should Wikipedia go its own way to establish those images as "integral" to Muhammad article based on a child-like logic that "for every article on a human being there has to be a picture showing his face" - is what we, as Wikipedia community have to decide. Arman (Talk) 07:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I can tell you one thing, this picture above taught me. You say, that your prophet Muhammad believed himself to be one prophet among others, but, seeing this picture, I now know, that many Muslims, including the painter, this is not true. For them, he has a unique position. You are right, these are only historical attempts to draw Muhammad. They do not show the real Muhammad, but they help me to understand, how this painter and together with him, many other Muslims see this man. Look, I'm Roman Catholic, therefore I will never be able to completely understand, what Muhammad means for you, a devote Muslim, as well as a scientific approach will never enable you to understand, why and how a Catholic believes. I will never be able to explain to you, why in the grotto of Lourdes, I can feel the presence of god. It's the same with this man. For me he is a very important historic person, the founder of an important religion. This picture above gives me the chance of a small glimpse of what Muhammad could have been for that painter. No doubt, that's not much, but it is as much as I can ever get about what Muhammad is for you or other muslims. That's why these pictures are important to me. The statement, you wrote, even supports my belief, that these pictures should be part of the article about Muhammad, because this picture, combined with your statement about the religious reasons, not to make paintings of Muhammad and Allah, even gives me a better understanding. Perhaps I'm wrong and misunderstand the position of Muhammad, but I should have the right to try my own way to understand.
You say, that will be like putting a racially insulting word in an article on Martin Luther King. You know, if there is a notable insult with a good citiation, it has a good chance to appear in the article. For example the article about pope Benedict XVI shows links to websites, which call him a heretic. I would not be astonished, if this accusation would appear in the article itself. In difference to such insults, which were only created to hurt people, these images of Muhammad never intended to do so. We are trying to understand and think, that these images are helping us.
I do understand, that the use of these images hurts you and other Muslims. Therefore I do my best to help finding a way to give you the chance to use Wikipedia without to have to see pictures, which could hurt you or your beliefs. To you, the use of the pictures if forbidden. Therefore respect orders me, not to deliberately confront you, but with all due respect, I expect you, to understand that I do not want to wag these pictures in front of you, but will use them without any intention or expression of an insult in relation to others of my culture, which only view them as a possibility to understand the subject.--Thw1309 (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point that those images help you understand how some muslims (though a small minority group) has viewed Muhammad in the middle ages. Fully agree. But what I am trying to convey is the majority and modern Muslim view of Muhammad supports "No image". Unfortunately, in the article, as of now, there is no clear attempt to differentiate between these two views. So, we are talking about two conflicting POVs about Muhammad here - one shared by almost all modern Muslims which has been shaped over thousands of years of discussion and analysis and one held by a historical minority group. As of now Wikipedia community don't feel a need to separate these two views clearly on the article, even though there is a clear risk that a failure to maintain this difference will jeopardise the majority held modern view. Unfortunately, we the Muslims who can clearly see, that minority POV is dominating on the article can do very little about it. A fraction of us are trying (probably in vain) to pursuade a sea of non-Muslim editors who just won't listen to us, and others are going crazy and raising petition etc. When the consensus on Wikipedia is to enforce a minority POV on an article like this at the cost of the majority POV, I guess I just have to live with that. Arman (Talk) 11:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
About your proposal of creating two articles, one with image and one without, is probably not going to work becuase the fundamental point of wikipedia or an encyclopedia is to have one article par topic. Besides it is also unnecessary as there is a way to supress Muhammad images on the current page for those who don't want to see them. I would say, if there is a clear demarkation on one article that the images of paintings of Muhammad represent the view of a historical minority group - not the view of modern muslims, we can solve the problem without having to compromise the basic definition of Wikipedia. Arman (Talk) 11:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
One week ago, I would have shared your opinion about one article par topic. Now I know, that there are a lot of topics with two articles. Please see for example evolution and introduction to evolution, both articles about evolution. The reason for the existence of two articles: Some people can not understand the complexity of the theme, therefore we have to create a separate, less scientific article. If that's the reason for the creation of two articles, your legitimate interests should be sufficient as well. By the way, it's no problem to create a link, so the other article would always have the same content, just without the images.
Please don't misunderstand me. I would never dare to decide about your religion's orders about pictures. I even thought the ban on pictures included not only your prophet but all human beings. So your statements taught me something new. It is usual for your religion, to live without pictures of your prophet and your god. My church is just the opposite. A Catholic church is full of pictures and statues of god and of our saints. The windows are telling biblical stories in colored pictures. For me seeing is an easy way to understand. To use an example: If you are fasting during rhammadan, I will not share your fasting, because I am not part of your religion and it's commands and prohibitions do not apply on me. By doing so, I do not want to express any kind of criticism of your religion or any decision about the truth of these commands. It simply is not my religion and it's rules, as good as they may be, do not concern me, because I'm not part of it. To be honest, the forty days of fastening before easter are just enough for me, so I would eat. Nevertheless I would try not to be disrespectful. If I would live an an Islamic country, I would eat at home. Living here in Germany, I would not deliberately try to eat in your presence, but if you would visit me at lunchtime, when you have to expect me to eat, I would warn you in advance but begin to eat. It's the same with Wikipedia. It would be disrespectful to interfere in your religious needs by forcing you to see pictures of your prophet to be able to read articles. My freedom to use Wikipedia the best possible way can not be paid with limitations for you but as long as there are ways to avoid limitations (by creating a mirror article for example), you do not have the right to limit my use of Wikipedia. --Thw1309 (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire)

Support removing. So, I think we should not have an argument regarding why they should be deleted, but rather-like every single picture on WP- we should think why they should stay. The topic is controversial, and I think no fair compromise can be reached to satisfy both parties. Thus, we might start a whole separate article for them, and remove them from this particular article.

Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So are you voting to create a fork article, one that goes against Wikipedia's very core beliefs, simply because this issue is heated, and there may be people upset by it? Jmlk17 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

agr

Support. While I strongly oppose censorship of Wikipedia, considerations of good taste and respect for the views of different cultures can influence how and where information is presented. Moving the images in question to an article devoted to them, with a link from the main article, would not materially diminish the main article. On the contrary, keeping them there is likely more damaging since, in practice, it will deprive us of input from many Muslim editors. I believe that would be a great loss.

