This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey Jayen466/Archives/2011/November! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 14:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm trying to get some info regarding the wikipedia page on Ola Rotimi. I noticed you had edited it sometime in August. There is a section that lists "ebooks" by Ola Rotimi, but I could not find ebooks anywhere for him. Do they exist?

Thanks. Biodun Rotimi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biodunr ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I can't find them in the obvious places (amazon, Google ebooks) either, but they do seem to exist: [1], e.g. [2], [3] etc. Best, -- J N 466 23:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to request that you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Nobel Peace Prize/archive3‎. The nomination doesn't seem to be attracting much interest for reasons I cannot fathom. Anyway, as I'd ideally like to put it up for TFA soon, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look and perhaps comment as to its meeting FAC or not. I've asked others to review the prose and other aspects, but for all the controversy it's generated, I'd appreciate it if you could examine the article from an NPOV perspective. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do. -- J N 466 16:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[4] (Since it might get lost in that wall of emotion.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 13:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not read everything on that page and did not have a correct feel for the context in which you wrote. Thanks for your work there. I'll keep looking in. -- J N 466 16:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466, if you disagree with others, rational and courteous argument is the correct response. Instead you have resorted to making offensive remarks on WP:ANI about those with whom you disagree. Please could you refactor those comments? If you genuinely believe that users have been editing tendentiously, please make a detailed list with diffs and file a separate report on WP:ANI. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 08:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, can you help me find a number of suitable reliable sources (re: Muhammad) on the proportion of veiled to flame to unveiled images created of Muhammad? And if we can find similar sources for such proportions in Islam as well, that would be extra helpful. I read what you wrote on the Images talk page, and if we can well cite a valid argument, I am definitely for revisiting the proportions of the various representations on that page. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/ _CN 05:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not just a question of the proportion of veiled/flame to unveiled images; the predominant proportion I feel we should be concerned about is the proportion of abstract (e.g. calligraphic) vs. pictorial representations. My understanding is that there is a great wealth of calligraphic, pictographical and symbolic representations, and that these vastly outnumber pictorial ones. (Also note [5].) The reason is that in Islamic tradition, Muhammad is conceived of as possessing a dual nature; his physical being vs his inner essence, and it is the latter which is religiously significant and thus the typical object of (abstract) portrayal. Our article doesn't get that across.

Within the narrow field of pictorial representations, Christiane Gruber seems to be the foremost authority, but I haven't as yet found that kind of numerical breakdown in her works. She merely says that veiled depictions predominate from about 1500. Cheers, -- J N 466 05:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'll do some digging tomorrow (starting there) to see if I can come up with a concise argument for changing the balance to something more appropriate. If I can dig up enough stuff, maybe I can come up with a compelling argument. Yeah, as I guess you can see, I really don't care what images are there (0, 1, 100, palm trees, coffee (I like coffee))... just that they fit within WP:AllSortsOfPolicies that apply - and apparently, from what you are pointing out, they do not. Heh, kinda ironic, but had you started the whole image/RfC discussion on the image talk page, I have a feeling the results would have been quite different than the walls-o-text currently there. Even more ironic is I think it would minimize the objections as well.

Anyway, I keep saying I'm getting offline to go to bed... this time I'm seriously going to try. See ya on the intertubes tomorrow or so, and thanks! Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/ _CN 06:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting (perhaps) question

Since this is a biography of a religious figure (and not an article on religion that mentions a religious figure), how do we (the community) balance (a) religious art, (b) Muslim art, (c) worldwide perceptions to come up with something applicable? I'd posit that in an article solely about the religious aspects, (or one discussing the differences between a-c above) that weight should be given to only (a) for the religious section - but in a biography (albeit about a religious figure), how do we find the correct balance? I'm beginning to suspect that neither side of the coin is the correct answer, and we must figure out how to keep the coin standing on edge. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/ _CN 18:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Started a stub! Seems like that is the more common spelling in English. There's a good article in tr.wiki, but Google Translate does a pretty crappy job so I'll have to leave the translation to a native speaker... Calliopejen1 ( talk) 16:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll do some more work on it ... -- J N 466 18:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

