(See above related discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Censorship and wikipedia)

See important discussion about this subject taking place at Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images [1]

This subject seems to have ignited recently at Talk:Breast#Image [2] and Talk:Breast#New Image [3] and at Talk:Nudity [4] and Talk:Nudity#Lead image [5] and at several other places.

1. (Exhibit A): "Frua" photo, is she also "meditating"?
2. (Exhibit B): "Woman meditating" photo
3. (Exhibit C): Woman sketch (from NASA plaque)
4. (Exhibit D) Color sketch of woman's front (US govt FDA sources)
5. (Exhibit E): Marilyn Monroe dressed for Playboy's first cover
6. (Exhibit F): Wax play on back.

Recently, when looking at User:Rickyrab's [6] home page I saw this image of a voluptuous brunnete (see Exhibit A) (Exhibit A): "Frua" photo, is she also "meditating"? taken from the German Wikipedia article on Frau [7] (" Woman" in the German language) only added Dec 1, 2004 by Benutzer:Wikibär (who is warned - in German - about his unseemly behavior on his talk page), see Benutzer Diskussion:Wikibär [8]. The English article on Woman does not have this photo, but it does have this one [9] of a woman "meditating" (pubic hair and all..is that what a "woman" is?) (see Exhibit B) (Exhibit B): "Woman meditating" photo Exhibit B is taken from "copyright" http://buecax.deviantart.com/ ..."deviantart"???

Is this a new " German" "trend" to flood Wikipedia with still life reality pornography? Perhaps we could live with the "sketch" (see Exhibit C) (Exhibit C): Woman sketch (from NASA plaque). But here are some big questions:

• Should a respectable online Encyclopedia that has young kids and teenagers reading its articles, have explicit sexy full-frontal nude photos of anyone?
• The pictures in question (Exhibits A and B) (Exhibit A): "Frua" photo, is she also "meditating"? (Exhibit B): "Woman meditating" photo are highly erotic and suggestive (if you don't think so, you may be too numb to appreciate their physical features...otherwise why not post photos of ugly women too, are they not women as well?) These graphic photos should NOT be used as an "example" of "a nude" or "a female" and such-like expressions of fake "NPOV" as I have heard from some folks on this subject. "NPOV" nipples anyone? Or, "NPOV" breasts or hips or pubic hair??? Beats me! (By the way, the articles on Nipples and Breasts have a good example of a fairly "acceptable" image of a woman (see Exhibit D) [10] of the kind you'd find in a doctor's office maybe.) (Exhibit D) Color sketch of woman's front (US govt FDA sources)
• Where are the voices of those who believe that images that belong in Playboy magazine and parading women like naked cattle is degrading to the dignity of women? (Even the Playboy article has the good sense to show [11] Marilyn Monroe with clothing on! (see Exhibit E) (Exhibit E): Marilyn Monroe dressed for Playboy's first cover: (and Marilyn Monroe surely was a woman too):
• Where will it end? Will we also be presented with sexy pictures of every sort all in the name of "teaching biology" (now where have we heard those lines before?) Or how about articles about Sado-masochism and "bondage", will there be photos too, or some real depictions of, say, Lesbianism??? Where do we draw the line???!!!
• So the $64,000- question is: Should Wikipedia be a "home" for all manner of pornography under the guise of pseudo "scholarship" and who gets to decide? Guys like Benutzer:Wikibär? Or real scholars and serious editors worthy of their honor, name and having enough self-respect and common sense, and human decency to know better than allow filth to flood Wikipedia?

It is time to set clear policy on excluding anything that is even border-line pornographic, pulling the plug on it and excluding it, and anything like it, because it is clearly unbefitting a genuine encyclopedia. IZAK 08:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a place for actual photographs in encyclopedias of the real world. I am a male, so have a penis, which I see everyday, so am not offended when I see an image of one in Wikipedia. You must also remember that your definition of what is obscene and 'flith' will differ from someone elses. For instance a person from Europe that a brief view of a nipple on US TV raised so much anger. However I am not arguing for these images in particular. Both seem to have been created to be erotic in someway. Maybe the images needed are like those seen on the BBCs 'Human Body'. And add a warning to the top of pages to tell people that there may be something on this page that will offend them. Evil Monkey → Talk 09:43, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

The only way to satisfy all users is to have some kind of filter out there so people don't have to look at naked women on Wiki if they don't want to (even if they hit "random page"). As an aside, the pictures shown here seem to be strongly influenced by men who do not respect the sexual boundaries that many women I know have. I think the presence of such pictures will discourage women and non-liberals from contributing to Wikipedia. Samboy 23:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everything that is "visible" to the "naked eye" should now be depicted in an encyclopedia? This makes no sense! IZAK 09:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I do not find myself offended. You may argue that we can use more neutral or less erotic images. But I really don't find these pictures immoral, filthy or obscene. To me, this is only nudity. This is not slaughter or abusing. -- Toytoy 10:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

ToyToy:Think in logical terms. IF this is only the start of Wikipedia, what will it look like once we post all imaginable and freely available explicit photos all erotica?

Absolutely. How would everyone feel if Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg was removed. It shows naked bodies, so by IZAK's definition it must be pornography. Evil Monkey → Talk

Do you think, by this same logic, that Wikipedia should have "tasteful" pictures of Lesbians making love too? IZAK 10:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We do have tasteful pictures of lesbians making love. More than one. Neener. grendel| khan 09:01, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Only goes to show that we are in an out-of-control spin that will land up with Wikipedia becoming a de facto porn site, or worse... IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Holocaust which was genocide, how that was related to pornography must have been a very interesting lecture in abstract " logic". Sexy women posing for cameras does not equal starved skeletons of victims (in Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg they actually look more like a bunch of broken matches than "humans"). In any case, I do NOT say that having pictures of naked dead Holocaust victims is acceptable. One can skip photos of dead Jews with (what was left of) their exposed shriveled genitals to realize what happened to them at the "hands" of the Nazis. And yes, the subjects of nudity and violence are connected when it comes to controlling how we expose YOUNG readers to life in an encyclopedia. There ARE better ways to doing this, and you know it! IZAK 10:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong but I always thought that Wikipedia was intended to be the largest and most comprehensive Encyclopaedia in the world, not a childish, prudish Bolderized one, or one politically or religiuosly censored? I would imagine that if IZAK looked in any medical encyclopaedia he would will find plenty of pictures that he might consider obscene. If a medical encyclopaedia might have such pictures why shouldn't Wikipedia? I don't know what all the fuss is about. Jooler 11:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am NOT saying cut out the topics! I AM saying be more careful with images you flash! We don't need to turn Wikipedia into a "nudist colony" of nude editors/students! IZAK 13:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Judge for yourself: Is this "pornography"? IZAK 11:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC):

Holocaust dead at Bergen Belsen May 1945 (the Germans were in a rush, so they couldn't burn the Jews' bodies.)

I fail to see any pornography in these 'exhibits'. What are you talking about? And why, why, Evil Monkey and IZAK, does it always have to be about the Holocaust, even in completely unrelated discussions? I agree that the "Frau" picture would be controversial by some standards on woman, but what's wrong with the Pioneer image? or the Marilyn cover? And why shouldn't there be a picture of a nipple on nipple?? ffs, people... dab (ᛏ) 11:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was not the one to drag the Holocaust into this discussion. (But come to think of it the Nazis would make the Jewish women - and men - strip...why?...the Nazis must have been perverts!) The main topics of discussion here are "Exhibits A and B", does it have to be "full motion action" to qualify as pornography? It can also be the "gentlest" and "quietest" of shots, the photos are very alluring and should be published in a venue other than Wikipedia. IZAK 11:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, I find it truly amusing that such a religious person like you is spending so much time hunting marginal porn in Wikipedia. -- Toytoy 11:26, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I guess you live and learn don't you! It's not amusing at all really. Someone has to do some "housekeeping" as so many people think that Wikipedia should become a kind of "free-for-all" with all sorts of ansavory photos and just "make peace with it". I am not scared that you may be shocked, I am more worried that Wikipedia, becuase it is so "welcoming" should NOT turn into a "red light district" in the name of "gathering information". Not everything needs to be graphic. What will we say on "Judgment Day" when we are asked: "How could you allow such things to co-exist?" Someone has to make the case, may as well be me. How else can we protect the truly innocent by the way? When working in the " sewage" there is always the risk of the smell, but it's important to make sure that the sewage and garbage MOVES O U T and NOT "back up" into the Wikipedia mainstream! IZAK 11:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, IZAK; but you're acting ridiculous. By your logic, that WP should be a large and serious encyclopedia, why should there not be a picture of nipples under "nipple"? You are in reality taking a puritan, holier-than-thou approach to this whole discussion, defining what is and what is not pornographic as per your own personal standards. You only have to draw the line a few inches longer than you do to defend women being forced to wear a burka, because hey, skin is filthy and pornographic. Simple question to end the discussion: Is all nudity pornographic? Does nudity per se have to be sexually arousing? If the answer is yes, then, and only then can you defend being against all nudity in an encyclopedia. Also, if the answer is yes, I suggest you seek councelling. However, if the answer is no, that all nudity is not neccerarily sexually arousing, then there is no way to claim it must be removed from WP. -- TVPR 11:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

TVPR: The discussion is NOT just about some "nipples". Your "logic" to defend obvious graphic pornographic images of FULLY (frontaly) naked women (now now, let's call a "spade a spade") falls flat. For example: Is all nudity pornographic? The answer is, it depends how and where it's presented: When Playboy presents it, it is, but when nude in the doctor's office it is NOT, so what is your point and where is your logic? I am not talking for myself, but if you have pre-pubescent children you don't want to expose them to a photo of a lady showing off her pubic hairs...now doesn't that make good sense? IZAK 12:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This stuff is nothing new really... nothing that you don't see like on a documentary on an African tribe or when the Discovery channel visits an African tribe. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia it is NOT the African "jungle" either, so don't get so jaded. IZAK 12:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

man, 'Exhibit A' is not even linked from any article. Just list it on images for deletion. If 'Exhibit B' is pornography, so is half Image:Nudemaja.JPG, and thousands of cherished works of art. If you think an image of an unclad human is 'sewage', I guess we cannot help you, but you can hardly expect others just accept such an opinion as a fact. dab (ᛏ) 11:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

dab:FYI:Exhibit A is being HOTLY debated in Talk:Breast and at Talk:Nudity (see below also), and it's ignited a call for "censorship" by some people. IZAK 12:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, I raised a similar issue with an adult content warning template. See The archive of the Village pump discussion for more information. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so let's try to create some sanity. It's never too late. IZAK 12:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that no matter how ridiculous you think IZAK's view is, he holds it genuinely, and he is not alone. Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone. Does that not include IZAK and others who find these pictures offensive? Personally, I'm all for the Frau and I don't mind pics of anything and everything. But Wikipedia is not about my POV, is it? Dr Zen 12:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• By the way, please do NOT make it sound like it's just "lil' ol' me" that has a problem with this. Sure if you like "Frau" you will love all that will come down the porno pipeline in double quick time into WP, all in the name of "objective knowledge" of course. IZAK 12:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we have been through this several times. I realize that IZAK is not the only man on earth to take offence at these pictures. However, if we could remove content just because some people object, WP would be empty soon. The criterion is npov, not unobjectionability. Now, I fail to see how an image of a nipple represents any sort of pov. a nipple is a nipple. dab (ᛏ) 12:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Er, but take a look, it's a lot more than a couple of "nipples" we're talking about here. IZAK

Have you considered how ridiculous this debate is when you consider the amount of free pornography avaliable on the internet and the amount of nudity shown on television? I don't think Wikipedia can be accused of being gratutious. : ChrisG 13:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia MUST NOT join that filthy bandwagon! It can serve as a better and more cultured example to the human race. Just because "everyone is doing it" does it mean that I too must become involved? Hang on to your hat there...! IZAK 13:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clearly there are some issues to discuss. As indicated, this is really part of a wider discussion on generally sensitive/offensive/disturbing images as currently being voted on at Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. For my part, its a question of boundaries. I'm sure there are images I wouldn't want to see on Wikipedia and I'm sure my boundaries aren't the same as those of other editors. As such we need to decide as a matter of collective policy where those boundaries should be, or come up with some technical solution such as image tagging and allowing an individual to set their own preferences as to which classes of image are visible.