I also think there are parallels in the way we treat other religions on Wikipedia. We use CE/BCE for dates in articles on Judaism and AD/BC in articles on Christianity, for example. But before the Wiki-lawyers start to explain why those accommodations are somehow different, I will acknowledge that there are unique aspects to this situation. Conflicts involving Islam are a major source of tension in the world today. There are those on both sides who seem intent on exacerbating those tensions, generally citing their deeply held principles. Wikipedia can serve an important calming role by serving as a meeting place where ideas are exchanged. Keeping images of the prophet in this article sends an exclusionary message, whether we like it or not. If moving the images to their own article makes Muslims feel more welcome here, I'm all for doing so.--agr (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What? We use separate terms for dates for religious reasons! So very unacceptable. What's next? Approval of the papacy for all Christianity related articles, and an Ayatullah to guide us through the Islam related articles? This is a complete abomination of scholarly traditions. If we are so sensitive then why don't we just remove all the mummy pictures? The Pharaohs are not to gazed upon by commoners like us. Is there any guideline/policy/discussion/consensus that leads us to the CE/BCE and AD/BC schism? Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper

Support removing from Mohammad. It's not about censorship (the images would be in Depiction of Muhammad still anyway), it's not about being offensive to Moslems, they can still be offended in depictions, but it's just that there's no evidence whatsoever of notable sources linking articles on Mohammad to these kinds pictures, and thus their inclusion is either OR or overemphasis or both. If that evidence can be found in a reasonable number of notable sources then my position will change; for example what does EB do here? What do other encyclopedias do? I see no evidence that anybody else has even bothered to check, they haven't done the work; given that, and given the fact that most of the articles on Mohammad are extremely likely to be Moslem, and absent images like these, I vote to remove right now.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

High on a tree

Oppose

I have already responded to Talk:Muhammad/images‎. but I have to say that I find it quite unfortunate that this debate has to be duplicated in yet another venue. But okay, here we go again:

  • Your criticism of the reasoning in the FAQ is based on straw man arguments and unfounded claims: That section of the FAQ makes it clear from the beginning that those images are not accurate representations of the exterior of the person in question, so why are you still harping on this point? The FAQ talks about "historically significant artwork" instead, it does not claim that the illustrations in Homer and Jesus represent mainstream/popular view of their resemblance; this is your own description instead and it is unfounded - how is Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Homer and his Guide (1874).jpg *the* mainstream view of Homer's appearance? Or take Image:Oakland Temple statue of Jesus in the visitors center.jpg in the Jesus article: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints certainly does not even represent the mainstream within Christianity, much less a general mainstream. And you conveniently omit the example Charlemagne in the FAQ, where your reasoning fails completely - as it would for Confucius, Gautama Buddha or Plato, all of which contain portraits which, while being notable enough as an artistic view (among others) to be included in an encyclopedia article about the subject, cannot be regarded as the "mainstream" view of their resemblance at all.
  • Demanding that an image (more specifically, an artist's visual interpretation of a subject) must have "widespread acceptance" is something very uncommon. In fact, in terms of WP:NPOV it would amount to demanding that articles must never mention minority views (that is clearly not what NPOV (or WP:UNDUE) says, it only demands that opinions must significant/notable before they can be mentioned). The two images in question are in fact views of Muslim artists belonging to ethnic/religious minorities within Islam: Mongols and Persians (Shiites), not unlike the Mormons mentioned above with respect to the Jesus article. I also think that an image of Muhammad's representations from the U.S. Supreme Court frieze should be added, as a notable example of a Western view. - To put it another way, demanding "widespread acceptance" of opinions or images in articles about Islamic topics amounts to demanding acceptance by today's mainstream Sunni Islam, so in the end it is not far from demanding compliance to Islamic law. The conflict about the images in this article arose mainly because many Muslims want to have an article about Muhammad as a religious person only and written from the perpective of their religion only, which excludes this kind of art. The same kind of conflict can and does arise with topics about Western religions. (A historical example is the quest for the historical Jesus, which sought to widen the understanding of Jesus from a purely religious view to the first aspect mentioned above - or: from a purely theological to a more "encyclopedic" perspective, if you will.)
  • The proposal misses the point in another way, too: In any biographical article in a general encyclopedia, there are several "universal" aspects to be covered: The life of the person himself, his work, historical context, his impact on religion, politics, history, literature, science ... and art. Now, it might be the case that the impact of this person in one or more of these areas is neglible (usually there is no need to describe some pop singers's influence on science), but this is not the case here - for example, the miniatures from the famous Jami al-Tawarikh are called "extremely important in the relationship of western and eastern schools of art" in this scholarly assessment of the University of Edinburgh. Or, to quote from the New York Times' coverage of this Wikipedia debate:
Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, “Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent.” He added, “Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad.”
You are dismissing these scholarly assessments and trying to convince us that this article's subject's impact on art has to excluded from the article, by ridiculing these images as merely of antique value and collection items for museums. I disagree, I think art is one of those universal aspects.
  • You haven't provided evidence for your very broad claim "all respectable scholarly sources (including mainstream encyclopedias) have refrained from reproducing these images". It should be noted that the other of the (afaik) two scholars who have commented publicly on this Wikipedia debate, a professor of Islam, has gone on records as saying that he found the use of the images in Wikipedia's Muhammad article "not problematic" and that similar images are used in school books for Islamic religious education in Germany [3]

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lankiveil

Oppose. Many have already covered the points that I would like to cover above, and far more eloquently than I could. I would however like to add that I find the notion and suggestion that we should only depict the subjects of biographies according to the cultural norms of the culture that they come from to be bizarre. Wikipedia's goal is to provide information to the reader, and having these images in the article facilitates that. I think that having respectful antique images of Islamic Persian and Turkish origin is certainly appropriate for the Muhammad article.

With that said, I am not opposed at all to providing a gadget to hide the images for Muslims that might be offended by them, and placing a large prominent notice at the top of the article instructing interested readers on how they can activate or use said gadget. Such an informational message would not be a "disclaimer" in my mind, which is what has so far sunk previous attempts to do something like that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

Jmlk17

Strong Oppose Since I am quite involved in the issue as a whole, I'll keep my comments short and sweet. I believe that a disclaimer, hidden image template, or anything of the sort would be a dangerous precedent, and would only allow further issues to bypass our views on censorship, among other concrete policies. For instance, there are some who object to curse words, some who object to photos on sexual intercourse, and those who can find offense out of any one of our 2 million+ articles. If we truly do value our open encyclopedia, as well as our views on never censoring anything as it could hinder our core, then this article should and must be no different. Jmlk17 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron Duvall

Comment Can we please relist? I don't think this has gotten enough discussion. This issue is extremely important to the future of mankind. Ron Duvall (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#ISLAMOFASCISTTHEOCRACY. Notice also that Wikipedia has the American suffix, "ia," much like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and California. There was a reason we didn't name it Wikipedistan. 71.63.91.68 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Gee, I never thought of that. On the other hand, what about Transylvania? Wikipedia is for vampires? --Abd (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that was needless Colbert-ish trolling. Ron Duvall (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? Like Indonesia? Malaysia? Nigeria? Algeria? Somalia? Mauritania? Saudi Arabia? Tunisia? Gambia? Albania? (all members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference). Saudi Arabia is I guess especially an example of the ideal American state... Lucky for you the Khalistan ideas never succeed otherwise we would have an ideal ISLAMOFACISTTHEOCRACY, one made up of Sikhs... (I guess since many of them wear turbans, in the eyes of your typical 'redneck' they would be Islamic terrorists) Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Abd