From JW talk ... it would be surprising to most of those who turn up at the Muhammad images page to object, who have no knowledge of the Islamic traditions of such depictions, and frequently assert that it is absolutely impossible that the artists were Muslim, they must have been Chinese or Jewish (for some reason never Christian). Johnbod ( talk) 05:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, curious, although it makes psychological sense in a way, given Christianity's hostility towards Islam. I appreciate that things are not as clear-cut as some sources make out to be, especially when looking at Iran; I was surprised to find this for example. Cheers. -- J N 466 09:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On 8 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hilya, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a hilya (example pictured) in Islamic calligraphy contains a description of the prophet Muhammad? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hilya.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Over here where we don't detract from the original discussion, a quick thought:

We reflect reliable sources coverage. We don't reflect all aspects of reliable sources and we should be wary before assuming that how some other point is handled in RS means we should slavishly aim to follow the same way.

To take simple and occasionally laughable examples (I'm sure you can think of others), if the only RS coverage had no images we wouldn't say "our article mustn't have images either"... if it was a topic only covered in French language sources we wouldn't say our article must only be written in French... if the topic was only covered in paper sources we wouldn't exclude it because our writing is electronic... if coverage was only in new media we wouldn't require our article to adopt a media style to match the RS it was reported in, and so on. The same for images, if sources use line-art, non-free images, black and white, or a caucasian person as subject, we wouldn't necessarily copy that, we might show photos, xrays, free images, color and no bias as to ethnicity.

RS is our standard for reporting facts and information. When it comes to presentational methods we are entitled to not be bound by how the topic was presented, which may have been media attention grabbing, marketing, academic study, popular information, or many other styles rather than our NPOV style, and may have not been chosen with a view to educational and knowledge-sharing value in the sources it appeared. It may have been designed for a different audience, different media, or editorial decisions made to satisfy different issues. So I don't agree with a view that how media is presented or accompanying images or other layout choices should be guided necessarily by RS. We have our educational goals, media, and audience; other types of RS have theirs. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 11:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of these examples have occurred to me as well, of course. This does not invalidate the principle that we should strive for the sort of presentation that is customary in quality sources covering the relevant topic (or even genre of topics if sources are scarce), just as we do for text, because that is what we are about. In 99% of cases, there isn't a problem, and our image policies and guidelines and consensus process work well, producing results that are consistent with presentations in reliable sources. When it comes to contentious cases though that divide the community, like the mammoth discussion about the goatse image a few years back, we should do a reality check and look at practices in reliable sources covering the field. Doing so is consistent with our fundamental content principles, and more likely to be productive than arguments based on personal likes and dislikes. I was not around when policies like WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV were introduced, but I imagine one reason why they were introduced was to have an objective way of settling disputes about what an article should or should not say. -- J N 466 12:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jayen466/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

-- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 03:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've sent you a reply. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 04:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that Cirt has pretty much left the topic, I think that the number of editors, if any, interested in adding any relevant material from Reitman's Inside Scientology book to articles is probably few and far between. I can access a copy of it, but wonder whether you, who have a rather different view on the subject than I do, would be interested in maybe helping balance out anything I think to add. John Carter ( talk) 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, John, that would be fine. I don't have the book, but could cross-check anything you add against the scholarly literature. By the way, a book by Hugh Urban was published recently by Princeton University Press [6]; I got myself a copy and it seems quite a useful book, as Urban spoke to and is informed by both sides in the dispute and is pretty up to date. -- J N 466 21:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I've seen favorable reviews of the book myself. I don't know immediately if I have as ready of access to it, but if it is available I could try to go through it as well. John Carter ( talk) 21:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good news, there is actually [a really good review of both books here. Here is the thing about these two books, they are very middle ground in they're approaches. Between those two and James R. Lewis' Scientology (book), all scholarship needs now is for CoS to allow ethnographers into Sea Org. I think if we can integrate all three of those book into all the Scientology articles, we can fix most of the problems that have been plaguing them for years. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 17:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's a really great link. Thanks for posting it, RA. -- J N 466 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