A few other points of reference are;

• The argument at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored)
• We already have images of sadomasochism, in fact one of them is a featured picture.
• We also have images of slaughter at slaughterhouse. Although I'm not sure that's quite what User:Toytoy was actually worried about, I'm sure that some people would find them disturbing.
• Its difficult to come up with a policy which excludes images of full frontal nudity without harming articles such as Sandro Botticelli which shows his famous picture of the Birth of Venus. Of course there's then a range of decissions to make in other art subjects, including Erotic art.
• When reviewing the argument over which images to include at talk:clitoris, I checked a university level biology textbook I had to hand, and noticed that they did switch to using drawings in the style of Exibit D in their sex related topics.
• Whilst Exhibit B is copyright, it is actually licensed 'copyright free use' - provided attribution is given. Many of the images on WP are copyright - GFDL images are also copyright and require attribution, although it is a common misapprehension to think that GFDL images aren't copyright.
• If the principle concern is over what younger children might see, it may be possible to use a specifically child targetted fork similar to Simple as part of the solution (whilst also excluding some sensitive articles).

I also think it is useful to consider which images a conventional encyclopedia would include or exclude - though they have the advantage of firm editorial control without needing to arrive at a consensous for each and every controversial picture. -- Solipsist 14:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any problem with Exhibit A or Exhibit B but I do have to point out two things.

• First, we were all born naked, there are various studies which seem to show that the only problems with nudity are induced by overly prudish societies.
• Second, Think of the children. If'd I'd only had exhibit C when I was young, I'd have gone crazy. (I had those cutaway books that were closer to color versions of Exhibit B.)

-- Ssokolow 15:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, images of full nudiy and sexual organs, such as those here and here have no place in an encyclopaedia. (Hint: wave your mouse over the links to see where they actually go.) Noel (talk) 17:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Banning nude pictures would be a gratuitous expression of a point of view. The criteria should be whether it is encyclopaedic; that is, whether it provides useful and relevant information - a picture of a naked person has a clear information content relevant to some articles, and so should certainly be included. -- Khendon 17:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Allowing nude pictures without any warning or any filtering is also pushing an agenda. A very liberal agenda. A very, quite frankly, sexist agenda. Samboy 23:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is pushing an agenda; the agenda that the appropriate question for judging wikipedia content should be whether it is informative and accurate, not whose cultural norms it conforms with. And sexist? Uh? -- Khendon 11:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how a warning attached to a specific picture is not inherently POV. There are already warnings attached to pictures on Wikipedia that I do not find objectionable, while there are other pictures on Wikipedia that, while very few people would call them objectionable, do give me some problems because of a phobia, so for me they are very objectionable pictures. Fortunately for Wikipedia I don't make a fuss about this and slap a POV warning on selected pictures. Things would get silly very fast. I just read the articles without downloading the pictures.

The site disclaimer is on every page and warns that, subject to the laws of Florida, Wikipedia does contain material, including pictures, that some people will find objectionable. This kind of site-wide disclaimer is appropriate. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 05:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to concur with Tony, here; Izak is using 'morality' as an argument in favor of censorship. IMHO, 'morality' is *inherently* POV, by definition. AFAIC, as long as a photograph is illustrative of the issue, and is not a violation of law which can get Wikipedia in hot water, it should stay. I've got a little personal rant on zero tolerance policies that speaks to this directly: if you *don't* have zero tolerance policies, then some people will try to 'sneak stuff by', by taking advantage of judgement. But that doesn't justify such policies. Ruling out nudity would be a zero tolerance policy, and I'm against it as much on those grounds as on any others. -- Baylink 05:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is one small thing I must add to this discussion. I was the one that searched diligently and, at long last, found a picture that seemed suitable to represent the nude female body. It was difficult to find a nude image of a woman that was both natural (in pose and appearance (like no tattoos, no makeup, etc)) and not sexually charged. When I did, I went through the process of personally contacting the fantastic artist responsible and asking him if we could use his image to benefit Wikipedia. Amazingly, he agreed. Finally, we had a natural-looking, relatively neutral, non-sexually charged image of a nude woman to adorn the woman article.

• By the way, that photo you speak of, is plenty "sexy" too, don't kid yourself. IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All of this is why I must laugh, but particularly at statements like "pubic hair and all..is that what a "woman" is?" because I am a woman, and yes, this is what a woman is. She is not the makeup or the clothing she wears. And I openly wonder, after reading this statement, IZAK: would you prefer if she had the carefully trimmed and styled cunt of your friendly neighborhood prostitute, or would you prefer the waxed-smooth cooch of a ten year old girl? I'd be delighted to hear about your point of view on this matter. →Reene ^✎ 06:35, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reene:Try to maintain a dignified discussion at times like this please. IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have yet to answer my question. Women (as well as men) have pubic hair. Pubic hair is completely natural and normal among healthy women of childbearing age. This is a fact. So if you take such an offense to the normal portrayal of a nude woman that has not altered her natural (dare I say "god-given" in a figurative sense) features which unnatural extreme would you prefer? →Reene ^✎ 01:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Reene, the problem is, I don't get your "question", simply because it's not a "question"! Seems, you are making a statement that challenges current norms of public displays of human nudity in most places, so it's hard to have a one-way discussion with you. No one is denying that beneath their clothing all humans (smooth kids or hairy adults) are in fact and in reality nude/naked, and there is nothing wrong with that G-d-given fact. The question/s before us is, to what exent should public displays of human genitals be allowed to appear on an encyclopedia without crossing the line so that these "displays" could then become excuses for pornography (which in turn is also a subject for an encyclopedia, but should not become an excuse for actual pornographic pictorial displays.) I know it's a fine line, but try to follow the reasoning. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to make point that Exhibit B is not a 'deviantart' photo. It is a photo by a real life artist which has placed the given photo on display at deviantart. Artists like to have their artwork seen. Tyln 07:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Ah yes, legitimize public displays of nudity in the name of art, an old ploy. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Legitimize art in the name of art. It is commonplace to have nude paintings on display at art museums and art galleries. You might have to accept that you are the one deviating from the norm here. As for my comment, it was only to request that you cease to randomly badmouth art which is hosted at deviantart for the sake of having a greater abundance of slanderous materials for your argumentation. While I'm at this point, I'd like to ask, are you also meditating? Tyln 10:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Exhibit F): Wax play on back. I'm the photographer of the "sadomasochism" picture that Solipsist mentioned above. The wax play picture is also mine. It's pretty, it adds greatly to the article, and it couldn't be illustrated without nudity. (Wax doesn't come out of clothing, believe me.) It's at an article about a deviant sexual act. It clearly illustrates the concept. Now, tell me why the image doesn't belong on that page.

• Great: Wikipedia now has graphic displays of deviant sex: Another step to it becoming a de facto porn site, what a shame... IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that the image doesn't illustrate the article? I'd be happy to make a better one if you're suggesting that. Or perhaps you have an issue with the existence of the article wax play in the first place. In which case, why don't you take it over to VfD? grendel| khan 10:07, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

• If the subject is one that relates to human nudity, then extreme caution is called for because nudity is the "gateway" to erotocism and sexuality, which are explosive dynamite topics that should be treated with all due care, and not become de facto expressions of sexual voyeurism in the name of publishing encyclopedia articles. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, it is POV that woman has a naked photo of a woman on it, while man has only a line drawing. Clearly, a male Wikipedian needs to photograph himself in all his naked, furry glory, and fix this notable gap.

I agree that putting the naked meditating woman in as part of an article on meditation isn't the right thing to do. It doesn't illustrate the article, unless it's an article about meditating naked. This is the only test to which it should be put. Period. Nudity is in; gratuitous nudity is out.

We don't have harlequin type ichthyosis illustrated on-page for the same reason we don't have goatse.cx illustrated on-page: both are used as shock sites. Wikipedia is not a tool to scare the crap out of people, or to vandalize Slashdot with. Note that gangrene, amputation and palmoplantar keratoderma are illustrated on-page, however, which I support.

Line drawings are well-used on some of the sex position articles, like 69 sex position and tribadism (as I mentioned above). I think these are a good compromise between not illustrating and putting in GFDL'd porn, which, face it, never comes out quite right.

One of the things I love dearly about Wikipedia is that I can look up a potentially offensive topic, something like flatulence or inflammatory bowel disease, and learn a lot. The highest of quality, in all things---this is what we're standing for, not shoveling parts of our bodies and lives into poorly-written and non-illustrated back alleys of the site. grendel| khan 09:01, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

grendel:We should still keep our senses though and not create a cesspool that will come back to haunt us when Wikipedia is finally called a "fully-certfied" porn site. IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Holy tarpit, IZAK, has nobody ever told you that the slippery slope argument is fallacious? If you're trying to convince sensible people, you're failing spectacularly by relying on that idea. Some images of nudity on Wikipedia are not going to make it into a pornography site. Do you consider sex-education books erotica, too? Frankly, just because you find something stimulating does not make it smut. If you got turned on by images of shoes, they would still not be porn. Similarly, if you get turned on by images of naked people, that does not automatically make them porn. Essentially, the idea that nudity is always equivalent to erotica is a POV, and a minority POV too.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 05:21, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot to add this: I am deeply offended by your continued reference to images (and indeed works of art) like Erleuchtung as "pornography" or somehow offensive or immoral and your continued attitude and statements that their presence in this encyclopedia is somehow harmful. Indeed, I consider such a hostile, negative attitude towards nudity (a natural state for a human being), parts of the human body, and even sex acts immoral and incredibly harmful (especially to children). However, I can accept that we have different points of view and can agree to disagree, whereas all you seem interested in doing is pushing your personal system of morals and POV onto other people. Why is this? →Reene ^✎ 01:54, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Some questions: Do you have little children? Are you trying to raise a normal family? Does your life-partner approve of looking at other people's genitalia? Did I forget to mention that public displays of nudity are offensive and even against the law in real life in most societies on this planet, so why should Wikipedia be part of the outcast minority defying what most people on Earth call morality? Really, I am not being prudish, just want to do some "reality testing", so that Wikipedia does not slide off the deep end in its haste to document and represent every dimension and wrinkle of naked skin under the sun. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do help care for small children in my family, yes. I am not sure what "normal" is to you, but I believe the younguns I'll undoubtedly be rearing someday will have a very healthy, normal view of the human body and human sexuality as well. The statement that nudity is only a problem in societies that make it a problem is true. People only find the human body (or human sexuality, as they are, despite your belief, mutually exclusive entities) disgusting or immoral when they have been raised to believe such things. That, to me, is very wrong and borderlines on child abuse. And I don't think such displays are offensive in "most societies". There is the small matter of Europe and their lax stance on nudity, and there are even places (public places) in the US where it is perfectly acceptable to lounge about nude (with your children, no less) if that is what you so desire. I think you need to step back and ask yourself whose morals you're really fighting for, because from where I stand, you are in the minority. And frankly, your views on the matter seem very unhealthy. →Reene ^✎ 00:20, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is true that there is a sad lack of an equivilent photograph of a nude male for the man article. I was actually going to attempt taking one of my signifigant other in a similar pose, but unfortunately, we did not get around to doing so. I will search around for a photograph that can be used, though, unless someone else wishes to volunteer. →Reene ^✎ 09:27, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reene:What are you trying to prove: "Lowest Common Denominators" or "Highest Common Factors"? IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your question is confusing. Perhaps you could clarify yourself? →Reene ^✎ 01:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I mean to say, are we going to reach for "higher standards" or "lower standards", you figure it out. IZAK

Higher of course. What kind of encyclopedia would we be if we did not place images on these pages to illustrate the information they are offering? Check out a paper encyclopedia some time. They've all got images that you would undoubtedly find offensive as well. →Reene ^✎ 00:20, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

It should be fairly obvious to everyone that this is not a child's encyclopedia. There will be no 'G' rating, and we might be lucky to get a 'PG' rating. But I concur with the arguments that have been made that nudity is appropriate when illustrating a point. However I also took a look at Woman and I cannot see how the so-called 'Exhibit B' satisfies that condition. The caption makes no attempt at illustrating anything, and the text of the article makes no reference to the image. The image should be removed. Oh, and Reene, unless you manage to illustrate a point, don't bother uploading a naked photo of your hubby, boyfriend, boss, or whatever—I would be inclined to personally zap it, faster than you can say...well, uh, "zap".  :-) — Mike 12:56, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

It was decided, after much discussion on the talk page, that an actual, living portrayal of a nude woman was called for on the article, and that the voyager image was insufficient in representing a nude woman. I went along with consensus here and, in the spirit of being helpful, brought an image that most (if not all) involved thought was appropriate. The man article, being closely related to the woman article, was still lacking in such images, however (as others pointed out). As I know no other models that would be willing to pose for a nude photograph and am unable to pay for such a model, turning to my SO (whom was willing to give it a shot) seemed logical. As I recall, we're encouraged to procure our own images for things where possible instead of taking them from other sources. So why would you object to such a thing? Are you opposed to a nude photograph in general or the idea of a Wikipedian using a loved one (with their consent of course) for something of that nature? →Reene ^✎ 01:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think you did extremely well in finding Erleuchtung, and that it's a most suitable image for the Woman article. I would encourage you to take that photo of your SO and upload it for the Man article. If others have better photos, it may be replaced there, but any half-decent photo would be better than none.- gadfium 02:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I read through the talk page and archive and couldn't find any such consensus. There was some crap about whether this image was too abstract or that image was too specific; it made me laugh. And User:Sam Spade couldn't make any coherent arguments (and actually refused to) as to why the nude images were necessary. If this is the quality that passes for discussion on article talk pages, then I feel sad for the Wikipedia.