Comment There are no images of Muhammad that have any reliability at all; various substreams of Islamic culture did allow certain kinds of images, but these were all later inventions. There are descriptions of his appearance in words that can be used to generate some speculative image, but, of course, these are highly unreliable. In articles on this subject, serious authors may show historical images as such, not as being actual "images of Muhammad." There are no images of Muhammad, there are images taken from various people's imaginations. None of them have sufficient currency to be notable in an article on Muhammad; where they are notable is in specialized articles, such as those on the famous or infamous cartoons. However, having said all that, it's a fact that certain actions, legitimate under personal freedom, can be highly dangerous due to fanaticism in the world. One may wish to take the risk on oneself, but what if gratuitous insult causes injury to one's neighbors? Don't tease the dogs when you are taking your children for a walk; in fact, don't tease them at any time. It's disruptive, even if you have a "right" to do it. --Abd (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy is an irrelevant red herring. See Jesus, Christopher Columbus, Joan of Arc, Gautama Buddha.
Offense, fear of offense, or fear alone, while not irrelevant, are not a good reasons for violating WP:NOT. And are you calling your fellow coreligionists dogs? Careful with the metaphors. In any case, there is not mockery involved by posting verifiable images of the Prophet.-MasonicDevice (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's see how many offensive remarks we can imagine! There is no violation of WP:NOT in the proposal, per se. However, I think I'm actually opposed to the proposal, because no special exception should be carved out. I might favor a more general proposal that cautions against gratuitous offensiveness; just as we do not allow personal attacks, we should not allow gratuitously offensive remarks of any kind. Is "Your sister is a whore" a personal attack? Not exactly, it is an attack on someone whom an editor might feel obligated to defend. It can have the same effect as a personal attack, it can unreasonably enrage. The question is necessity. If an image is necessary to an article, as, indeed, it may be with respect to the article on the cartoons, or an article about "Depictions of Muhammad," then the usage may be justified. As to my "co-religionists," well, there is a verse in the Qur'an that describes those who claim have faith in God, yet who destroy and corrupt and ruin society. Now, the only aspect of "dogs" that I was referring to was possible viciousness when danger is sensed. Don't tease the dogs, it is literal advice, and it applies in all directions. Want to establish an Islamic state? Don't stick a pin into the leg of a giant, thinking God will protect you. Or, as in an old saying, if you want to shoot the king, don't miss. As to my own opinion, "Islam" means to me (and is used in the Qur'an to mean) a relationship with God, and possibly the majority of humans who have that relationship aren't called "Muslims," but God knows best.
Accuracy refers here to how an image is captioned and where it is placed. While it may be common practice to call, say, an icon an "image of Jesus," and particularly where we know that inaccuracy could deeply offend, there is no harm in being clear that an image is an imagination, a product of the artist (and the times and culture of the artist) and not historically based on some actual portraiture. I have not researched the usage on Wikipedia of images of the Prophet, but the strongest point I raised was notability. An artist's image of the Prophet in the article, Muhammad, would be imbalanced, probably not notable. However, a reference to such images is sufficiently notable to be in the article, though almost as a footnote. These images have practically nothing to do with the Prophet, they represent later traditions and understandings and practices, about which there is great variety of opinion. We have some general opinion that articles are improved by the use of images, even if only peripherally related; there is an image of a bust of Socrates in the article Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, last I looked. This, supposedly, makes the article more interesting even when it truly isn't conveying any necessary information (supposedly Socrates had ADHD). Now, how important is it? Putting the cartoon images, which really clearly aren't images of the Prophet of the kind prohibited in Islam (under the prohibition of images), in an article on the controversy over them, is central to our encyclopedia purpose. Putting any image, not to mention ones possibly designed to be offensive (I'm not at all sure about that) into the article on Muhammad is actually anachronistic, it's about something else than the topic of the article, and it would cause needless offense. That's my point. By all means, make the encyclopedia complete, but ... don't gratuitously insult or offend when, in fact, it isn't serving the encyclopedic purpose, but could be hindering it.--Abd (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is a good idea to get rid of images of Jesus, Muhammad, etc. I am not too familiar with Muhammad but I know that we do not know what Jesus looked like. Most depictions of the latter show Jesus with long hair, etc. which is contrary to 1 Corinthians 11:14. I can see how an artist's rendering of something whose exact image you don't know, such as a proposed new space station that is still in conceptual stages, might be useful to include. Also, images of nude artwork might he helpfully illustrative to the nudity article, despite the fact that some people would be offended by such. But what useful purpose does an image of Muhammad serve? It doesn't help us understand any particular concept. And although I was kinda flippant in my comments above, I generally do seek to accommodate people's religious beliefs when I can, as I know it can make them deeply uncomfortable when these things are violated, even if they are non-confrontational about it and don't say anything. For instance, I have a friend who is vegan due to his concerns about animal cruelty, and knowing that, I avoid eating meat around him, because even though he wouldn't say anything, I know that his conscience is offended by it.
A large percentage of the world is Muslim, and given the large numbers of readers who will be bothered by these images, and the fact that the images are probably inaccurate and misleading anyway, and not of much use, we may as well get rid of them. 71.63.91.68 (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann

oppose per (*stifles a yawn*) nearly everyone else over the past months, see Talk:Muhammad/images. There is no way we can implement any "no images of X" guideline. Any concerns regarding the encyclopedic value of any given image need to be raised on a case-by-case basis. dab (𒁳) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We are trying to address specific issues of these images. Nobody's trying to say "No images of X". • Anakin (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
then why is this discussion on the Village pump? It belongs on individual article talkpages, discussing the appropriateness of individual images to individual articles, case by case. The proposed claim that "most notable scholarly discussions on Muhammad have refrained from using any image to portray him" is bogus. Of course scholarly papers aren't illustrated the way Wikipedia articles are. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles, not scholarly papers. The implication that the images are used to "portray Muhammad" is also bogus. We are showcasing notable historical "attempts to portray Muhammad", notabene Muslim attempts, for whatever they are worth. We have no business or interest in attempting to portray Muhammad on our own. In my book, this "proposal" is pure filibustering and doesn't belong here. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gnangarra

Oppose removal of images. Any removal images will be seen as censorship by supporters of Anti-Islamic groups. And be seen as a Victory by Islamic groups in censoring Wikipedia content. All other issues for the removal of content will then be argued on the basis that a precendent was set in complying with the requirements of Islam. As they are now claimed to be false, then there's no offense to the laws of Islam and no reason to be concerned about them being there in the first place. Gnangarra 12:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Spinningspark

Oppose removal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (Pillar 1 of the Five Pillars). The pictures are of genuine academic interest, showing a depiction in Ottoman Empire times and therefore belong here whoever it upsets.
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (Pillar 2 of the Five Pillars). That means we do not compromise our articles to satisfy the POV of anyone, even Islam.
You need a very strong argument indeed to fly in the face of two of the founding principles of Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