[7] -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 17:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- J N 466 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayen,

It's probably past-due for referring this images issue to ArbCom. I see no hope of this discussion going anywhere except around the drain; there has been absolutely no intellectual movement in the discussion on Jimbo's page (much less anywhere else). I'm hesitant to start that procedure, though, because if I do it will become a vicious, bloody free-for-all (and no, that's not an exaggeration; that's the most probable outcome). If you concur that it's the proper move, then I'll gird my loins and wade in regardless, but I don't want to do it unless I'm sure it's the proper move to make. Your thoughts would be appreciated. -- Ludwigs2 04:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think arbcom will help at this juncture, Ludwigs2; it's still primarily a content dispute. Let's see how the discussion develops. Best, -- J N 466 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I bow to your wisdom. -- Ludwigs2 20:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What are your opinions on something Anthony and I discussed a few days ago: User talk:Anthonyhcole#Didactic value? Reso lute 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a framework we can start from. But there is one statement of yours that I disagree with: "I don't judge merit on the basis of what some people find offensive. And I cannot because to do so would violate Wikipedia's core policy of NPOV in my view." Judging by that, you see NPOV as prescribing that you should be indifferent to offence caused. That is not what NPOV is about. If you read through NPOV, you'll find it has very little to say about offensiveness. The only statements that comment on offensiveness are these:

1. NPOV says (in the linked FAQ) that offensive, but notable views should be neutrally described and attributed to those holding them.
2. NPOV says that in matters of religion, "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use [words like fundamentalism or mythology] only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader."

What NPOV is primarily about is presenting all significant viewpoints, and presenting them in strict proportion to their prominence. My argument is not based on offensiveness at all (even though NPOV considers it in matters of religion), but on due weight and the accuracy of our religious scholarship. Miniatures of Muhammad are a minority practice in the reception of Muhammad. They're rare. Such images were never displayed in public places of worship. The reason is that Islam maintains that God is more important than his messenger, and God is the only one deserving of worship. "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his messenger" is the Islamic profession of faith. So Muhammad's words, believed to represent the message of God, are what Islam is all about; Muslims would not worship a man. There are a thousand mosques that have Muhammad's words from the Quran inscribed or displayed on their walls for every figurative image of him. As it stands, the article is inaccurate and inconsistent with NPOV, which says, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." The standard view in Islam is that images of Muhammad are inappropriate. It's totally different in that respect from Christianity or Buddhism, and our article ought to reflect that. Images in the European reception section are not affected by that argument, and I don't have any quarrel with the image in that section. Nor would this argument apply in articles specifically about depictions of Muhammad, or Persian miniatures, where the images would automatically be in scope. Does that make clearer where I'm coming from? -- J N 466 18:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You are mostly arguing a side point. My point wrt NPOV was that the "they are offensive" argument is not compelling to me. The arguments you make regarding prominence are valid editorial reasons to modify, relocate or remove various images, and consequently are the best way forward, imo. The big issue I have with your argument is that lack of prominence does not mean we need to reduce the number of depictions to virtually nil. It only means that we need to ensure our image captions and the depictions section appropriately educate the reader. From that basis, I find it valuable to include all three types of historical Muslim depictions: unaltered, veiled and "flamed". My suggestion on Anthony's talk page is to combine an unaltered and veiled image into one collage in the depictions section, and leave the image depicting Muhammad as a Flame in the article body. This would effectively reduce the number of Muslim-created images from 5 to 2 (3 depictions total) - and two of those would be in the depictions section where the caption and prose can both be used to state that such imagery is uncommon and note when it held the highest prominence. There are no such restrictions on imagery for western historians, so adding a second western image to that section seems viable and proper. End result, when coupled with an overall reduction in images (26 is too many, imnsho), would be two Muslim and two western images, combined for a total of five depictions, only one of which would be in the "main body". That is really what I was hoping to get opinion on. Regards, Reso lute 19:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I was in a rush and went off on a tangent rather than reading the discussion you were having with Anthony carefully to the end. I do find the many figurative images in the main body of the article jarring. Moving some of them to the Depictions section would be helpful. I presume File:Muhammad destroying idols - L'Histoire Merveilleuse en Vers de Mahomet BNF.jpg is the one that would be in the body text. Is that correct? Showing two pictures, one veiled, one unveiled, side by side, and explaining the later custom for veiling Muhammad's face in the caption, sounds like an educationally sound idea. Which images would you propose using? A second European image in the European reception section sounds okay to me. Regards, -- J N 466 20:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why you find them jarring? No disrespect or implications meant. There's a particular article where some of the content, and the "pretty wrapper" attempts really annoy me (no, not this one, I've got no feelings for or against the subject other than a massive curiosity to learn about it and other societal/religious views). Alas, much of it I've had to support. That aside, my reason for asking is knowing why you find them jarring may help to find a solution to it. As for collages, we did one here (check the infobox). There's also the "Gallery Strip" such as in the architecture section of that article (ie: possibly for the "Depictions..." sub-section), but personally I dont think adding a lot of images to that section would be the way to go. But maybe if not a collage (or in addition to one) a gallery strip might be helpful someplace? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/ _CN 20:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the contrast in visual styles. There is a mainstream Islamic (calligraphic) aesthetic that is very incompatible with these old images. Like chalk and cheese. (Thanks for the explanation of the collage idea I asked about. I got it in the end; I've done the same thing in the past.) Best, -- J N 466 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Without veil (1494–5)