If you go back read by original remark, you will see the point I brought up was that the image caption doesn't try to illustrate any point and the article text makes no reference to the image. It looks like the image was stuck there in a gratuitous show of nudity. Can someone provide a good explanation why that image is necessary and why it received that placement within the article. Anyone? — Mike 04:39, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be referenced in the article to be useful; why would you think that? It's necessary for the very simple reason that what a woman looks like is an important piece of information in an encyclopedia article about women. -- Khendon 07:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to say my two cents on this issue. First of all, I'd like to say that I consider myself a normal, rational, moral person. I definitely do not beleive Wikipedia should be a "free-for-all" and I have found that Wikipedia has done fairly well at editing out images that have no purpose other than to shock. However, I have to wonder if User: IZAK is not pulling some huge joke on us. Wikipedia become a pornographic site? Wikipedia becoming a "sewer"? Are you serious? I have to seriously wonder if it is not you, IZAK, who has the problem. I think as has been demonstrated in this discussion most people have no objection to the images of nude human beings on here. Pornography is meant to sexually stimulate through mental imagery and honestly it seems like you are the only one on here who is being sexually stimulated by the images you object to, as you constantly refer to them as "sexy" and "alluring" while most people here consider them simple images of humans. To adress the second issue, I believe it was User: Samboy who made a good comment about how some people might object to nudity, etc. and decide not to visit Wikipedia. That is an excellent point, but what can I say? There has always been such a divide between what certain people might consider objectionable and what the greater community might. This is nothing new and is most certainly not unique to Wikipedia. I also do not believe we will solve such a divide anytime soon here on Wikipedia as in order to do so we would have to have everyone see the world through objective eyes which is impossible. My personal suggestion is that a warning be posted on the main Wikipedia page warning that this website should only be used under Parental/Adult Supervision. This is overdue as due to the nature of Wiki-editing and of an encyclopedia itself, material can always be questionable. Also, it would do away with a lot of the arguments of people like IZAK and give the rest of us freer reign and freedom from nudity-censorship. Secondly I would like to point out that I beleive we are doing a good job. Contrary to IZAK's beliefs, Wikipedia is FAR, FAR from being anything remotely pornographic and I beleive the vast majority of people who visit do not go away offended. Lets keep up the good job and fight censorship. - CunningLinguist 12:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Background and update

The following appears on Talk:Breast [12] :

...Here's the controversial image here, if anyone needs it for reference in the discussion. Rickyrab 01:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nude, breasty Woman... Note - if you're reading this at school, you can get in trouble! (comment by User:Sam Spade.)]]

All other disputes aside, who thought "breasty" (in the photo caption) was an acceptable encyclopedia term? - leigh (φθόγγος) 01:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Me. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe all your breast are belong to us? ;) Rickyrab 02:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My question is, where would consensus deem this image appropriate? I happen to think this image is better than none, on pages where it is relevant. The german wiki is full of nudity. We have some provocative images, but only on obscure pages. The policy is extremely broad in what it allows, and the Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images poll is clear cut in favor of allowing anything encyclopedic, w no particular guidelines. So my question is, where would the frau image be appropriate, on the english wiki? [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nothing comes to mind. Something about lighting and photography, perhaps, but one could surely come up with better illustrations for that than this image. So, nowhere, I guess. I must confess I'm a little confused by your eagerness to use this image - not every photograph in the world is going to be necessary or useful in an encyclopedia. Are you saying we should use "provocative" pictures (i.e. ones with naked people) whenever possible, just because we can? Perhaps that should be added to the editing guidelines. :) - leigh (φθόγγος) 13:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

PS. I really don't think the nudity was the main objection to the use of this image for breast - it's that, well, it's not a picture of a breast. That's like using image:superman.jpg for the boot article. - leigh (φθόγγος) 13:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I simply felt that since it had been removed from one page, that I should find another place for it. I'm pro-image, having often found an article lacking due to lack of image. Also, I thought this was a nice photo (apparently few agree). But whatever, its not a big deal, and I'm not trying to enforce a pro-nudity POV or anything. I'll respect the current consensus here, and and move on to other things. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 14:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cheers. - leigh (φθόγγος) 20:24, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

If anyone wants to continue this discussion, Sam has also posted this image to Teat, and I need someone to back me up at Talk:Teat. (I'm not saying I dislike the photo; it's just Not Appropriate.) — tregoweth 19:18, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

New Image

Breasts. (By User:Sam Spade.)

I've cropped the old breast image to make it more appropriate for this article... Feel free to add it to the article.

New vote option...

...added to Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. All those who think we shouldn't be creating blanket rules for censorship of Wikipedia, feel free to vote with me. — マイケル ₪ 03:12, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

---

I think Exhibits A and B are not encyclopedic, and I have doubts about the most recent photo of just breasts.

Clarifying "censorship": My understanding is that censorship only exists if it is imposed by an outside authority. Internal decisions of what to include and what to exclude are part of editing.

Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images, in my opinion, is too long to be very useful. The fact that the poll has so many proposals indicates that more discussion is needed to work toward consensus. Maurreen 17:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Frau.jpg is a lousy example, because User:Sam Spade was, IIRC, the only person who kept insisting that it be used, first on breast and then on teat, ffs. Sam's preferred caption was "nude, 'breasty' woman," so I am hardly confident in his/her conception of what is encyclopedic. Moreover, our objections to the dear Frau were not her nudity, but the simple inappropriateness of the image for the articles in question. Sam had an image and was looking for somewhere to put it, and the conclusion I and many others reached was that there is not an article for which that is the best image. End of story.

Aside from that, I think it's unfortunate that the anti-nudity crusade is being led (at least on this page) by user:IZAK, who seems to have difficulty making logical, on-topic arguments and responses to disagreements. His/her statements are full of logical fallacies (especially the straw man), and he/she's difficult to take seriously. I think it's important for the community to have this discussion -- in fact, I'm pretty confident that it already has, several times in its history -- but it's difficult to do with IZAK screaming bloody murder all the time.

FWIW, my vote is more or less to soldier on as WP's always done, always attempting to be sensitive to those whose obscenity radar is more sensitive, always using the least offensive, most informative image possible. - leigh (φθόγγος) 21:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I am not sure what the above writer means, that I "have difficulty making logical, on-topic arguments and responses to disagreements. His/her statements are full of logical fallacies (especially the straw man), and he/she's difficult to take seriously..." when absolutely NO examples are given at all. Could you please point to ONE example of what I said that is "wrong" in any way (according to your lexicon) to back up your criticism? Makes it sound like I am leading a "crusade" ("jihad"?) against "nudists international" or something...go figure...All we are talking about is trying to keep Wikipedia from becoming a de facto porn site, and is that so "terrible" and too much to ask of a supposed "encyclopedia"? What credibility will Wikipedia have if it allows itself to host an increasing flood of images that rightly belong in Playboy magazine? IZAK 10:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Responded on your talk page. - leigh (φθόγγος) 18:03, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think Exhibit A is sufficiently likely to be generally seen as erotic that it would only be appropriate on a topic where eroticism was inherent in the subject matter. Exhibit B strike me as generally innocuous, I would guess that "community standards" in at least 90% of the English-speaking world would consider it acceptable, although there certainly are places in India or Arkansas where it would violate those standards. The holocaust photo is, of course, hideous, but I think appropriately so. One of the things with a picture like that is that it plays very differentl at low resolution than it would in full, excruciating detail. Exhibit A would have to shrink to very tiny to change its effect. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:06, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Is this "parading men like naked cattle"? IZAKs rantings about "pornography" are particularly ironic given that Wikipedia is apparently partly funded by pornography (via Jimbo Wales' bomis.com). Perhaps he thinks that all women on wikipedia should be wearing a burkas? I remember seeing a Australian car sticker which said "Thank God it was the Convicts and not the Puritans" - XED. talk. stalk. mail. csb. donate 00:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find the connection that makes bomis.com a pornographic site, it's just an informational portal it seems to me, so your exaggerations are not welcome. IZAK

See http://babes.bomis.com/ if in doubt. - XED. talk 20:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a joke - laugh. There has been a rash of vandalism to Wikipedia after a guy who claims to be psychic added an article about himself at Sollog. After it was NPOVed he took exception and started vandalising pages saying that Jimbo supported Wikipedia with porn.

Is this degrading to the Elephant? And why not stop with humans. We have an image of an Elephant's penis on Wikipedia. Evil Monkey → Talk 23:40, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Great, and by the way, did you get the elephant's permission to photograph and publish his private parts? And what is the connection between an elephant and a human being? I don't get it! IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I just had this thought of the elephant signing a constent form with a paw print. Or conversely if permission was not gotten, suing for breach of privacy. Evil Monkey → Talk 01:25, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ohhh dear, how long before someone created Erection (censored) ?!? Jooler 23:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A this rate nothing will be out of the question on Wikipedia. IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With a bit of luck, yes, as long as by "nothing" you mean "nothing will be removed from wikipedia on moral grounds". Words like "immoral" or "offensive" are never useful when deciding what should be in wikipedia; only what is informative and encyclopaedic. -- Khendon 17:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wrong: There will have to be a standard or else Wikipedia is in effect open to become known as a porn site if every single naked human body and pornographic related article/s will be "blessed" with images and photos that depict all manner of erotic and sexually-related subjects. It's not that complicated really. And at some point Wikipedia editors will have to make a profound choice and find a way of having many photos "packaged" so that they don't break the bounds and boundaries known to most of the human race. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to think that people are able to form their own opinions about this subject without adding moral to it. If you upload an image of a nude woman not doing anything pornographic (ie, she isnt depicted in a sexual act of any kind) because the article is about women my mind boggles why this isn't perfectly okay. I usually get the impression that in general Europeans seems to be far more forgiving when it comes to this subject than their American brothers and sisters and since I am European, I wouldn't think two seconds about seeing a picture of a nude woman, say, laying on a bed looking suggestively at the camera. It's a woman for crying out loud. How more natural can it get? That said, I do agree that certain things aren't appropriate for Wikipedia to display, but if such a picture would come along it should be treated along with its article in what it conveys. If its fluff, we delete it, if it's appropriate because it conveys information that is useful (like the 69 article), then for the love of all that is holy (I consider sex between two people who love eachother one of the most holy things in the history of holy, there's nothing dirty about it at all), let it be. Inter 20:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine art

Would IZAK like to have a look at William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery and explain why he does or does not think that that page should be stricken from Wikipedia before we become a cesspool of late nineteenth-century art? grendel| khan 07:53, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point what about Erotic art in Pompeii or the famous erotic sculptures as the Hindu temple at Khajuraho which BTW is a World Heritage Site - we do not all share the same Judeo-Christian sensibilites. It is worth pointing out that none of the images that were previously on this can be considered obscene by the judgement of the US Supreme Court ruling of 1973. Jooler 08:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who says that the entire universe needs to view naked ladies from the nineteenth century or Hindu strip shows from "temples"? We can find ways of putting little black covering marks over their naked vitals if need be. No need to go ga-ga all "in the name of art." There are other criteria besides "art" that govern human life, and that too should be prominently conveyed in a respectable and serious encyclopedia. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suggest the part of the universe not interested in the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery is excused for not clicking on the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery link. dab (ᛏ) 11:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see IZAZ, so are you seriously suggesting that the first picture on Francisco Goya be replaced with the picture on the right? And you are talking about "respectable and serious"!? Jooler 11:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful, wonderful, yes you see you have proven that it can be done. That with a few little black strips and stripes we can depict things within reason without offending people who may object to any displays of public nudity. IZAK 10:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

File:MajaCensored.jpg

Good god! Well - all I can say without pushing the boundaires of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility is - Yes I have proven it. I have proven how ridiculous your position is. It appears that you believe that images of works of Art appearing on wikipedia should be vandalised so that they conform to your extreme view of what is decent and what is obscene. Your positiion is indefensible and I have no more to say on the matter. Jooler 13:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this all a bit of a red herring? Equating the National Gallery with Hustler is not a serious argument on either side, is it? Filiocht 11:43, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that the point? None of the images that IZAK initiated this discussion with were quite Hustler material either. Jooler 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With that last comment from IZAK, I've decided that this whole discussion just has to be a huge joke pulled by IZAK. He can not be seriously suggesting that just because Hindu's don't worship a Judeo-Christian God, their religion cannot be taken seriously and their places of worhip should be written with quotation marks as if they have no right to use the word Temple.