MCB

  • Oppose. While I suppose the "misrepresentation" and "scholarly accuracy" argument may be technically novel, any image can be properly contextualized by its placement, caption, and discussion in the accompanying article. Beyond that, the issue of controversial images is adequately covered by existing policies on (lack of) censorship, NPOV, no disclaimers in articles, and lack of support for various proposals for content and image labeling. --MCB (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick Day

  • Oppose - my bias is clear to anyone who's been at the article for a while - I'll be short and sweet, removal goes again the pillars of wikipedia, Censorship policies, NPOV, disclaimers and more broadly the community repeating itself over and over and over again to that effect. On a procedural point - because this isn't a proposal but rather a content dispute that affects only one page, this should be removed, this does not belong at VP. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seraphimblade

Absolutely no removal. Even if the pictures don't depict exactly what Muhammad looked like, they are historic and educational, as to what a culture thought Muhammad looked like. And we do not remove things because they offend someone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this should be added to WP:Perennial proposals. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:42, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)
The broader 'content warnings' section of that page seems to already touch on the matter (though only slightly). Perhaps it could be expanded a bit, so as to cover things like this. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Suggestions

I have posted the suggestions in the help desk but all I get is people telling me to post them here or in Bugzilla. I've done that but have gotten nothing back. I just want someone to tell me no were not doing that or yes we want to do that.

  • User Talk Pages Suggestion
I have a suggestion which would be a pretty big overhaul of the user talk pages system used by Wikipedia. I have noticed that users always struggle with this when commenting and replying in user talk pages. When someone leaves a comment, do you reply on their talk page or on your own? If you do it on your own, will they see the reply? Have they set your talk page for watching? The result of this is almost always having half a conversation on one page and the other half on another page. Sometimes they even duplicate messages on both talk pages.
My suggestion is to have each comment section in a type of "template" in some Wikipedia Comments database, while only adding tags to all user talk pages of those who have participated (left a comment) in the section. Whenever someone edits the comment, they can do it on their own talk page, and even when it seems thay are editing their talk page, they are actually editing the template, so the changes will appear in all pages who have the tag. This way the full conversation will be visible in all user talk pages, and will never be duplicated. Every comment would have an ID (e.g. 00215468) and its template page has everything including the title, all messages and a list of all users who have commented on the section. When a user chooses to add a section to any user talk page nothing will be apparently different since the interface would remain the same, but they will be creating or editing a "template" without openly realizing it.
An example tag that would be included in user talk pages could be something like this:
{{Comment:00215468|title=Suggestion}}
Everytime the comment is edited, all users listed for the comment will receive the "new message" notice.
This would not apply for article discussion pages since it is better to keep those attached to their articles like they are now.
Some users have implemented it manually (e.g. User_talk:Alphax/Threads) but I would like to see if it is possible for Wikipedia officials to implement this natively into Wikipedia.
  • Delayed Educational Wikipedia Suggestion
I'd also like to see an Educational version of Wikipedia. Let me explain myself. I know Wikipedia is very educational at the moment. The problem is that I have seen so many complaints about users searching for information on Wikipedia just to find a blanked page with streams of nasty curse words splattered all over (which I know don't last very long). Still, many children use Wikipedia for school/educational purposes and are vulnerable to sudden bursts of strong language, profanity and even adult content. My suggestion is to create a "filter domain" which is an "edu" Wikipedia address, that schools and parents can add to their "safe sites" list that would filter Wikipedia pages. The filtering can be fairly simple that would only allow pages with certain properties:
1) Locked pages
2) Special pages
3) Exclude pages with certain key words (profanity) in their content even if informative
4) Pages that have been unchanged by x minutes (x being a statistical number derived from the maximum amount of minutes a vandalized article stays unfixed)
These are just examples. Other rules can also be included.
Wikipedia has highly reliable information which can be stained by very short vandalism periods. A "delayed" version of Wikipedia would be priceless.
Please let me know! Thanks! ~RayLast «Talk!» 18:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a "delayed" Wikipedia would be very good provided the delay time was set too short. Rather I think the first thing that should happen for Educational Wikipedia should be that we set up a series of anti-vandalism bots (~50 of them should be good) here on English Wiki, and set the new article delay for 1 day. After that, a page becomes semi-locked after diasppearing from the New Articles log. Strenuous, but possible, and maybe even neccesary if the site is set up. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The anti-vandalism bots are doing a pretty good job at the moment. Only a delay must be added. A day could be a possible delay time. Semi-locking or locking the articles, in my opinion, would not be beneficial. Remember that it should be only a filter, not an overhaul of the articles system. The filter should not intervene with current editing, meaning that Wikipedians should not see any change. The suggestion is not about building and copying the whole encyclopedia with safe content either. It's just a tiny little filter. I feel safe to say that a significant delay would ensure the integrity of the articles practically 100% of the time. For new articles, for example, a rule could be that a {{safe-article|user1|user2|user3|user4|user5}} tag with 5 registered user's "votes" must be included before it can appear in the Educational Wikipedia.
Also note that the current Wikipedia pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org will see no change. People visiting the original site will see unfiltered content such as how it is now. Only those that visit the filter page (e.g. http://edu.en.wikipedia.org) will see filtered content. ~RayLast «Talk!» 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay. That sounds better. I presonally think it should be 10-15 uses signing the template (20 if possible). This would allow more of the community to comment. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought I heard there was something being considered or worked on where new versions of pages would not be displayed immediately to most users, so a more stable, more trusted version would tend to be displayed. I forget where I heard about that -- maybe it's in Bugzilla somewhere or something.
Re talk pages: It's good that you're thinking about that. Maybe someday we'll get a better system. I wouldn't like the system you describe because people would either have to be able to unsubscribe from those threads, or not. If they can, then when you post you wouldn't know whether a certain user was going to see it or not. If not, even worse: people would be subjected to seeing long threads on topics they're no longer interested in.
I think pretty good solutions are: Usually reply on the same talk page where the conversation started; and if you want to make sure the other person gets the message, use the {{Talkback}} template on their talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
For the "delayed" proposal, it sounds a little like Wikipedia:Flagged revisions, an extension to MediaWiki which has not yet been activated on en.Wikipedia, partially because it's still in testing and partially because no-one's worked out exactly how to implement it here (and after the kerfuffle that happened when the developers introduced non-admin rollback, it may take a bit longer). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As for the talk page suggestion, I think we're waiting on another MediaWiki extension, called LiquidThreads. So your ideas are good, the thing is that there's already some development on related solutions (although with the number of things the developers are working on, any kind of change to the status quo will be some time in the making). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a Wikipedia for schools. Basically what they did was choose the most important articles (it's based around the UK National curriculum), checked them for factual accuracy, and age-appropriateness. The Wikipedia for schools is available for free download (torrent or direct) or viewing in your browser without downloading anything. What I think is important is for schools to know about this resource and use it. It's been there for over 10 months, but it isn't used much because parents and teachers know nothing about it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And because it obviously does not have the extensive content available at Wikipedia itself. Creating another website, selecting, fixing and copying Wikipedia articles is too much, since it is not maintained by the whole Wikipedia community. The idea is to use the same content, from the same source, only automatically filtered a bit. ~RayLast «Talk!» 13:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat promotion consensus