With veil (1539–1543)

I brought up the idea of a gallery to Anthony, but he didn't think it would fit well with the depictions section. That's where the idea of a two-image collage came from, and yes, the Muhammad destroying the idols image was the one I figured for an upper section of the article. I can understand why someone looking at the image from a Muslim POV would find the current image placements jarring, but at the same time, the lack of depictions in the upper half of the article is likewise jarring to non-Muslim readers (as evidenced by the periodic complaints about the lack of a depiction in the infobox). The idols image is a good compromise for the body - It is still a visual depiction, which Western readers would find useful, but it also completely blots out Muhammad, which should be reasonable to many Muslims. Obviously some would still come by to register a complaint, but we can't help that. Our goal is to educate, and I think it valuable to use imagery to educate, even as we teach the reader that it is an uncommon represntation.

As to which images to use for my side-by-side collage, I admit to being a little stupified. By necessity, the two depictions would have to be shown at a lower resolution than they would if presented individually, or we would have to find images that we can crop without stripping any important context. I am open to suggestions. Reso lute 22:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayen: Ugh! That would be your reason. I had similar feelings about the images on Berber people - but of course, that was the objective there. But here's it's not. Do you think we can turn other sections into articles? Perhaps one with such an image? Then, with only a sub-section in the main, perhaps one less image - or a closer matching style for a replacement? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/ _CN 22:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci had suggested using File:Arrivée_de_Mahomet_à_La_Mecque-Ishâq_al-Nishâpûrî-1581.jpg. We could combine that with another earlier night journey image -- J N 466 22:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's helpful that the idol-destroying image is a flame one that really shows no features at all. My preference would honestly be to use that alone in the Depictions section, and leave the veiled/unveiled ones to the Depictions article. But doing the collage with an explanatory caption would at least fulfil a discernible educational purpose. Cheers, -- J N 466 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to use more depictions, but none of us will get everything we want out of this debate. I am hopeful that an arrangement such as this will be agreeable to most people involved. And like those two images. Those would be good examples, imo. Reso lute 23:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I can live with it, and am happy to defend it as a compromise. -- J N 466 00:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Time for a commercial break: [8] -- J N 466 00:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several images available of the Night Flight and we should be guided by sources. General text about the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad can be found in the chapter by Ernst Grube in his book with Marshak and Sims. A detailed account of the Night Flight can be found in Omid Safi's book. Useful text or guidance for text can also often be found on the Museum sites or the accompanying catalogues. Personally I would start improving the text in the main article Isra and Mi'raj, possibly adding a gallery there. There are two types of image, Those that appeared singly as a frontispiece to a Book of Kings, of which there are many examples. Then there is the Paris manuscript showing all the episodes. There is a case for adding some of these images to illustrate the prophets, the angels, paradise and hell. For the Muhammad article, I don't see any point in having a profusion of pictures as that just creates clutter. There could be two pictures from the Night Flight. The veiled image from the British Library and the other one of the images of Hell from the 1436 manuscript in the BNF, showing influences from the China and the Far East. As in Omid Safi's book, that manuscript could be more extensively used in the main article on the Night Journey. But it would seem the starting point is to improve the text in these two places, since there is no shortage of images. I also like the Mi'raj that the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA) has on display. Despite its quality, that could be placed in the gallery of the main article Isra and Mi'raj. Of other images, not of the Night Flight, the main ones seem to be the Black Stone and the Ship of Faith (in the Book of Kings). [9] [10] I don't see any problem in having a representative image with accompanying text in the Muhammad article. At the top the article, I think a rubric could be placed explaining that the article contains images of Muhammad and