Also according to the Art article , art it "any product of the creative impulse, out of which sprang all other human pursuits". Of course this is pretty vague but we have to remember that one person's Rembrant is another person's 'filthy' porn. Evil Monkey → Talk 19:49, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• If you think I am "joking" then you have truly not grasped my argument/s at all, which is very sad indeed. I don't think by the way, that your average Hindu in India is running around naked as depicted in any Hindu "art". Most Hindu men and women I have seen are dressed in long robes, suits, or saris, and I don't see them in bikinis either when they plunge to purify themselves in the Ganges usualy with full clothing on. IZAK 10:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • IZAK You could NOT! be more wrong! - See this BBC report - BBC Report on Kumbh Mela - Now if I might dare say so, I think you you have been truly hoisted by your own petard. Jooler 13:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent comments about Nudity discussion, 15 Jan 2005

I'm afraid I haven't read all of this debate, but yeah, I saw enough. What I'll say is, excessive puritanism and a project which proposal is to deliver the user all kinds of information, in an ever-growing, ever-evolving fashion, will never mix. There is nothing wrong, pornographic or corruptive in the depiction of a woman's naked body, nor anything like that. If you are malicious enough to think of 230957093270497049 naughty things when you see a naked woman,

Oooh! You said "230957093270497049!" That's very naughty, although rarely performed because it is difficult to organize the necessary eighteen participants...

well, that's your problem, I'm sorry. Everybody is free to think as they please, and nobody minds that. Our mind is ours to be used the way we want it. About the drawings, for Christ's sake. If you're offended by the drawing of a naked couple included in a greeting message sent to space, or a little sketch (made by one of our fellow users, if I'm not mistaken) of a couple of lesbians making sex, I am sorry, you'd just do better to cover your eyes and refrain from looking at Wikipedia's articles. It's clear that such a person cannot endure this content, no matter how much this is discussed, so it's better just to refrain from coming here, instead of trying to change what's already stablished (and surprisingly, tolerated by everybody else). It's year 2005, people. Let's evolve. My (more than) two cents.-- Kaonashi 00:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You know IZAK, it has occurred to me, after reading most of the debate, your view is a very biased point of view. Think about it. Culturally, there are different degrees of what people accept as "sex" and what is "porn." By making your claim of censorship, you are making the encyclopedia more POV. For example, there is far more blood in Japanese animation, anime, than the stuff that they place on Cartoon Network. There was an episode of Outlaw Star which involved nudity that was banned from Cartoon Network... however, during the series run of Outlaw Star, a Japanese animation TV show, on Japanese television, it must have been seen. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To me, nudity has artistic or scientific value, while pornography is simply meant for sexual arousal/pleasure. Usually, it's very easy to tell the difference between the two. A nude painting or statue would constitute nudity, whilst a picture of two people engaging in sexual intercourse would most likely be pornographic. I think it really has a lot to do with common sense, yet many people are afraid they might be perceived as perverted or abnormal if they find nothing wrong with a depiction of a penis or breast. Yes, it's possible to come up with all matter of varied circumstances that would put my above idea to question, i.e. "Well what about this picture, what would this be, huh?" All I can say is most of the people I've known are able to make a distinction, and the people asking this question are doing so just to make a nuisance of themselves. People should be held accountable for themselves, so if they do find something offensive, they just need to stop looking at it and not let everybody else know they find it offensive. | Aequo 18:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

"An argument could be made that I have perused and considered this image in a way that is 'contemplative'--which is the an aim of art--rather than "arousing"--which is the ain of pornography. Whether the image is pornographic or not is a wholly subjective decision, another viewer might dismiss my analysis completely and see nothing but base purposes at work [...] Sexuality and its depictions remain contested, which is not all bad. Despite the evident threat for moral crusaders, sexual pictures shouldn't be noramlized as "art" just so that they'll be considered fit to view, nor should they be sorted into predetermined categories. The difference between "pornography" and "erotica" may, in fact, simply be one of style. Ideally, the entire realm of sexual imagery will remain ambiguous and fugitive, hard to pin down, in its fleeting refusals and taunting provocations, it will maintain substantial disruptive power." Squiers, Carol (2000). An introduction to a book of sexual photographs Peek: Photographs from the Kinsey Institute ISBN 1892041359

Suggestion

Flickr has a great system where anyone can simply click "Flag this photo as 'may offend'." I suggest we adopt this policy.

-- Alterego 07:47, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately this would likely result in anonymous editors "running through the halls" flagging everything in sight. If you can't trust people not to replace perfectly reasonable articles with repeated references to genital osculation, this would be tantamount to handing a loaded gun with a hair-trigger to a baby with hiccups. HTH HAND -- Phil | Talk 13:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

If this is going to be a useful and trustworthy source you CAN NOT let the general public edit.

I've found 2 glaring mistakes without trying.

Maya Angelou did NOT receive a Tony nomination for her preformance in Roots. Roots was a television production. Tonys are for stage productions only. And she didn't receive an Emmy nomination for it either!

Check it out at tonys.org in the archives you'll see she was nominated once.

Robert Mugabe's first wife Sally did die in 1992, but my research has them having a son that died at age 4 while Mugabe was in prison. Which means your statement that she died childless is wrong. Current Biography 1979 as well as other publications list this information.

You need trained and quailifed researchers and librarians, not good intentioned John and Jane Q Public adding information they got from a source that got it third hand and wrong.

Mugabe's son has been verified, and the article corrected. Maya's lack of a nom for Roots has been verified and the article corrected. Many reference works have errors--one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that the errors can be corrected immediately once detected, whereas print works have to wait for the next printing, plus all the old ones stick around with the error. Wikipedia would not have over one million articles if editors were more restricted. Nupedia tried that approach, and failed. Niteowlneils 20:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cantus wants to have a page where people can nominate images which they think are "unsuitable for inline display", and seems to intend to have this raised to the standard of policy. There is an ongoing discussion on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Images unsuitable for inline display.

Speaking purely for myself, the words " instruction creep" come to mind. Do we really need a page on which to nominate things to be done which we can easily do just by editing the image on the page in question? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 18:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cantus unilaterally reduced the size of the image on the Nudism article to a very small 50px [13], which I have since reverted [14]. There is a slow-paced discussion on the image at Talk:Nudism, but reducing the size of the image was not even proposed there. I posted a message on this talk page, he has not replied (yet?). Thryduulf 18:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) He's tried the image display size reduction edit a few times on different articles over the past day or two, but without finding any takers. Now I think he's trying the top-down approach. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 19:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Also being discussed here.)

This basically boils down to Template talk:Picp. If one can orphan a template without discussion and without a WP:TFD vote, doesn't that give a single person excessive power? "Unorphaning" a template is not easily done. — Itai ( f&t) 14:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try not creating bad templates, or ones which duplicate the function of an existing, and more common, one. -- Netoholic @ 15:07, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

That's up to the community to decide, not just you. Wait for consensus to establish on CfD before orphaning. -- fvw * 15:13, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

That's bunk. When Template:A (used on 200 pages) works, and someone (knowingly or unknowingly) creates Template:B which does an identical function, I am going to correct that mistake, hopefully teaching that person in the process. People daily create templates (articles, categories, etc.) which duplicate existing ones. It is GOOD PRACTICE to correct those mistakes, becuase it is the right thing to do. "Waiting for consensus" is the dumbest thing to say. Go tell anyone doing RC patrol to "wait for consensus" before correcting a dumb mistake. I choose not to do RC patrol, but instead try and keep the Template namespace clear of redundancy. -- Netoholic @ 17:49, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Unless the templates are identical, you can't decide on your own whether they're needed or not. Special caution is in order since orphaning a template is easy, unorphaning a template is not. — Itai ( f&t) 23:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am writing an article on Wine Gums, and I would like to take a picture of the Maynard's Wine Gums package and put it in the article. Can do this? If so, what would the image tag be?

Fair use is definitely allowed, since it may help the sale of the product. See also Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:11, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

A photograph of box art is almost certainly a derivative work of the box art, and cannot be made fully free. -- Cyrius| ✎ 02:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think i also have heard comments to the contrary. E.g. Image:Monopoly Game.jpg is supposedly not copyrighted, since it is not a direct reproduction. However, i can't find the link where this was said. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

See {{fairuse}} and {{gamecover}}. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 04:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I put in the greater part of the effort required to create the David Quantick article.

I have since happened upon the shocking revelation that the biography has been stolen and is now being used under a stringent copyright license! Who has committed this atrocity? DAVID QUANTICK!

OK, I'm kidding a bit... let me explain. He's just written to me to say that he has submitted the biog to the IMDB as his official biog. He then says it dawned on him after the event that this was rather cheeky, and has asked me if that's OK.

Now, I knew that the important thing here was to look at the IMDB's terms of use for material and found this (my bolding):

---

Copyright

All content included on this site, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, video clips, digital downloads, data compilations, and software, is the property of IMDb or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content on this site is the exclusive property of IMDb and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. All software used on this site is the property of IMDb or its software suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. [15]

---

And it seems safe to say that the bio at IMDB will now fall under this.

David has said that if I just give the nod he will ask for it to be taken down. I'm in the position now, aren't I, of having to act according to the terms of the GNU license and ask that he does just that?

This is rather a harsh lesson for me of what it means to submit stuff here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not worried about money, as none is offered. What is now a personal shame for me is that a man I greatly admire is going to get a thumbs down from me. In addition, he works in an industry I could happily use a contact in... and it would be to my advantage to be as accomodating as possible.

So, then... how can I get out of this best? Presumably I could write a similar article for him - perhaps asking him for some more detail to add in - and create a new work in a different style?

Help!

-- bodnotbod 01:26, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Probably, you can just ask him to provide a link to the Wikipedia article, and explicitly state at the bottom of the article that it is released under the GFDL. He will have to get permission from the IMDB guys to do this, as they will need to add an "unless explicitly stated otherwise" to their TOS. IANAL -- Alterego 02:22, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Just release the last version in which you were the sole contributor into the public domain, or release it for use on IMDB (you can do this because you still retain the copyright for that version, not having assigned it to anyone else). Then anyone is free to use it anywhere. Of course, IMDB will still be claiming a copyright which they don't actually have, but you presumably won't care. - Nunh-huh 02:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, that last sounds ideal. I'll go with that if I can. I'll let this sit here a while longer in case anyone raises any objections to that course of action. Thanks very much Nunh-huh. -- bodnotbod 03:38, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the revision history, nobody else has yet made a copyrightable contribution to the article. You could relicense it to whomever you want under whatever terms you wish. IMDb's terms wouldn't make me happy-happy if it were my content, though. -- Cyrius| ✎ 06:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, quite. Ask for the GFDL notice and link back to wikipedia. That way you get the credit, wikipedia gets the publicity and perhaps best of all, David Quantick will remember you as that starry-eyed idealist. -- fvw * 06:18, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK. I'll get in touch with IMDB and see if I can get any sort of response (of which I am not hopeful). I don't feel comfortable getting into a deep discussion about these things with David Quantick as it would be a gamble, based on no information, that he doesn't simply say "oh, this is putting you to too much trouble, let's leave it." Which he would mean with the politest of intentions, I'm sure, but it would leave me feeling I blew it.

Thanks for the responses so far. I'll keep checking back here whilst I wait for IMDB to get back to me: no breath will be held. -- bodnotbod 18:41, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

---

copy of message to IMDB

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a contributor to the free content encyclopedia Wikipedia:

www.wikipedia.com

Some time ago I wrote an article about a performer there. Rather delightfully that performer has now contacted me to say that he has used that article in its entirity as their biography page at the IMDB.