As the community anticipates a few closures of current RfBs as unsuccessful, I would like to bring to the community's attention that the traditional threshold for bureaucrat promotion still does not comply with WP:Consensus. Bureaucrats should be called to lower the approval threshold for new bureaucrats to that of a regular request for adminship. There is no plausible justification for such an extreme 90% threshold for new bureaucrats. It makes the whole process unfair for the candidate and unfair for the participants who'll have a slim minority of 10% decide for all. As a Wikipedian who believes in process, I think it's quite frustrating to see some great candidates be turned down despite clear consensus from the community for them to be approved and become new bureaucrats. Húsönd 00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at WT:RFA. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem best to keep discussion about this in one central place - it may even be time to create a separate location for this discussion, which is attracting quite a bit of support from participants at WT:RFA but would need a wider consensus should bureaucrats adjust their approach to RfB closures. WjBscribe 10:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that a discussion about this was already happening there. Húsönd 10:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

increase text size

it may be useless, but could you add built-in increase text button? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.37.64 (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is built-in on most browsers. On Firefox and IE ctrl-shift-+ works. Algebraist 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, every browser has text-size increase/decrease capabilities.
* Firefox: As Algebraist notes, or Ctrl-+ and Ctrl-- (and Ctrl-0 to reset), or Menu::"View"->"Text size"
* Opera: '+' to increase , '-' to decrease, '*' to reset; or Menu::"View"->"Zoom"
* Safari: same keyboard accelerators as Firefox, or Menu->"View"->"Make text bigger" etc
* Konqueror: keyboard accelerators and menu as in Firefox
* IE and AOL Browser: Menu::"View"->"Text size", but don't count on it working correctly.
-- Fullstop (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And in IE (newer versions) there is a "zoom" (in the right bottom corner) affecting the whole page, including text. −Woodstone (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, Opera has the same kind of full-page-zoom feature as well. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Use Ctrl-mouse wheel to increase or decrease the size. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reproposal tags

This is my new proposal. Please consider! Park Crawler (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please! :-D Park Crawler (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia ads}} on frequently-visited pages

My suggestion is that we place these templates on frequently used pages, such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and so forth. Many users mill around these pages at any point in time; in my opinion, having the Wiki-ads there would boost WikiProject participation considerably and be a boon to article writing and so forth. However, I'm pretty sure that many editors are opposed to the idea, as they may think it too distracting. Just wanted to gain some consensus. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not have a variant of that, which would be a template for unobtrusive text ads for WikiProjects? More users might be inclined to add it to their userpages, and there might be better chances of getting it added to Wikipedia namespace pages. I'm not a big fan of banner ads, although they're fine for userspace. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, what would be really awesome would be to have context-based ads. For instance, if you are at an AfD for an article on the endangered Austrian seagull/owl transmutation whose population is down to 30, the ad might invite you to join WikiProject Birds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obuibo Mbstpo (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Your heart's in the right place, but I don't think it's a good idea.
  1. These are already large pages to download. They don't need more stuff on them. (There still exist in this world dial-up modem users.)
  2. I suspect few regulars actually even look at the top of WP:AN or AN/I on anything approaching a regular basis. New posts are at the bottom, and our watchlists usually link to text anchors well into the page.
  3. Animated banner ads are annoying and evil. Period. People will be irritated by them soon after the ads appear; after a few days to get used to the banner placement people won't even see them—it will be a piece of dead real estate at the top of the page. Sorry.
Let people put whatever they want in their userspace, but please try to keep the highly-used pages as uncluttered as possible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to make article "Hobo Bashing"

I wanted to ask permission to make the article "Hobo Bashing". I think it is somewhat important and currently increasing particulary in the U.S. I would like someone's opinion on making this article! Thanks- Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't really need "permission" for it. What you should do is write the article in your user space (aka Hobo bashing), then find a Wikiproject that you believe is related to the topic. Ask folks on that project to look it over and offer improvements, and when you feel it's ready, you can Move it to main article space. Just be sure to provide verifiable reliable sources and I think it would work. -- 68.156.149.62 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The previous comment is right that you don't need permission to make a new article; you can even simply be bold and create the article directly in main article space, if you like. However, with a "delicate" subject like "Hobo Bashing" you should take care to follow wikipedia's policies on verification, notability and neutral point of view. You may also want to read the wp:naming conventions; something like Homeless discrimination would be more encyclopedic than Hobo bashing. --jwandersTalk 06:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just did a quick search; You might find that you can expand on the information in this article: Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Crimes_against_homeless_people.--jwandersTalk 06:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the tips. I'll try to make a quality article using some research and my own knowledge on the subject. Thanks Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag to prevent plotbloat

I propose that a tag is introduced for when a plot summary in an article reaches an optimum length. At the moment some articles e.g Goodfellas, No Country for Old Men are subject to constant revisions with users placing uneccessary detail, speculation or their own interpretations of what happened.

When a consensus has been agreed upon the tag would be placed before the article which could read The plot summary below is considered to be a suitable length for the article. Please read discussion on talk pages before editing it. Obviously the wording would have to be discussed but I think you get the idea. Users would of course still be able to edit the plot summaries but would hopefully give them pause for thought before firing in. Yorkshiresky (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Lightweight thanking mechanism in article histories

We should consider adding a lightweight, easy-to-use mechanism by which readers can quickly thank other editors for their edits. I envision a new button in article histories, diff pages, watchlists, etc.:

  • (cur) (last) 20:03, 2 March 2008 EditorFoo (Talk | contribs | thank | block) (60,782 bytes) (→Historical rivalries) (rollback | undo)

which alerts the recipient in a manner similar to a new user talk message:

These users would like to thank you for your edits: EditorBar (for Harvey Wallbanger (cocktail)) EditorBaz (for Lady and the Tramp)

Of course, the actual box would be far less ugly.

Suggested details:

  • A thank-you does not become part of the recipient's talk page, the article history, or any other public record; it is visible only to recipient, and it is displayed only once.
  • A thank-you does not come with an additional comment. It must not turn into a private messaging service. Custom messages will have to be left on user talk pages, as usual.
  • There should not be a button to thank all editors of an article for the article's existence. Thanking for a given edit is more personal.
  • There should be no published guideline instructing editors when to use the feature; editors should understand that it is left to personal preference, so not being thanked for an edit doesn't necessarily mean anything.
  • IP addresses may give or receive thanks just like users with accounts.
  • The frequency with which thank-yous are delivered may need to be throttled to a maximum of once per hour or so, in order to avoid intrusive floods of messages, originating from edits to a particularly widely-read article.