giving instructions for viewing the article without the images if desired. Otherwise, in many cases, as with the Ship of Faith, there are veiled images (BL) and unveiled images (MMA, Tehran). There seems to be no need to show both. Mathsci ( talk) 07:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There is also a 40 page article by Raya Shani, "Illustrations of the parable of the Ship of Faith in Firdausi's prologue to the Shahnama" in Shahnama Studies I. Mathsci ( talk) 10:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Merci. I'll have a look at the French article and these sources and do some work on this. -- J N 466 15:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, hope you're well. If you have the time, do you think you could look over the recent edits to Tahir Abbas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? I'm a bit stuck as to how V and BLP should be balanced in this case and think your opinion would be useful. Cheers SmartSE ( talk) 00:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented at the article talk page. -- J N 466 14:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The basic problem with your "due weight" argument is that Muhammad was a real historical figure who would be important even if there had been no Muslims since the 7th century. What Muslims think or don't think about him isn't even a proper focus of the article – these belong in Islam – and to the extent it's been one seriously mars the article, which should be a biography. As it happens, these depictions were created precisely to accompany – you guessed it – biographies of Muhammad. 67.168.135.107 ( talk) 06:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, these were biographies written by Muslims, and among biographies written by Muslims those that include figurative images represent a very small proportion indeed. Muslims generally prefer calligraphy to images. So if we are presenting Muslim depictions of Muhammad, we need to place most weight on the most ubiquitous type of depiction (i.e. calligraphy). Cheers, -- J N 466 17:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, calligraphy isn't a depiction. I would agree that they would not belong on an article Muslim reverence for Muhammad, or for that matter on Islam, for precisely the reasons you give. What I'm trying to point out is that Muhammad isn't in any way an Islamic concept; contemporary Muslim beliefs are at best an epilogue to the discussion of his life. 67.168.135.107 ( talk) 01:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My view is that if we're using mostly Islamic art to illustrate the article (which we do), then we should use typical examples of Islamic art. That's what reliable sources on Muhammad tend to do as well. Cheers, -- J N 466 02:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're doing a heck of a job @ Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Keep it up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- J N 466 12:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very nice use of your principle. And I see Jimbo's on board. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

- that the word jayen in Thai means 'calm heart'? As you have been to Thailand, you probably do. Used as expression on its own, it means 'Keep cool!' or 'Calm down!'. If you ever need any help or advice, instead of going straight to MetaWiki, you can always try asking me first on my Wikipedia talk page. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I can probably point you to the right place. Happy editing! -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a name worth living up to. :) My Thai never progressed much beyond Sawatdee khrap, but we did make luk chup the other day! As for the templates, I thought I heard Sue mention recently that there was a Foundation initiative underway to look at the wording and use of talk page templates, because they can come across as impersonal and unfriendly, especially to new users. So I was wondering whether there was a central wiki page where those discussions are happening. Best, -- J N 466 01:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed here. However, the WMF is involved because of the technical implementations required for the trial - the actual initiative is a Wikipdia one and I am involved in the trial. The actual wording of the templates being used in the trial is discussed here at Wikipedia. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I omitted to include the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Testing. Note however, that the current project concerns only user warnings, and not general information templates such as those used by AfC. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. Will have a look. -- J N 466 04:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, you will probably be able to guess which discussion I'm referring to. I'm not able to figure out a good place to interject this comment, although you can feel free to copy it appropriately:

Your suggestion that image use should be guided by prior usage in reliable sources is partially valid, in that we should always strive to follow the sources, however I feel that it fails to recognize the realities of building articles here, as opposed to the more traditional "editorial" environment which an online encyclopedia supplants. It is true that older and especially printed sources exercise restraint and selection in choice of images. Partly this is due to observation of "customer bias" as noted in that discussion. Partly too this is due to page-oriented editing choice, in that images should not overwhelm the text on any one page - we face the same choices here with "narrow waist" left and right-aligned images, image galleries, etc. but since we all have different browsers and screen resolutions, our concept of what a "page" of this encyclopedia looks like will vary reader by reader, so we can't adhere to print-publishing principles of "one or two per page" or such-like.

Additionally, and I think quite important, is that when considering the methods by which reliable sources have chosen in the past to select images, those sources have always had a major cost consideration. My (admittedly non-expert) understanding of typesetting is that including a colour plate is a big deal indeed. Black-and-white pages are run through a very simple print process where printing plate = printed page. Colour representations are much more complex, other than a simple green box around something, true-colour images require 4 passes (CMYK) through a press and even the most minor alignment errors can destroy the image visibility. The pages with colour then arrive as tip-ins to the collated document, with the attendant complications. Past technology thus dictated bias in image selection, on the lines of "as few as we can muster". Also, since almost every external source to date has been a commercial work, there is also the issue of needing to either pay a commercial photographer or license an image right from someone else. Wikipedia is somewhat unique in having access to a virtually unlimited pool of volunteer image acquisition. So long as those acquired images are free of non-commercial restrictions and/or have valid usage rationales, we can reproduce them at very close to zero cost. So there is a fundamental breakage of the previous paradigms of image inclusion.

This is not to say that your position is totally wrong, and I'm certainly not saying that we should indiscriminately include every image possible, editorial judgement will always be required. However I'm not comfortable with your suggestion that prior image use in reliable sources should be anything other than a secondary/contributing factor in selection here, since the publishing environment is radically different in this online work. Regards! Franamax ( talk) 03:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. What you say is true of certain genres of books (some academic books have no illustrations at all, for such reasons as you mention). On the other hand, consider that there have always been richly illustrated books; that even sparsely illustrated books containing just a dozen pictures give an indication of the most important types of imagery; that magazines and newspapers are routinely CMYK from beginning to end nowadays; and that more and more of the news sources we cite are actually news websites in exactly the same situation as we are in terms of not having to consider printing costs, and of being able to include audiovisual media. Even television programmes are reliable secondary sources and can inform image choice. On most topics, there is enough imagery floating about in secondary sources to make out what is a mainstream representation and what is not, and we should strive to make our presentation consistent with that. It's certainly a somewhat less exact science than composing a text summarising reliable sources, but the aim should be the same. Cheers, -- J N 466 03:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

On 24 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frightful Cave, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that archaeological excavations in Frightful Cave, in Coahuila, Mexico, recovered over 950 fibre sandals and the remains of an aged woman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frightful Cave. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady ( talk) 15:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 00:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Jayen466 - Sorry to write to you out of the blue, but you have been the only person supporting me in relation to the problems on my Wiki BLP. It is seriously damaging stuff, and I need some advice on how I can help matters - if you go to my own personal website you can email me from the bottom of my home page - I'd like to have a confidential discussion with you if I may - Dr Abbas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.2.210 ( talk) 09:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi J, this may perhaps be of interest to you? Matrix producer plans Muhammad biopic. Regards, eric. Esowteric+ Talk 09:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. :) Thank you very much. -- J N 466 13:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider withdrawing your message until after the 3 admins resolve the RfC? Editors have been trying to calm things down while we're waiting, and I'm concerned your message might stir the pot. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 04:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I hadn't followed discussions on the talk page these last few days, and hadn't meant it to be provocative. I would have withdrawn it gladly, but can't now, as there have been responses. -- J N 466 11:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. Seems like it didn't cause any problems, knock on wood. BTW, I see there's some excitement elsewhere on your talk page and may I say that there is Bullshit in Wikipedia and it is highly regarded, as evidenced by the ratings at the bottom of that article's page. In fact, it did a lot better than some science articles I worked on. Oh well. One can only try.  : ) Regards, -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