As a fan of the performer's work this is a personal triumph. However, as I understand it, if I allow the biography to remain at IMDB I am giving up the copyright to you.

We at Wikipedia feel this is a pretty rum deal, and in essence we provide information freely and should - strictly speaking - only allow that info to be used provided it is not then subject to more restrictive copyright terms.

However, were the biography page in question to include the caveat that the biography is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright

And include a link to Wikipedia that would be acceptable to us.

Please let me know if this compromise is possible. Otherwise it looks like I'll have to either a) ask that the biography be taken down or b) come to some arrangement with the performer as to providing them with an alternate biography.

Thank you,

User bodnotbod

---

-- bodnotbod 19:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Additional notice: you should state this on Talk:David Quantick, just in case the IMDB comes back and claims that Wikipedia is violating THEIR copyright. Just copy this section of the village pump to the talk page, and maybe add a note with the final arrangement you got with the IMDB/Artist. -- Chris 73 Talk

OK, copying content now. Good idea. Thanks. -- bodnotbod 04:28, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, IMDb have no such recourse - as there is the history of the page available. Smoddy | ειπετε 17:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In your draft letter. are we not Wikipedia.org, rather .com as you have written?. Just nit-picking :) Apwoolrich 18:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

D'oh. Fortunately Mr Wales appears to have bought that domain - it takes you to a gateway of all the different language versions it seems. Very remiss of me though. -- bodnotbod 03:59, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

The assignment of the article by a third party not owning the copyright cannot supersede the copyright. The third party's agreement is void (even if he or she is the subject of the article, he is not the author). Unlike other forms of intellectual property, copyright cannot be stolen if you fail to safeguard it. There is no harm in letting this person use the article on that website, the website has absolutely no ownership rights in the article. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I'm going to give Mr Quantick the OK. And I feel good doing so now. Cheers. -- bodnotbod 01:29, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Flag of New Zealand. Here we find two external links to a petition for the replacement of the NZ flag. While it seems POV links are OK (according to the current standard) as long as it's clear that's what they are, surely a link to a political campaign such as this is not acceptable. The site being linked to imparts no further knowledge. It is a single issue campaigning site. By including it in Wikipedia we are extending its reach. As such, Wikipedia could be viewed as being helpful to the campaign. In the absence of a link to a petition to keep the current flag - thereby 'balancing' the effect of the link in question - I would recommend that links such as these should be discouraged. Are there any other opinions or current policy? Arcturus 16:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links: "Pages that are linked to in an external links section should be high content, with information that is not found in the Wikipedia article." Based on your description, they don't seem to qualify. — Korath ( Talk) 19:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's a continuation of the discussion in the article about the proposed change to the flag, I find the link entirely appropriate. Rick K 00:24, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

There is actually a lot of information at www.nzflag.com (the page in question). As a New Zealander (and someone who has not made up his mind on the issue of changing the flag) I think it is important to have a link to this page. If I could find a link to a group against changing the flag I would add that to the article. Google [16] shows that there are 793 pages link to to the site. Evil Monkey∴ Hello? 01:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

When my removal of an opening header was questioned, I went looking for written MoS policy/guidelines to back me up. Best I've found so far is a bit indirect: Wikipedia:Guide_to_Layout#Introductory_material says "...because the first paragraph, above the first header, should be the introduction to the article.", although it also describes itself as "Wikipedia Guide to Layout is an annotated, working example of some of the basics of laying out an article." (emphasis added), with that sentence coming before the first header. Anyone know someplace it is stated more explicitly? Niteowlneils 16:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is now, because I've boldly updated the page you mentioned.
This style is ubiquitous across all Wikipedia, and therefore de facto policy. I sampled 30 random pages. Of these, a whopping 25 had no sections at all, because they were too short, or a list or disambig page. One had two small sections following a huge opening blurb, and the remaining 4 all had intro paragraphs before the first section. A random sampling among featured articles may be more relevant and insightful: of 10 FAs I checked by clicking madly at semi-random places, all 10 had from 1 to 3 intro paragraphs above the first section, except Abraham Lincoln, which had 4.
I furthermore updated the guide to reflect that for biographies, people commonly use the introduction paragraphs as summaries. JRM 17:47, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Thanks. Since posting, it also occurred to me that the header I removed, "Definition", is arguably redundant/self-evident, as a Wikipedia article, by definition, describes the subject indicated by the title. Niteowlneils 20:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello, didn't really know where to post this, but here it goes! There are a couple of articles about people who are maybe non-notable, and their articles are not much of use to anyone. I heard one person complaining that his article has no reason to be here, and would like to have it deleted. The article is well written and I think that it might be kept because of that. So, what should he do? Edit the article or try to have it deleted? I mean can we make an article on someone who does not want to have an article here. Lapinmies 06:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Add them to the Votes for Deletion page - Skysmith 10:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• As to your other question, whether it is OK to have articles on people who don't want them, I would say, unequivocally, yes. Slippery slope, it may be, but consider this situation. John Doe sees his article on Wikipedia. Perhaps he feels he isn't noteworthy enough, or that it is unfairly critical. So he demands it be taken down. Now replace John Doe with Saddam Hussain, George W. Bush or Osama bin-Laden. We must not allow any form of censorship, which is basically what allowing people to demand their article be taken down is. Smoddy | ειπετε 23:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That said, removing a piece of information from an article because the subject feels that it violates their privacy is, sometimes, justified. Such things should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Deco 05:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which is what VfD is for! :) Smoddy | ειπετε 13:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is it public domain because they are government funded? I wanted to add the chart from this story to Nanotechnology http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4187813.stm

The BBC per se are not government funded, saying the the BBC is government funded suggests that it is an organ of the British Government and that the Government can withdraw funding if they wish to do so. The BBC World Service is partially funded by the Foreign Office but the BBC itself is funded by the television licence and by commercial operations within BBC Worldwide. The BBC is an autonomous Corporation operating under a Royal Charter. Jooler 23:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it would make it damn sexy! - RoyBoy [ ∞] 22:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The BBC's policy is:

You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of bbc.co.uk content requires the prior written permission of the BBC.

Then I should try to attain said permission... think I'll succeed? - RoyBoy [ ∞] 22:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You might acquire permission to use it on the Wikipedia site, but acquiring permanent permission to freely redistribute it and give others that right as well seems unlikely. Deco 22:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even if it were government funded, British Government material is Crown Copyright, not public domain. Proteus (Talk) 22:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Given these kinds of limitations on images that would otherwise greatly enrich articles, I've sometimes simply included in the image box for the page's existing image a 'more photos' link to the superior image. (Such as at stem cells)-- Nectarflowed 02:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I created the template to flag articles for cleanup, i.e. those that mentioned books and needed an ISBN added. User:Ctorok has been in touch with me about the category and I put up a suggestion on Template talk:ISBN about what numbers should be cited. I'd appreciate Wikipedians adding their suggestions there. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:57, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

What is the correct position for the disambiguation notice, before or after the text? I see both, but I consider it more "correct" for the notice to be on the bottom. - RoyBoy [ ∞] 23:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It's not supposed to be on the top. It belongs on the bottom. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Yep, at the bottom. Check out Wikipedia:Disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 01:37, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Well if by disambiguation notice you mean the text inserted by Template:disambig, then yes that goes at the bottom. But if you mean a note that there are other uses and that links to a disambiguation page, that should go at the top of an article. older≠ wiser 02:48, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Heartily agree with user older-wise directly above. If that isn't Wikipedia policy, it should be! Otherwise, we get duplicate articles. Quill 04:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It belongs at the top only on LONG ambiguation pages. Pedant 23:09, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Ahhhh... that's the kicker. - RoyBoy [ ∞] 22:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there a project to fix links to disambiguation pages? Alphax (t) (c) (e) 03:57, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

The doubling occurred] betweeen the Revision as of 11:32, 2005 Jan 11 and the Revision as of 11:33, 2005 Jan 11. The only intentional risk of error that I took was assuming that the only intended change in that edit was adding "right" into the specs for the display of the Naked Maja censored image, and that the only other change was embedding one copy of the file in the middle of another. (Actually, I don't know or care if the two versions of the image specs were identical or not.)

So I worked on the basis of convincing evidence that

• all sections having two identical copies except for this one and its subsections:
  • 1.9 Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia?
    • 1.9.1 Background and update
    • 1.9.2 Fine art
• only the second copies of those sections got
  • the single edit made just before the "Background and update" section, and
  • all edits to the Fine art section, and
• the only other edit was the doubling edit.

While I am not prepared to certify that those are accurate and that I made no errors i acting on them, I consider the possibility that the doubling edit involved other changes the prinicpal risk, and am notifying that editor of the situation.

What standard, if any, is there for entries on "List of x people" pages?

In early January, the article on Marco of Alexandria was deleted as being non-notable, after a contentous VfD: 20 "delete" from longstanding editors, 5 "keep" from longstanding editors, 10 "keep" from IP addresses and brand-new accounts. Links to that article were removed from List of Egyptians.

Since then, Omar Filini has added entries for Marco several times: as a redlink to the deleted article, as an external link to Marco of Alexandria's website, and as an unlinked name. After each addition, I've removed it, on the grounds that the person is non-notable as established in the VfD page, and thus shouldn't be in the list. Am I correct in assuming this?

On a larger scale, most of the entries on List of Egyptians are redlinks. What standards are there for establishing who should be on one of these lists? Should it just be people who already have articles? People who should have articles, and if so, how should notability be indicated?

Thanks, Carnildo 00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've always considered these lists to mean "has or deserves an article". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Ralph Waldo Emerson 01:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To make the question more specific: Should I keep removing the entry and enduring this guy's increasingly personal attacks, or should I give up? -- Carnildo 20:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certainly don't let him override you by bullheadedness. If he is attacking you personally, have you considered an RFC? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:17, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

It hasn't reached that level yet, but if someone could drop a note on User talk:Omar Filini about the "no personal attacks" policy, that would be nice. -- Carnildo 21:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[17] [18] - User:Maveric149 is going through articles and moving tags like {{ POV check}} to the talk pages. I've already protested, and he didn't say anything; if this is in fact a bad thing to do, can someone else do so? -- SPUI ( talk) 00:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saying that I did not respond before you left the above Village pump message is an outright lie (also another string of responses after your above post). [19] Since the message is directed at writers instead of readers I'm replacing the template with an HTML comment that says the same thing and then I'm moving the actual template to the talk page. This de-clutters the article for readers, makes it more useful to third parties, and directs the message directly to the intended audience. -- mav 02:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The message is NOT only directed at writers; it informs readers that the page may not be NPOV, and to not judge Wikipedia's NPOV by it. -- SPUI ( talk) 02:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It reads: "This article may require editing to conform to the neutral point of view policy." The articles I fixed say the same thing, both on their talk pages and via an HTML comment wherever I found the tag. -- mav 03:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to indicate to a reader that reads the article and wonders how such a biased piece of crap is here. Maybe a smart reader would even check the history and find that someone is removing these tags to make everything look prettier. -- SPUI ( talk) 04:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it is such a "biased piece of crap" then a {{POV}} tag would be in order - along with a good explanation on the talk page (which is required for that tag). I was not moving the POV tag. -- mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem particularly inappropriate to me. Anything short of an actual dispute seems more appropriate for the talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:16, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's been discussed on Wikipedia, but I've seen the idea or something like it raised recently on the WikiEN-L mailing list.