Motivation: for various reasons, my recent editing pattern is such that most of my interactions with other users involve offering criticism or responding to it. I try to be civil and constructive, and there's no replacement for that, but the fact is that I'm passing on a lot of opportunities for strictly positive interaction. It feels awkward to leave a note on another user's talk page just to thank them for an edit to some article on my watchlist. Perhaps this makes me a terrible community member, but let's stipulate for a moment that it is an understandable affliction that probably happens to other editors as well. I would like to provide more positive feedback and encouragement, so if this proposal were implemented, I for one would use it all the time.

Obviously this proposal, if agreed upon, would require a software change. Melchoir (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:Kindness Campaign and Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club. Melchoir (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, if users would be able to opt out from receiving thank-yous or limit them to a certain number per hour/day (kinda like what you suggested but customisable). Users should also be able to hide the "thank you" button in page histories and diffs.
I might still prefer to just leave a note, but it's up to each Wikipedian whether to use the feature or not. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the worst idea I've seen here in a while. Requires major technical changes, no suggested opt-out mechanism and is absolutely and utterly useless at building an encyclopedia. IMO, if you want to thank somebody, do it by hand and don't use stupid templates. -Halo (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
An opt-out mechanism is easy to design; just put it in user preferences. And the technical changes would be worth it. The whole point of improving software is to make it easier for the user to accomplish some worthwhile task.
I agree that building an encyclopedia is our goal. But let's think hard about the opportunity cost imposed against that goal by the restrictions of cyberspace. There is no such thing as a smile, nod, or wave here, and no intonation or body language; every communication must be explicit. This is unnatural and unhealthy, and it isn't the way we are trained from birth to collaborate with each other. It may cost us immeasurably in terms of frustrated contributors who leave the project and even direct their energies against us. Melchoir (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not unnatural or unhealthy for a site to spend time on a focused goal rather than adding social networking-esque features that push pointless pleasantries on people and saying it's "unnatural or unhealthy" to not do so is basically an ad hominem argument.
Whatsmore, I'm sure any thanks you wish to give would be heartily received and much more appreciated given by a hand-written message on a talk page rather than in an impersonal template that's only a click a way. In my experience, one-click generic impersonal 'thank you's are largely pointless, useless, and are likely to be spammy (especially if defaulted to "on" for IP users) and rather than fostering any community they do the opposite. -Halo (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's probably not unusual for a website to eschew pleasantries, no. By "unnatural" I mean that it's far outside the norm in everyday life. Imagine your favorite workplace or real-life charity organization. Now take away the personal contact. How effective will it be in accomplishing its goals? We may think that we don't miss those little things here at Wikipedia, but I strongly doubt that human psychology is that flexible, hence "unhealthy".
Your point about hand-written messages is well taken. All I can say is that this mechanism is underutilized, and it may help to supplement it.
I'm curious about your experience. What community have you seen where a similar approach has backfired? Melchoir (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
But the Internet very much isn't everyday life, and trying to make it so is doomed to failure and I also think trying to find a technical solution to a social problem is inherently misguided. Imagine the 7th most popular website in the world all written voluntarily by strangers who don't need pleasantries - wait, that's what we already have. I'm also wondering if there should be Wikistalking concerns, and 'facetious' thankyous that could ruin the indented message.
For the record, the websites I'm talking about are general forum-based websites since 'thank' modules addon are avaliable for vBulletin. On these sites, it's hardly used and really serves no real benefit to anybody.
Oh, btw, implementation should be relatively trivial - user_newtalk is similar, you'd just need a new table with user_id/user_ip (both incoming and outgoing), rev_id and a timestamp, and a page to send/receive. An ideal implementation that uses AJAX to send "thankyous" might make things a little bit more fiddly, but still nothing too difficult. I do think you'd face an uphill battle trying to get it included into Mediawiki proper though. -Halo (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting... I can certainly imagine the feature going unused in a forum environment, where if you're involved in a thread, you're more likely to respond directly anyway.
Possibly by restricting thank-yous to be given once per day or something, they would increase in perceived value, so they don't seem facetious, while also making stalking and other abuse much more difficult? Melchoir (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I hereby thank all edits made with good intentions. –Pomte 01:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel like there are already so many ways to thank people...Barnstars, smilies, talk page messages, A Cup of Tea and a Sit Down, other awards...and that adding another, easier and more obvious ones wouldn't make a difference in how often people thank other users. If you can think of a rationale for why we need a specific way to thank people for specific edits, I'd love to hear it.Bardofcornish (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that we need a feature like this. I just think it could help, the reason being that I perceive a sort of band gap, if you will, at the low end of the spectrum of possible ways to thank people, a gap that isn't nearly so wide out in real life. Surely offering the feature would make some kind of a difference in how often people thank other users. There's a real danger that it would be a negative difference in terms of quality of communication, and I concede that the risk might well outweigh the reward. But come along with me on the principle! Melchoir (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars, {{smile}}s and the like are great, but they're not something that needs to be built into the wiki. I'd say that a monobook.js script that added a smile to a user's talk page on a single click (that you could tweak to deliver it the way you want it) would be a better outlet than a one-size-fits-all hard-coded tool that would either be under- or over-used. But hey, thanks for the suggestion -- RoninBK T C 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Melchoir, for thinking creatively about ways to thank people. Maybe somebody could create a userscript (as a new feature of Popups, for example) that would provide a "thank" button and would automatically create a talk page message containing a link to the edit, a few words ("Thank you for..."), your signature, and allow you to add a few personal words to the message ("best edit I've seen all day" or "I love statistics" or whatever) to make the message meaningful. Actually, maybe just a message containing a link to the edit, and then it could be used not only for thank messages but for any kind of message about the edit. I think the personalized words, individual for each thank message, are important.
Alternatively, it could be a "rate this edit" type of feature, such as some websites have, where the edit will have four-and-a-half stars displayed next to it or something to show what proportion of readers have indicated that they like it. People could generate statistics about the ratings of their edits. People could become overly obsessed about numbers, though.
I agree that opt-out is essential for a proposal like Melchoir's: people may enjoy the first few thank messages but soon might not want to spend any time on them, not even a second. I wouldn't want them to be necessarily limited to only appearing once, though. That should be configurable by the recipient. Some of us like to read thank messages more than once. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal on principle; my anti-social side will show much more prominently if people start thanking others and I simple go on with my business. I cannot allow this to happen, no siree. It's too bad for my public image. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 04:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hah! Well, anyway, it looks like this is one of those things where everyone has an honestly good idea to contribute, the sum of which implies no change. Such is software, I suppose? Melchoir (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia mobile

Hello everyone! I spent a few weeks at the hospital and I realized how Wikipedia mobile was important. There are several initiatives started everywhere, but nothing concrete and nothing multilingual. I wondered if it was appropriate to start a central page at m:Wikipedia mobile, to consolidate these discussions and pages.

Thanks for guiding me! Antaya (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you just go ahead and do so; you'll need a Meta login, of course. Do note that Meta rules are different than en.Wikipedia rules (I'm sure you know that); in some sense, the better place to ask is really m:Babel, the equivalent of the village pump here.
I also suggest that you not attempt to "consolidate" the information on other pages by doing a merge and setting up redirects, but rather create a page that points to, and summarizes, existing options and discussions. That would mean using summary style sections in some cases. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have bureaucrats...