-- J N 466 18:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

However, I must confess that I removed some bullshit from Manure. [11] : ( Shamefully yours, -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only commend you for your honesty in confessing your misdeeds, but I am nevertheless truly shocked. Just shocking. Diminishing the great store of our most prized content that many have laboured tirelessly to compile! -- J N 466 19:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[12] -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- J N 466 23:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Tahir Abbas. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Leaving a message on Jimbo's talk page will help to get more eyes on the situation. I left one on Scott MacDonald's a few days ago, as he's widely acknowledged in Wikipedia as a BLP expert, but he declined to respond. For the sake of openness, I also e-mailed HJMitchell, the admin who protected the article, and WhatamIdoing, another Wikipedian I respect, for their views and advice. Regards, -- J N 466 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. You tried Scott MacDonald because you expected he would support your approach; likewise Jimbo. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've angered you. I just want to be sure we are getting this one right. The small number of editors at the talk page are not representative of the wider community. They include several editors and IPs who have made very few edits to Wikipedia outside this topic area. -- J N 466 16:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You have your own vision of "right", and you're pulling out all the stops to push it. Again I say bullshit; it's not as if I've never encountered Scott Macdonald before -- it's perfectly obvious what you were trying to accomplish with that one. The right venue for bringing this to the attention of the community was BLPN. I had no trouble at all with the fact that you took it there. I even kept my mouth shut when you went to Scott. But now you've gone too far. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jay, I reported Mariusmw at WP:AN3 just before you did. You might want to revert your report and add anything to mine if there's something you want to say.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I just noticed and thought I was seeing double ... I'll add the additional diff and comment to your report. -- J N 466 01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

thx for your intercession. Do tell me when a newbie is getting bullied, I'd try and find time to help. You have found a way to make me feel better, Thanks. Do tell your wife that I intend to give her all my wages for the last twelve months from wikimedia (for my fancy title) by way of my apology. Sorry, I meant to say, I hope she is successful. I was joking with Sue that we ought to create a large template to put on the talk pages of people who use unfriendly templates. That's public record as that UK board meeting was web streamed. So ironic that I was then found guilty of that crime. wiki love 04:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. And we look forward to buying you that beer. :) -- J N 466 04:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I keep calling you Jay. Should I be calling you Jayen? I hate getting people's names wrong.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Either is fine. My actual name is Andreas. -- J N 466 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see that one coming, although it makes sense that you would have a German name based on your userboxes.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I never doubted you or your intentions, [13] regardless of whether I agreed or disagreed with your opinions. Just wanted to stop by and let you know that. :-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/ _CN 23:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

-- J N 466 23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind giving me a succinct statement of the problem you see with controversial image use here? I'll come back and ask about solutions later. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The problem you're identifying is we often end up with insensitive imagery. Why is that a problem? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several ways of answering that. They include the following:

• It causes ill-will towards this project, for no good reason (i.e. for nothing that could be said to have been done in the service of WP:V and WP:NPOV), so it's self-harming.
• If our illustrations depart from standards in reliable sources, we don't look like a reliable source. That makes readers take the project less seriously as a reference source, reducing potential good-will and support that would otherwise be available.
• Imagery that is needlessly and incongruously offensive reduces the number of people willing to stay long enough on a page to read and contribute to it, limiting both the project's readership (and thus its educational impact), and the number of people willing to become contributors (whose numbers are declining).
• Insensitive imagery that is not justifiable from the point of view of our basic content policies causes avoidable and needless emotional distress in readers. -- J N 466 18:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you like to, or do you mind if I, add this to User_talk:Anthonyhcole#Jayen466? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 00:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi J,

There's a guy editing Mughal-related articles using bare URLs to Google Books snippet view. Have advised him about using citations and link rot.