There's a lot to be said for putting these tags on talk pages, in my opinion. It might encourage more people to look on the talk page prior to editing, which in itself would be a great improvement. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 00:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One of his edits (the first diff), which I'm currently arguing with him about at User talk:Maveric149#Conrail was to move a {{ expand list}} tag from an incomplete list. This gives the impression that the list is complete. The other one, the removal of POV check, means that someone reading the article might think the opinions in the article are simple facts, or that Wikipedia is biased. -- SPUI ( talk) 00:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then in the article say it is a partial list. -- mav 02:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what the template does. If you have a problem with the template, take it to WP:TFD. -- SPUI ( talk) 03:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, I don't have an issue with the template - just its placement. Templates and associated categories are very useful in keeping track of things. But mixing meta data with content should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Oh and a I see the wording "partial list" all over the place. Simply using that wording will be all the notice readers and writers need. All without having to pollute article content with alarming-looking tags. -- mav 03:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where should it be placed then? It make no sense on the talk page, especially how you just moved it to the beginning with no explanation. -- SPUI ( talk) 04:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it has no place, then it should be deleted as redundant. Just say it is a partial list if that is that case but take your graffiti elsewhere. -- mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He shouldn't be moving tags without a community-wide consensus. The neutrality and disputed tags are particularly important on the articles themselves, so that readers can see there's an acknowledged problem that is being addressed. SlimVirgin 00:21, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused, too. The user moved an "expand" tag to the talk page ( Sergei Korolev), but the policies spelled out for this tag say "place it on article page". I have the impression, this was not fully discussed on WP or it is at the least being done very incoherently. Awolf002 00:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was discused way back when the project was started when we decided to put comments about articles on talk pages. -- mav 02:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If that's so, where's the policy? -- SPUI ( talk) 02:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The mere existance of a whole class of pages that are specifically designed for this type of meta info. The talk page. -- mav

I see he's still doing it. What's the next step? WP:RFC? -- SPUI ( talk) 01:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's funny. I'm the one who created the RFC process along with the original drafts of the dispute resolution process we use. -- mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page asking him to stop, but I don't think it made any difference. Regarding the "expand" tag, someone pointed out to him that it said in the guidelines that the tag should go on the article. Mav then went and changed the guidelines. I changed it back, and he reverted, so it doesn't look like he's going to stop. I suggested he set up a subpage for a discussion about it to try to reach a community-wide consensus. SlimVirgin 01:54, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

And I have stopped and we are discussing it. -- mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Too POV={{POV}}, factually disputed={{disputed}}, or too short={{stub}} (and variants). I'm not moving any of those tags, because they are useful to readers as well as editors. The tags I'm moving and/or replacing with HTML comments, are primarily useful to writers, not readers. That is what talk pages are for.

Also, if any of these messages were made by just inserting in the actual text vs a template, then those messages would be moved to the talk page. Just because it it done via a template, does not excuse things. These types of self-referential tags must be kept to a bare minimum to keep Wikipedia maximally useful to third parties - none of which are called Wikipedia and very, very few of which are editable. Use the talk page. That said, I'll let things settle down a bit for now. I need to concentate on other things right now. -- mav 02:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The template 'excuses' things BECAUSE it can be easily replaced by other users. Anyway, is there an easy way to rollback his recent edits (assuming we decide to do so)? -- SPUI ( talk) 02:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See below. I made other edits as well. -- mav 03:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moving Template:POV check to Talk everywhere is wholly inappropriate given that we've just had a discussion and a week-long vote on WP:TFD about it, and this action was most definitely not the consensus. Please stop and revert. -- Joy [shallot] 02:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did stop. But before so I added HTML comments that said the same thing. I also fixed formatting in many articles at the same time. -- mav 03:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The HTML comments do even less than putting it on the talk page, since one needs to decide to edit the page to see them. -- SPUI ( talk) 03:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And this is completely appropriate when the message is directed toward writers. -- mav 03:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But it is not directed only towards writers, but also towards readers. -- SPUI ( talk) 04:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the current wording needs to be fixed stat. See the template's talk page for a compromise plan. -- mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree fully with mav. — Catherine\ ^talk 03:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that he should decide unilaterally to make such changes. He needs to seek consensus first and not only from the editors of each page that's affected but from the community as a whole. Some of these tags would make no sense on a talk page e.g. the expand tag, which is there to encourage people to work on it, and also to signal to the reader that we're not content with the current state of the page. Readers aren't necessarily going to check the talk pages of tiny stubs, or indeed of any article. SlimVirgin 03:33, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

There is already a very wide-based consensus that meta comments go on talk pages - that is why they were created. Any lack of relevant info will be the motivating force for people to expand. Not some tag. -- mav 03:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV and factual dispute tags do seem to encourage people to work on the article. People who have created or worked hard on something don't like to see a tag on it, so the issues tend to get cleared up fast. The stub tag is useful because it shows that Wikipedia understands this isn't a complete article, and it's important to signal that to the reader, as well as inviting them to expand it. There'd be no point putting that on the talk page. SlimVirgin 05:23, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

There is every point in putting that on the talk page since the stub tags already exist to indicate what articles are sub par content-wise. -- mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure be bold is wikipedia policy. If you feel the tags do not make sense in their new position edit the template Geni 05:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If such a consensus exists, why were all the tags on the article pages? Why was no one other than you moving them to the talk pages? I fail to see evidence of this so-called 'very wide-based consensus'. -- SPUI ( talk) 04:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See above. It is inherent in the system. Bad practice on a few hundred pages does not mean there is anything. -- mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, the {{ expand list}} tag has no place at all on the talk page; it is to be used when a list is incomplete. It has been used for that purpose for a long time, which indicates at least partial consensus. It also lets people know that it is our goal to have a full list. Saying "here is a partial list" could mean that there is no intent for a full list, like on toll bridge where the listing only gives examples. -- SPUI ( talk) 04:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Already refuted above. Here is a reminder: If a list is not complete, then say that in the article. No need for a tag. -- mav

You didn't even read my argument. If I just say a list is incomplete, it could be that there is no need for a complete list. This template means that we want a complete list but don't have the resources currently to have one. -- SPUI ( talk) 20:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel strongly that the tags belong on the article page, particularly subs and ones like the {{pov-check}} and {{cleanup-tone}} tags that user:Maveric149 moved to the talk page at Rebuttals to the cosmological argument at 02:00 after he was told to stop on his talk page (not for the first time). I have reverted this. I do a lot of casual reading of wikipedia and this is often where I come accross articles that require editing. I am not in the habit of reading the talk page for every article I read, and so if an article needs work I want to know about it on the article - indeed the pov-check template specifically directs you to the talk page. There are not that many people who frequently browse through looking for NPOV or cleanup tags. One of the goals of Wikipedia is to encourage participation by new users, and these tags do that. I understand the arguments about it not being that useful to third-party users, but surely that should be a secondary consideration to what is useful to us. Thryduulf 06:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was not moving any stub tags - nor do I plan to (along with any other tag which is more than marginally useful to readers or is very temporary in nature). The trouble is, and you indirectly point this out, is that the proliferation of these types of tags has made some people start to use talk pages less. This is a trend that needs to be stopped before it becomes a general one. By having an HTML comment that says the same thing and by having a message on talk pages, then we can best balance the needs of readers, third parties, and writers. This is a compromise - I'm not advocating that the POV check or expand templates be deleted, or that their message be scrubbed clean from articles. I'm just saying we should step back and consider the needs of people beyond those that edit on Wikipedia. -- mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, like people that READ Wikipedia. Let them know that the article may be biased. -- SPUI ( talk) 20:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maveric149. I apologize if this is not the right place to take this, but no one has mentioned another way. -- SPUI ( talk) 20:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Moving templates to talk pages for continued discussion.

In the recent VfD discussion on the St. Thomas Tommies, I raised a concern about consistent treatment of Canadian Interuniversity Sport teams. The VfD consensus was to merge it into the article on Saint Thomas University. As things now stand, Category:Canadian Interuniversity Sport teams now contains 56 articles on teams, and one article on a university.

A person who comes to Wikipedia isn't going to see this and think there must be a notability cutoff; they're going to see this and think we're a bunch of sloppy idiots who are too careless to make sure that we present the information in a consistent manner. The teams are by definition of equal notability to each other, since they all compete on an equal footing in the same sporting body, and therefore by definition, they need to either all have articles of their own, or all be merged into their respective universities. It's like saying that some National Hockey League teams deserve their own articles, while others should be merged into their home city. NHL teams can't be divided into notable vs. non-notable when they're all in the same sporting league; CIS teams have to be given the same "all or none" treatment. And they can't be treated as less notable than an equivalent university sports league in another country, either, so we can't say that Canadian university sports teams get merged but American university sports teams get articles. Which is why, thus, I really have to insist on a clear policy that either university sports teams are encyclopedic or they're not.

Sporting teams are but one example; my concern also applies to any group of related things that are essentially equivalent to each other. I think there are some categories where we need to have a clearer policy on notability as a group, because there isn't a meaningful or legitimate way to divide them into "notable" vs. "non-notable" individual topics.

My other concern is that when these divisions are applied, Canadian examples are disproportionately singled out for VfD nominations and for subsequent deletion. Just in the past couple of weeks alone, each of the following category areas has had one or more Canadian examples singled out as a priori less notable than American or European examples in the same categories: university sports teams, university newspapers, murder victims, military-related deaths, university student unions, high schools, city mayors.

I recognize that some of these topics are of debated encyclopedic value in general, but as things stand right now, two articles of identical notability to each other frequently end up with opposite results in a VfD vote just because of who happens to show up to express an opinion. As a result, I just don't think that a case-by-case approach works for some groupings of articles. Even decisions that get taken as precedents aren't consistently applied -- as we've seen with high schools, a concerted group of voters can still shift a particular vote one way or the other and lead to conflicting precedents. There have actually been high school articles deleted that were more notable than other high schools that survived VfD.

I'm not asking for anything unprecedented. For politicians, the general agreement already exists that anybody who's held elected office at the national or provincial/state level can have an article. And certainly, there are categories where a legitimate notability cutoff exists. But I really believe that some groups of topics require a consistent policy on their notability or lack thereof as a group, which is then actually applied to all relevant articles, because there are categories (sports teams within a single league, etc.) where inconsistency only makes Wikipedia look bad to an outside user. Bearcat 01:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are right it should be consistent. Categories apply to articles. There shouldn't be a mix of "team" articles, and "school" articles in the category, especially since the title of the Category refers to teams. That means.

1. If all the teams have sufficient notability for an article, then there is no problem.
2. If none of the teams have sufficient notability for an article, then the category should just be deleted, since it is equivalent to a category for Canadian universities (assuming they all have teams).
3. If some of the teams have articles, and some do not, then the category will be inconsistent. The category should be deleted.

We currently have case 3). Case 2) can possibly be brought about by submitting the other 55 teams to VfD, based on the precedent of the Tommies. VfD being not very consistent or respectful of precedents, it is probable that some of the teams will be deleted and some won't be, leaving us in case 3). Either way, best to delete or rename the category. -- BM 01:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had a conversation yesterday with a friend, a respected academic, who remarked that he tried putting into Wikipedia some material that he had already published elsewhere; his intent was to "donate" it. He wasn't very experienced with Wikipedia, probably didn't make it clear what he was up to and, unsurprisingly, it ended up deleted as a copyvio. I've seen similar things happen a few other times; I've occasionally been able to intervene to reach the relevant party by email and sort things out, but not always.

I was wondering: is there somewhere in Wikipedia or Meta space a page discussing:

• How to "donate" your already-published materials to Wikipedia?
• How best to facilitate when one believes a misunderstanding about something like this may be occurring?

If not, I'd like to create one, but I don't want to duplicate effort. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Unless Wikipedia is the first place a certain media was published, it should always have specific information on its source. If you think about it, whether or not you are the original author makes no difference - you have to go through the exact same steps to classify it as fair use, or whatever status it takes on. The biggest issue with using a substantial amount of material on Wikipedia that has been published elsewhere stands regardless of ownership - we have to be able to prove that the person who created it is the person giving the text away, and proving that it is actually the owner who did it and not some crank pretending to be them. Our informal policy is probably to get their permission via an e-mail or the like and paste it into the discussion page, removing it in the instance of a crank. A formal policy would require something more than that, though. -- Alterego 00:44, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but the point is that we need a how-to for people who are not already immersed in Wiki culture on what to do up front to minimize hassles. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:52, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I had this sort of hassle with the article on Sharon Lee. She and her husband Steve Miller sent me their standard package which contained long and short biographies, which have been used on a bunch of websites describing their work. I condensed a reasonable-looking article out of the shorter ones and got hit by a copy-vio notice. Even putting a copy of the email up on the talk page wasn't enough, and the article got deleted. -- Phil | Talk 08:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Many original texts go to Wikibooks. If someone does want to donate their original thesis or something similar, maybe they could put it there first and maybe write a condensed version in WP - Skysmith 10:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One thought is that for work published in academic journals and conference proceedings, the copyright holder is almost invariably the publisher not the author. I agree that there should be some procedure for the case that you really do have permission from the copywrite holder to publish something under the GFDL (not likely is the copywrite holder is Springer Verlag). Morris 12:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've put a draft together at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Comments, edits, etc., would be greatly appreciated. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:15, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read your notes yet, but I got a query from a user who is a relative of Irving Langmuir and has some unpublished letters. This would be relevant information should he want to contribute and/or cite those letters. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This has come together nicely, but there is one loose end. Do we already have a page or pages in Wikipedia space to list sources that are not public domain but which Wikipedia may freely use? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Think I just answered my own question: Wikipedia:Free or semi-free non-Public-Domain information resources, Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources

Unless someone speaks up in the next 24 hours or so, I'm going to remove the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials that says it's only a draft, and start looking for appropriate Project Pages from which to link it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:34, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why is Category:Ashlee Simpson onb the Categories for deletion page? It was deleted once on February 4, and seems to have been recreated, and people are still voting on it, even though the vote deadline has passed. Why was it recreated? Rick K 23:37, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

At Open Directory Project, on each new attempt to enhance the article and finally get rid of the neutrality problems and tag, User:Netesq reverts at least some of the changes with the argument:

The content of this article was the result of mediation. It cannot be overruled by a simple vote of two to one, and it cannot be overruled by a doctrine of laches.