...when Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.4 (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What a perfectly formed rhetorical question, I would feel like I am spoiling it by trying to answer. If only we still had BJAODN... -- RoninBK T C 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an inside joke. Jehochman Talk 13:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The bureaucrats here do not really fit their name. They just have a few special buttons that allow them to give special permissions to users such as adminship and bureaucratship. They also can flag users as bots and rename users. They are not bureaucrats in the way that one usually thinks of a bureaucrat as being. Captain panda 04:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
When we say Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, we're talking about the Wikipedia environment as far as its users are concerned. The wiki itself, however, on the technical end, does have a structure with clear rules and hierarchy. That's required in order to keep everything working correctly -- Without it/them, anyone could rename their account and assign permissions. Bureaucrats maintain that technical structure, so the name is accurate. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:50, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Supreme Court

Do you think that a category for Unanimous Supreme court decisions would be cool? I mean, Wikipedia is a learning environment at the same time as a research environment, and it would foster a lot of learning. And that's good for society. What do you think? --Heero Kirashami (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To me it sounds like an odd thing to categorize by. Maybe you would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. You can make suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The category is really "Notable U.S. Supreme Court decisions that were unanimous", since non-notable cases don't have articles. Probably a pretty small number of cases. (My first reaction was to consider this a WP:NOT violation - indiscriminate collection of information - but upon reflection it's actually an interesting question as to how many of these cases were unanimous.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:United States Supreme Court cases is large. I'm sure many of them were unanimous. I just don't think it sounds suited for a category. But Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases would be a better place to discuss this. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia proposal: Move to talk page

Some articles have various edit wars over the length of trivia dedicated to a given subject. One policy could be implemented to have trivia appear in its own box in the discussion page. This would remove long lists from the article body.

It would be a really, REALLY bad idea to codify this into policy directly, without at least spending some time as a guideline. -- RoninBK T C 03:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The "length" of trivia sections shouldn't be a concern (ie. they shouldn't be shortened just because someone thinks they're too long). We have some pretty descriptive guidance already as to which items should be kept, integrated into other sections, or removed. Each individual item should be decided on its own merits. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:42, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Lightweight thanking mechanism in article histories

We should consider adding a lightweight, easy-to-use mechanism by which readers can quickly thank other editors for their edits. I envision a new button in article histories, diff pages, watchlists, etc.:

  • (cur) (last) 20:03, 2 March 2008 EditorFoo (Talk | contribs | thank | block) (60,782 bytes) (→Historical rivalries) (rollback | undo)

which alerts the recipient in a manner similar to a new user talk message:

These users would like to thank you for your edits: EditorBar (for Harvey Wallbanger (cocktail)) EditorBaz (for Lady and the Tramp)

Of course, the actual box would be far less ugly.

Suggested details:

  • A thank-you does not become part of the recipient's talk page, the article history, or any other public record; it is visible only to recipient, and it is displayed only once.
  • A thank-you does not come with an additional comment. It must not turn into a private messaging service. Custom messages will have to be left on user talk pages, as usual.
  • There should not be a button to thank all editors of an article for the article's existence. Thanking for a given edit is more personal.
  • There should be no published guideline instructing editors when to use the feature; editors should understand that it is left to personal preference, so not being thanked for an edit doesn't necessarily mean anything.
  • IP addresses may give or receive thanks just like users with accounts.
  • The frequency with which thank-yous are delivered may need to be throttled to a maximum of once per hour or so, in order to avoid intrusive floods of messages, originating from edits to a particularly widely-read article.

Motivation: for various reasons, my recent editing pattern is such that most of my interactions with other users involve offering criticism or responding to it. I try to be civil and constructive, and there's no replacement for that, but the fact is that I'm passing on a lot of opportunities for strictly positive interaction. It feels awkward to leave a note on another user's talk page just to thank them for an edit to some article on my watchlist. Perhaps this makes me a terrible community member, but let's stipulate for a moment that it is an understandable affliction that probably happens to other editors as well. I would like to provide more positive feedback and encouragement, so if this proposal were implemented, I for one would use it all the time.