In the latest case, a query in a book "X says" produces 2 snippets out of maybe 90 mentions. I notice that some of his edits have article text about say army commanders and visible snippets returned are about something different entirely, like nuts, dried fruit and prostitutes :)

The editor has been accused of fakery, but is it possible that the search results returned to different users have some random element to them (which would make google snippet view even less verifiable) ?

Do you see what I see here User talk:Mughal Lohar#Aurangzeb, 27 November 2011, for example?

Regards, eric. Esowteric+ Talk 19:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

( edit conflict)

It's often possible to find a text match in a Google Books search which is shown as bold text in the Google Books search listing. However, if you click on the search hit and the book has snippet view only, the snippet shown will only be the nearest one available to the relevant passage that Google Books found. Sometimes you're lucky that your search string is in a displayable snippet, sometimes not. Generally, it doesn't make sense to link to a snippet display if the snippet doesn't show the relevant text. The book may well contain a relevant passage on that same page though. However, there is another thing that has to be said: if you haven't got the physical book, and you don't have a Google preview spanning several full pages in context, it is quite risky to add anything to a Wikipedia article just based on having seen a snippet, either in the Google Books search listing or in snippet view. Context may be all-important (the book may quote a discredited theory, or you may fail to realise that the whole passage is intended as humour, etc.). So it's not a way of working that should ever be used, except in the most straightforward cases (like finding a birth date in a reputable dictionary of biography with snippet view). These days, Amazon (linked to from Google Books) has Look Inside enabled for many books. Using both Google Books and Amazon in tandem is often worthwhile. -- J N 466 20:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Jayen. I knew you'd know the score. Esowteric+ Talk 20:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I quote you publicly on that, or is it for my eyes only, Jayen? Esowteric+ Talk 21:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the same thing elsewhere, and it's not just my view. You are welcome to link to this or quote it. Best, -- J N 466 21:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You're a star, Jayen. Have copied to user talk page, article talk page and AN/I. Esowteric+ Talk 09:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed there's another ongoing discussion about Snippet View at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Snippet_Views_-_Using_the_Result_Line_of_the_search_.2C_instead_of_the_Snippet_View_itself, if you're interested. Cheers, -- J N 466 13:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw your comments above quoted at ANI, and I was just coming here to suggest you join in the discussion at WT:CITE, but I see you've found it, though you don't seem to be interested in posting there? FWIW, I think it would be good if you gave your opinion there as well. My view is that if something does come up in snippet view, it is best to leave readers to search for it themselves. i.e. get a hard copy of the book, read the material in context, quote where needed, give the page number, and so on, and then, as a courtesy. consider providing other editors and readers with a link that lands them at the summary of the book which includes the "search inside this book" option. And then let other editors and readers make their own way from that point on. Essentially saying "if you want to verify this, either get a hard copy or do your own search". I'm very wary in general of linking to search results. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayen466,

Just saw the thread you started on AfC talk. Steven and I were actually just talking about running an AfC template test! I responded there, but I also wanted to actively recruit you for our template testing task force. We could always use more ideas for new experiments and help with template redesign.

And let me take this opportunity to say that it was great meeting you and DracoEssentialis in London, and I hope to see you both again IRL soon! :) Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 23:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Maryana, and likewise! I will join that task force. Best, -- J N 466 20:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your nominations of Īhām and Remi Kanazi: Per the DYK rules "5. Review requirement" as you have more than five DYKs, you are required to review another nomination for each of your nominations. Until this is done, your nominations will not be able to be approved. Harrias ^talk 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I hadn't kept up to speed with the recent rule changes. -- J N 466 23:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)