Is this backed up by policy? And if yes, what is the procedure to change this result. (And there are more than two editors who want to see changes, see the extensive talk page). -- Pjacobi 17:36, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the only binding decisions on article content are those made as a result of a vote for deletion; "delete" decisions are binding on a specific version of a specific article. Beyond that, everything is open to change. -- Carnildo 19:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A bit of context may be in order here: the right-extremist NPD is making a big thing of the anniversary of the bombing this coming Sunday: their slogan is they don't see the holocaust as a big deal, but the bombing was a war crime: most folk I know regard this as code for Holocaust denial calculated to be just barely cryptic enough not to fall foul of the Holocaust denial law here in Germany. Reuters has some recent context. I'd advise being on the lookout for far right manipulation of this and related pages. ---- Charles Stewart 18:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The right-extremists' views are not relevant here. Moreover, Wikipedia is not an ideological battlefield. Many people outside the U.S. see the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse either a bad case of human rights violation or war crime. However, most of them also believe Saddam Hussein was a bad national leader but without the accused WMD. The fact that the POW abuse case was not trialed in an international criminal court, is because the U.S. refused to sign some treaties.

There are well-educated and not-very-biased people who see that WW2 bombing a war crime. So were the mass killings of Native Americans during the 19th century. This is a valid viewpoint which may not be denied. -- Toytoy 09:15, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I am certainly not a right extremist, that is another insult that I have received here. In fact, my views are left-leaning. But that should certainly not be relevant, and there is nothing extremist in my original post. That sort of ad-hominem attack should have no place here, and branding me vandal and right extremist is just what that is, on the basis of disagreement of views. MarkSop Feb 11

Postscript: User:151.203.229.38 has been blocked for 20 hours, and the plaintiff User:MarkSop, who wrote the text above, has been blocked for 24 hours [20]. User:MarkSop is a partial fit for the right extremist wiki warrior I painted above, complete with characterisations of the bombing as a real holocaust. I'd advise people to put Bombing of Dresden in World War II and be on the lookout for sockpuppets. ---- Charles Stewart 20:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What you write may all be true (and I haven't really checked to see what User:MarkSop actually wrote) but we must never remove something from Wikipedia simply because it may, if read in a particular light, give comfort to a holocaust denier. As early as the mid-sixties, the American novelist Kurt Vonnegut described his experiences as a prisoner of war during the bombardment of Dresden ( Slaughterhouse Five). If the range of those reported killed in the bombing was as current version of the article (25,000 to more than 60,000), this is in the same range over two days as the total number of people killed in Britain during The Blitz in eight months during 1940-41 (42,000), and nearly comparable to the immediate deaths as a result of the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The effectiveness, morality and lawfulness of the late bombing campaigns on the German cities have long been questioned in Britain by mainstream thinkers of all persuasions. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The way I was treated here is completely unfair. I did not break the rule, or at least did not believe that I did, as comments with my posts clearly indicate. The post that was reverted 4 times was substantialy different from the other 2 posts which merely changed one sentence. What is counted as a revert? Also, it is not true that I posted text "war crimes" 6 times - I have made 6 posts and one does not have reference to the war crimes at all, while wording is different in the oters. So, if you want to interpret that way, I made 5 posts wich you consider equivalent, while user 151 has made 5 reverts to the same version. And does the first post count as a revert, or only further posts? Wikipedia clearly states that people who violate 3 revert rule should be treated equally in the same incident, and so if you want to interpret that I broke the rule too (and this can be questioned), then why did I get 24 h and he 20 h? All that while I have stated that I respect the policy, while 151 has stated that it does not apply since my edits are "vandalism" (does he believe that or was that an abuse, which I believe)? I think this is simply outrageous, and to be insulted here as a right extremist on top of all!!

-MarkSOp

---

Do read the account at the Administrator's noticeboard (and User:MarkSop's actual edits if you care enough). Of course truth should trump political calculation, but if you know that what you are about to say will be music to the ears of the holocaust deniers, better make doubly sure that you are in the right, and are not being suckered into playing a role in piece of set theatre. ---- Charles Stewart 21:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, do read my posts. I firmly stand by them - are you suggesting there is something wrong or misrepresented here by me? The first post might be an ironic comment (which seems to apply more than I thought) but all other posts were perfectly serious and there is nothing wrong there - I believe I was abused here because of my views. And also, the way my complaint was handled is a violation of policies stated on this site.

-MarkSop

David Irvin as a court-approved holocaust denier

User Charles Stewart reverted my edit of Bombing of Dresden in World War II:

• Previous and reverted:
  • There have been larger estimates for the number of dead, ... but they are from disputed sources, such as the ... controversial self-taught historical writer and prominent Holocaust denier David Irving, ...
• My edit:
  • There have been larger estimates for the number of dead, ... but they are from disputed sources, such as the ... controversial self-taught historical writer David Irving, ...

When we talk about a number, we hire accountants, mathematicians, logicians, historians, witnesses, all kinds of experts to prove or disprove the validity of that number. The fact that Mr. Blah-Blah-Blah used to be a goddamn crazy liar or has some sort of bias is not a good reason to reject the number. That is POV. You don't reject someone's point just because he/she is a f**king: communist, atheist, idol-worshipper, cannibal, child-molester, Macintosh advocate, dog eater, drug-abuser, flat-earth believer, imperialist, feminist, tree-hugger, thief, PETA member, Pantagon employee, terrorist, anyone over 30 years old ... You reject it simply because it is proven wrong. -- Toytoy 09:49, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

As I have argued on the talk page, the fact that David Irving is a holocaust denier is cogent, because of the modern political context of the bombing of Dresden. ---- Charles Stewart 10:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Charles Stewart I cannot believe you're a logician. :) I did not use jargons because I did not want to make my point too difficult to understand. Now I am using them.

• David Irving as a holocaust denier -> appeal to authority

"Holocaust denier" is a political label. You can safely call Mr. Blah-Blah-Blah a Congolese, Harvard student, Pepsi stockholder, car owner, IEEE member, ex-convict, professional karate coach, Playboy centerfold photographer, because these titles are well-defined. The label "Holocaust denier" is not so.

I haven't reviewed the Irving v. Lipstadt cases. Based on my understanding of the law, I believe it was Irving's wrong litigation strategy (self-representation) and the hostile attitude towards him that cost his case. Details aside, it was Deborah Lipstadt who was the defendant. The court cannot sentence David Irving as a holocaust denier whatever the crime is. Irving's use of bad materials and methodology clears Lipstadt's libel accusation and that's all. You may call Irving a lousy researcher. Your label of "Holocaust denier" is only protected by the Freedom of Speech.

The U.S. case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell let Larry Flynt get away from tort damages. But the court did not sentence Jerry Falwell a mother fucker as a result of it. "Jerry Falwell fucks his mother" is not a logical conclusion here.

• Using Irving's political belief to reject his number -> ad hominem circumstantial

Your use of label is ad hominem and not logical.

My suggestion:

• There have been larger estimates for the number of dead, ... but they are from disputed sources, such as the ... controversial self-taught historical writer David Irving, ... . Irving has been called as a Holocaust denier by many of his opponents. This may lead to some people's rejection of his idea. However, his claim has been disproved by SOMEONE using SOME FACT-BASED MEANS which was not based on his political belief.

If you think it is clumsy, it is. The possibility or fact of right-wing misuse of Irving's view is not relevant. You don't base your judgement on it. It is logically like "... because someone could rape my daughter on her way to school, I lock her in the basement." -- Toytoy 10:58, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to exclude Irving's estimate; his presumed bias should also be raised as of some relevance, but what is more important is that we should try to show as well as possible the actual basis of Irving's calculations (and, indeed, of everybody's calculations). Someone who is biased can still do useful work that can be examined and critiqued by a reader who is made aware of them. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 12:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

My motivation for getting involved in the issue is that I want to counter manipulation of Wikipedia by right-extremists and their useful idiots. That is all personal, subjective, POV etc. and isn't appropriate either as content or an editing crieria for Wikipedia articles. My editing of Wikipedia articles and criticisms of other's edits on the talk pages is done according to my best understanding of Wikipedia policy (with the occasional lapses, which I will apologise for if they are brought to my attention), and will be done in accordance with NPOV standards. So: motivation for my edits: POV, standards of editing: NPOV. It is appropriate to bring the attention of other editors to the sensitive nature of the anniversary of the bombing, and the right-extremist campaign going on here in Dresden and elsewhere so that they pay particular attention to dubious editing.

My case for rving your deletion of the label holocaust denier to the person David Irving in that article is that:

1. The issue over whether David Irving is a holocaust denier has been raised and workled out on the David Irving page, and the consensus view is that it is NPOV to call David Irving a Holocuats denier. Hence calling him what he is on the bombing page is also NPOV, especially when the link to the case is right there on the word David Irving. If you want to reopen the issue of whether of David Irving is a holocaust denier, go right ahead there on the David Irving page. If you succeed in moving the consensus to agree that this is, after all, a POV view (winning all your arguments in the RfC process), then I will happily change the text to alleged holocaust denier.
2. You have made no objection to the cogency of holocaust denial to the modern political context of the Dresden bombing.

Since I understand the application of that label to that person to be (i) accurate according to policy and (ii) cogent, any edit that removes the label I infer to be a bad edit, and as an interested editor, I am obliged to repair the damage. ---- Charles Stewart 12:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have made my suggestion:

• ... such as the ... controversial self-taught historical writer David Irving, ... . Irving has been called as a Holocaust denier by many of his opponents. This may lead to some people's rejection of his idea. However, his claim has been disproved by SOMEONE using SOME FACT-BASED MEANS which was not based on his political belief.

I think it's you the Irving opponents who bear the burden of proof here. As a 3rd party, I don't want to waste my time on it. So far I can only say your logic is miserable. -- Toytoy 12:54, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is one point I don't think is politically correct to make. Whatever the figure is, you have to show people how SOMEONE arrives THAT NUMBER. I mean data and methodology. You may call Irving a crackpot neo-Nazi holocaust denier, that's your freedom of speech. But this is encyclopedia, you need to present proof to justify your rightness and his wrongness. This is not Hollywood, Nazi-bashing is not a valid logical argument here. -- Toytoy 12:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate to describe Irving as a holocaust denier; it is more important, however, to put as much information as possible about his assumptions in arriving at his figure. We should not dismiss his figures if he, as it were "shows us his working out" so that any factual errors can be spotted and corrected. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 12:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Irving's own website for proof of how he arrived at the wrong number http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dresden/TheTimes070766.html The link is included in the references on the wikipedia page "Bombing of Dresden in World War II". The trouble is, as noted in the footnote on the same wikipedia page, that since the letter to the Times, he has continued to state numbers in excess of 100,000 for the dead in Dresden raids. Philip Baird Shearer

For further details see http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/evidence/evans006.asp as presented in court by by Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge. Here is quote from Paragraph 21:

Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about.

Given the drubbing that Irving received from Evans and others in court, it is not surprising that the trial judge, Justice Charles Gray said:

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

To call Irving a Holocaust denier is not "only protected by the Freedom of Speech" By which I presume Toytoy means the US first amendment. Most people do not live by or under the US constitution. It is also protected by the findings of a court of law in Britain. Where there was so much evidence supporting this view that it is difficult to see any court anywhere disagreeing with the judges conclusions.