Obviously this proposal, if agreed upon, would require a software change. Melchoir (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:Kindness Campaign and Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club. Melchoir (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, if users would be able to opt out from receiving thank-yous or limit them to a certain number per hour/day (kinda like what you suggested but customisable). Users should also be able to hide the "thank you" button in page histories and diffs.
I might still prefer to just leave a note, but it's up to each Wikipedian whether to use the feature or not. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the worst idea I've seen here in a while. Requires major technical changes, no suggested opt-out mechanism and is absolutely and utterly useless at building an encyclopedia. IMO, if you want to thank somebody, do it by hand and don't use stupid templates. -Halo (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
An opt-out mechanism is easy to design; just put it in user preferences. And the technical changes would be worth it. The whole point of improving software is to make it easier for the user to accomplish some worthwhile task.
I agree that building an encyclopedia is our goal. But let's think hard about the opportunity cost imposed against that goal by the restrictions of cyberspace. There is no such thing as a smile, nod, or wave here, and no intonation or body language; every communication must be explicit. This is unnatural and unhealthy, and it isn't the way we are trained from birth to collaborate with each other. It may cost us immeasurably in terms of frustrated contributors who leave the project and even direct their energies against us. Melchoir (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not unnatural or unhealthy for a site to spend time on a focused goal rather than adding social networking-esque features that push pointless pleasantries on people and saying it's "unnatural or unhealthy" to not do so is basically an ad hominem argument.
Whatsmore, I'm sure any thanks you wish to give would be heartily received and much more appreciated given by a hand-written message on a talk page rather than in an impersonal template that's only a click a way. In my experience, one-click generic impersonal 'thank you's are largely pointless, useless, and are likely to be spammy (especially if defaulted to "on" for IP users) and rather than fostering any community they do the opposite. -Halo (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's probably not unusual for a website to eschew pleasantries, no. By "unnatural" I mean that it's far outside the norm in everyday life. Imagine your favorite workplace or real-life charity organization. Now take away the personal contact. How effective will it be in accomplishing its goals? We may think that we don't miss those little things here at Wikipedia, but I strongly doubt that human psychology is that flexible, hence "unhealthy".
Your point about hand-written messages is well taken. All I can say is that this mechanism is underutilized, and it may help to supplement it.
I'm curious about your experience. What community have you seen where a similar approach has backfired? Melchoir (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
But the Internet very much isn't everyday life, and trying to make it so is doomed to failure and I also think trying to find a technical solution to a social problem is inherently misguided. Imagine the 7th most popular website in the world all written voluntarily by strangers who don't need pleasantries - wait, that's what we already have. I'm also wondering if there should be Wikistalking concerns, and 'facetious' thankyous that could ruin the indented message.
For the record, the websites I'm talking about are general forum-based websites since 'thank' modules addon are avaliable for vBulletin. On these sites, it's hardly used and really serves no real benefit to anybody.
Oh, btw, implementation should be relatively trivial - user_newtalk is similar, you'd just need a new table with user_id/user_ip (both incoming and outgoing), rev_id and a timestamp, and a page to send/receive. An ideal implementation that uses AJAX to send "thankyous" might make things a little bit more fiddly, but still nothing too difficult. I do think you'd face an uphill battle trying to get it included into Mediawiki proper though. -Halo (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting... I can certainly imagine the feature going unused in a forum environment, where if you're involved in a thread, you're more likely to respond directly anyway.
Possibly by restricting thank-yous to be given once per day or something, they would increase in perceived value, so they don't seem facetious, while also making stalking and other abuse much more difficult? Melchoir (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I hereby thank all edits made with good intentions. –Pomte 01:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel like there are already so many ways to thank people...Barnstars, smilies, talk page messages, A Cup of Tea and a Sit Down, other awards...and that adding another, easier and more obvious ones wouldn't make a difference in how often people thank other users. If you can think of a rationale for why we need a specific way to thank people for specific edits, I'd love to hear it.Bardofcornish (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that we need a feature like this. I just think it could help, the reason being that I perceive a sort of band gap, if you will, at the low end of the spectrum of possible ways to thank people, a gap that isn't nearly so wide out in real life. Surely offering the feature would make some kind of a difference in how often people thank other users. There's a real danger that it would be a negative difference in terms of quality of communication, and I concede that the risk might well outweigh the reward. But come along with me on the principle! Melchoir (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars, {{smile}}s and the like are great, but they're not something that needs to be built into the wiki. I'd say that a monobook.js script that added a smile to a user's talk page on a single click (that you could tweak to deliver it the way you want it) would be a better outlet than a one-size-fits-all hard-coded tool that would either be under- or over-used. But hey, thanks for the suggestion -- RoninBK T C 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Melchoir, for thinking creatively about ways to thank people. Maybe somebody could create a userscript (as a new feature of Popups, for example) that would provide a "thank" button and would automatically create a talk page message containing a link to the edit, a few words ("Thank you for..."), your signature, and allow you to add a few personal words to the message ("best edit I've seen all day" or "I love statistics" or whatever) to make the message meaningful. Actually, maybe just a message containing a link to the edit, and then it could be used not only for thank messages but for any kind of message about the edit. I think the personalized words, individual for each thank message, are important.
Alternatively, it could be a "rate this edit" type of feature, such as some websites have, where the edit will have four-and-a-half stars displayed next to it or something to show what proportion of readers have indicated that they like it. People could generate statistics about the ratings of their edits. People could become overly obsessed about numbers, though.
I agree that opt-out is essential for a proposal like Melchoir's: people may enjoy the first few thank messages but soon might not want to spend any time on them, not even a second. I wouldn't want them to be necessarily limited to only appearing once, though. That should be configurable by the recipient. Some of us like to read thank messages more than once. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal on principle; my anti-social side will show much more prominently if people start thanking others and I simple go on with my business. I cannot allow this to happen, no siree. It's too bad for my public image. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 04:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hah! Well, anyway, it looks like this is one of those things where everyone has an honestly good idea to contribute, the sum of which implies no change. Such is software, I suppose? Melchoir (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia mobile

Hello everyone! I spent a few weeks at the hospital and I realized how Wikipedia mobile was important. There are several initiatives started everywhere, but nothing concrete and nothing multilingual. I wondered if it was appropriate to start a central page at m:Wikipedia mobile, to consolidate these discussions and pages.

Thanks for guiding me! Antaya (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you just go ahead and do so; you'll need a Meta login, of course. Do note that Meta rules are different than en.Wikipedia rules (I'm sure you know that); in some sense, the better place to ask is really m:Babel, the equivalent of the village pump here.
I also suggest that you not attempt to "consolidate" the information on other pages by doing a merge and setting up redirects, but rather create a page that points to, and summarizes, existing options and discussions. That would mean using summary style sections in some cases. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding a noindex magic word

I propose adding an extra magic word that will give the author(s) the option to have a page not indexed (anymore) by searchbots. I think this is useful especially for userpages, where people add information about themselves, sometimes with a username that is their actual name, or a name closely related to them. Often this userpage will be very high in the search results. Because of the overall pagerank of Wikipedia and the optimalisation for searchengines it will sometimes even come above someone's personal homepage or blog. To give these people an option to maintain their userpage and username but not have the page indexed I propose a __ (or something like this) magic word (note that Google will also remove a page from its search results when it encounters a robots noindex tag). Also this might be used for administrative pages that have explicitely no use of being indexed or found by searchengines. Another example: Someone writes an article about a new company, it gets deleted. What remains is the page where deletion is discussed, also these pages do very well in search results, which might be very unlucky for the owner of this company, but has not much use for Wikipedia. I could give many more examples where this could be useful, but I think you get the point. Freestyle 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the ability to turn off indexing for selected pages, or simply adding noindex to the entire User: and User talk: namespaces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This might create another opportunity for edit warring in contentious situations. Wouldn't it be better to use noindex on all User, User talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk spaces? Jehochman Talk 12:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this would cause too much edit warring, because either it's just plain obvious not to have a certain page indexed, or in case of ones userpage the user is the only one to decide it. Freestyle 13:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about adding it to the WP/WT namespaces. I've used google before to find a policy page when i couldn't find the exact page through wiki searching. --Evan ¤ Seeds 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion discussions should already be excluded by our robots.txt at http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
User and user talk sounds good, at the discretion of the user themselves. Wouldn't recommend extending it to WP. It could be off by default, but if this is so users should probably be given the option to switch it back on if they wish to (maybe they want to be found?). Richard001 (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with putting noindex on an entire namespace altogether (e.g. User: or User talk:) is that it makes it harder for when you do want to search it for administrative purposes, since the built in search engine isn't that good. What I would support though, is being able to noindex individual pages. However, this should not be done with a magic word, since there is too much potential for abuse - if a vandal noindexed an obscure mainspace article, this would damage the encyclopedia and there is likely to be some delay in getting it indexed by search engines again. I think this should be done as a separate database field that is restricted to, say, admins and/or the user associated with the user page. Tra (Talk) 20:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, someone writing cruft in an obscure mainspace article is less likely to be reverted than someone writing "", which is machine readable and any bot can sniff out. Besides, the phase3 parser could choose to not turn it into a <meta> when the page is in mainspace. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A related idea: I normally create articles in a user sandbox, then when they are ready create them in mainspace. I sometimes do the same when editing an existing page. It would be useful in such a case to turn off Categories while in the sandbox. I could add the categories but not have them show up in a category. Yes, I know that I can add a leading colon but that doesn't work when a transcluded template adds a category. If the NOINDEX word meant don't index, don't categorize, etc. that would be helpful. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been raised before, of course, and nothing ever came from it. I was in favour then and I'm still in favour now. Tra's suggestion makes the most sense. Adrian M. H. 14:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_21&oldid=1149968876"