All of this has already been discussed (several times) on the Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II and Talk:David Irving and their archives which are available to anyone who wishes to modify the parent articles. Philip Baird Shearer 14:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Toytoy: I don't have a problem with a critical presentation of Irving's estimate, though I think it is a sideshow, and I think would best be dealt with in a more specialised article,, say David Irving's estimate of causualies of the Dresden bombing. There is ample material to draw from on the Irving talk page. Why not add the edits, and we can figure out what to do with the material.

I do have issues with the following parts of your proposed wording:

1. Irving has been called as a Holocaust denier by many of his opponents is a weaselly violation of POV. The evidence for his holocaust denial is plain, and is presented on the David Irving. If you think you can change the consensus, be my guest, but do so face on, on the David Irving page.
2. This may lead to some people's rejection of his idea I would say is against the policies Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms and Wikipedia:Spoon feeding. If you present concrete, cogent examples of people making these inferences, fine, but vague speculation about the possibility of inferences is not cogent.

---- 
Charles Stewart 13:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hi, user 151.203.229.38 has broke the 3 revert rule in article about the dresden bombing. he has accused me of being a vandal whose edits were vandalism and said that justifies the brach of the rule. however, my edits were not vandalism as you can easily see - i merely added that some people think bombing was a war crime and restored a section about other bombings from the site itself (it was not marked as the vandalism at the time). this edit (adding a section) was reverted more than 3 times by that user. also, i suspect that rmherman, who is operator here, is the same as user 151.203.229.38, but have no way of knowing. Is it allowed for the operators to intimidate users in this way about the views that they disagree with? are there going to be any sanctions against user 151.203.229.38, or rmherman if he was indeed the same person - i find this behaviour extremelly upseting and abusive? (unsigned)

Well that's very annoying behavior, and if all you're doing is editing of this kind he shouldn't call it vandalism. Your contention is easy enough to support--people as diverse as the German socialist writer Gunter Grass and the former editor of the Times, Simon Jenkins have referred to the Dresden bombing as a war crime (as of course did Goebbels). The historian Joerg Friedrich, in his book The Fire, also suggests this. These aren't the views of cranks, Nazi apologists or neo-nazis (Friedrich, while calling himself a revisionist historian, is no holocaust denier), and you could probably make a good case that they should be represented in an article on the bombing. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 17:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Am I to understand this is a little too strongly worded? It's confusing given the templates exist and are being used. So it's discouraging non-free images, but they are allowed right... I can upload them? - RoyBoy [ ∞] 01:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They're being used on images that are already in Wikipedia. No new images should use them. -- Carnildo 01:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So then if someone releases photos to Wikipedia only, how best can their work be protected? Is fairuse the best we have? (I'm trying to upload photos from a Canadian photographer, who wouldn't mind releasing them to Wikipedia only.) - RoyBoy [ ∞] 04:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Roy, that's not the way Wikipedia works. We're trying to create a free encyclopedia that anyone can use, copy, download, fold, spindle and mutilate -- that means finding photographs that people are willing to "let go of" a little bit, by licensing under the GFDL and/or Creative Commons, or releasing to the public domain. (We hope to reduce our reliance on fair use as much as possible.) It's much harder to get a photographer to agree to "let go", than getting them to simply agree to have their works used in an educational encyclopedia. Our selection of photos has certainly suffered from this policy in the past, but little by little our collection grows in width, depth and quality, and the hope is that eventually people really will be able to use our work here without fear of either a) having to do massive amounts of work finding and filtering out non-free/special-use/questionable images or b) copyright liability issues.

We do our best (indeed, we are obligated) to see that creators are credited for their work, but we can't control the downstream uses of photographs any more than we can control the many mirrors who are making Google Ad money off of our text. Not every photographer will be willing to do that, and that's okay -- we will still find the images we need over time. Explain the concept thoroughly and well, don't deceive anyone, and keep trying. — Catherine\ ^talk 23:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We have stated posting a "Bias" notice where we believe it to be very appropriate. It is despicable to find numerous articles created and added to by one or two contributors that go beyond NPOV and are filled with omissions, distortions, absolute falsehoods, and in several cases, racism.

This problem was well enunciated at:

• Wikipedia:Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement

• • The problem is not vandals. Vandals don't stay that long . The problem is persistent POV pusher and trolls who are here for months/years without ever leaving.
  • I am ok with trolls, but a POV pusher, if intelligent, keeps easily editing on at the WP. I see it (and read it a lot). 80.58.23.44 16:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many articles related to Quebec are in this category where the bias and fraud perpetuated on Wikipedia is massive and pervasive. Wikipedia has come under sharp criticism and dismissed as unreliable by a number of sources precisely because of this type of thing. The very nature of Wikipedia opens the door to those with an agenda and a place where radicals can get there say that they can't get elsewhere. The many legitimate and dedicated article contributors to Wikipedia do not want to devote hours correcting deliberate NPOV and fabricated articles. We come here to enjoy the participation concept, not to spend our time protecting Wikipedia from those with an agenda.

If anyone has questions, please feel free to ask. However, we are not interested in having those who have been part of this biased input pretend innocence and ask questions. Those people will not be responded to under any circumstances. So far, we have posted "bias" notices on the following:

• Lower Canada Rebellion
• Chateau Clique
• Quebec sovereignty movement
• Médard des Groseilliers
• Pierre-Esprit Radisson

JillandJack 18:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as the mechanics of tagging go, we've already got the {{NPOV}} tag for this. The {{bias}} tag is has been nominated for deletion. As for the bias, {{sofixit}}. I'll remove the {{bias}} tag from any article you stick it on unless you put a reason that you think it's biased on the talk page. -- Carnildo 18:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A fairly important poll is under way on Talk:Autofellatio concerning whether to link the image or keep it inline. Consensus level is set to 70% and the deadline is presently set to 20 March, 2005. Click the link in the heading of this section. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 12:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

what happens in case of outcomes 31%...69%? Inclusionism by default? dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If a 31%-69% result is reached then the poll will have failed as a means of building consensus. It's by no means an endorsement of either alternative presented in the poll. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 17:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should wikipedia have a policy on citing the new online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? In many cases the new edition of the DNB will have the most up to date and comprehensive biog of UK people, esp of minor figures. However the online version is subscription only, so is it good policy to link a wiki article to a URL of the ODNB entry?

For a sample of the ODNB compare wiki on Matt Busby with the DNB page on Busby, Sir Matthew (1909-1994) (sub required, but currently viewable here as a "life of the day" free preview).

-- mervyn 14:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of old, but I like this and its template. I would like people to comment on it, and hope to see it to be official policy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have placed this policy to official vote. Voting ends on March 1, 2005 at 23:59 UTC. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia policy on table syntax? Is the wiki syntax preferred, and am I thus justified in replacing the HTML coding with the wiki stuff? And, as a final question, is there a case for a wikiproject (à la User:Yann/Untagged Images) to sort out table syntax? Thanks. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 23:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikimarkup is preferred whenever possible. If you want to replace HTML with it, feel free. There's no tables Wikiproject that I know of. -- Slowking Man 06:56, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested in a table conversion project. It would be somewhat of a massive undertaking. I've done a bit on some elements, but the size of the aircraft task put me off the idea of attempting it by myself. Noisy | Talk 12:58, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

You may be able to enlist the help of a bot (see Wikipedia:Bots for more info, and to find someone with experience building/running one.) This definitely should not be a fully automated task -- too much chance for article damage -- but if a bot could do the initial search-and-replace from HTML to wiki syntax, and then you could preview to find the inevitable errors, it would speed up the task a great deal. — Catherine\ ^talk 01:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I use a text editor (Ultraedit) that supports macros, and recorded a macro with a whole bunch of search-and-replace commands that handle about 95% of the table tags I come across in my wiki travels and cleans up line breaks nicely as well. I don't usually hunt HTML tables to use it on, but whenever I'm editing an article with an HTML table in it I run it through my macro and then manually fix up the remaining bits, which is generally quite easy. Bryan 03:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

((I believe this belongs here, if not, please move it to the appropriate place.))

One thing about this series of articles seems dangerously non-NPOV to me (to put it friendly, 'a violation of human dignity' to be somewhat more polemic): the item about 'military manpower' gives us the estimated numbers of 'males age 15?49' 'available' and 'fit for military service' for the country in question.

This suggests that males and only males (of the given age) are universally predestined to serve in the military. Which is certainly a POV, and might be seen as degrading by many. Were these figures only given on pages on countries which do draft recruits along these criteria (which certainly holds for many, if not most countries) I might not be alarmed. However, I stumbled across it in the article Military of Iceland, which explicitly states that Iceland 'has never had a military'?ie never drafted, and a fortiori never drafted only males.

People, this is terrible. Please let's take our policies serious and get rid of it, quickly.

((By the way, just to pour some oil on the waters of the 'Americentric' debates: Why are the military expenditures given in Chilean pesos ↑?))

? Anothername 21:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing POV about stating how many people are in the group that predominantly makes up members of militaries. You want the information gone, go convince the world that their military forces should include large numbers of 60 year old women with missing limbs. -- Cyrius| ✎ 23:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It may not be POV, but it is foolish assume that all countries would be willing (sheer number of troops is unlikely to be a determining factor in a modern war) and or able (You try to draft me and I'll leave the country!) to recruit such a number of people. Equally it is foolish to assume that a modern counrty would ignore the resources of women. -- Neo 23:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Military The US CIA "World fact book" is persumably the source. It would be difficult to find the correct figures for 18-49 when the figures from the CIA can be reused without copyright problems (although with a little bit of work one could extrapolate them). The UK recruits from "16 years of age for voluntary military service" [21]. As for a modern country which would ignore the military resources of women and recruits all men, try Switzerland: "[all men] 19 years of age for compulsory military service; 17 years of age for voluntary military service; conscripts receive 15 weeks of compulsory training, followed by 10 intermittent recalls for training over the next 22 years" [22] (and any man who is not fit for military service, but is fit enought to work has to pay more taxes as their bit towards national defence!). Philip Baird Shearer 00:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Norway has the same scheme; men are drafted for compulsory military service of one year, with recurring excercises. Women have the choice to enter the military, and are given much incentive to do so; there are also large-scale advertising campaigns to make women enter voluntarily. Still, the Norwegian military is a male-dominated gang. Returning to the point: "males 15-49 available" is a pretty accurate term, as women are not drafted per se in most countries. It is misleading, aye, but if we want to show the full strength (both men and women 15-49) it's rather simple to multiply the current number by 2.05 or so, giving that there are slightly more females than males in most countries. -- TVPR 09:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the info comes from the CIA, the article should state that so people know we aren't just pulling those numbers out of thin air. To whomever added those numbers we should be saying document your source! — Mike 02:58, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

The point I try to make (possibly in poor English) is: Notwithstanding the fact that most countries (as I believe) draft men, not women, this is still nothing more than 'politics' (or tradition, whatever). There is no necessary link so to speak between the property of being male and the dispositional property of being 'draftable'. (And it is about 'draftability' here, not the factual drafting of men, as we have seen in the Iceland article.) Assuming that being male makes a citizen particularly fit (more so at least than being female does) for being drafted to the military is non-NPOV. As such I believe it should not be stated in the article series the way it is now. Even more so as some (men or women) might take offence in the presentation as a fact of some connexion 'male?military'. I, for one, do. Personally I'd like to see the info in question kicked out of the articles, but a clear indication of source (making clear that it is not Wikipedia's policy to establish that link, but eg the CIA's, for what reason ever) might do as well and perhaps better. ? Anothername 14:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I recently added NPOV tags to Military of Iceland and Military of France. In principle, my argument holds for all articles with the CIA databox. But the stupidness of the CIA data is most evident in articles like these two: for Iceland, see above; for France, I quote: in 2001, conscription was ended. However, young people must still register for possible conscription should the events call for it, with the change that now females must register as well.
? Anothername 13:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) (and yes, I did get my account just when I started this discussion, but I'm an anonymous contributor for quite some time)

I would like to question this page's neutrality. The way I saw it, it was blatantly pro-Sandinista, anti-Somoza. It could not have been more slanted if Ortega himself had written it.

If you want to question the page's neutrality, please explain on Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front exactly why you think the article is not neutral. If you can, please also explain how you would go about fixing it. And don't forget to cite your sources, of course. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 01:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I edited the pages Anastasio Somoza Debayle, Sandinista, Ian Smith, and others (and listed my sources), yet they were changed back to how they were. What's up with that?

Your edits were didn't adhere to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. See the article histories for more detail: Ian Smith history, Sandinista National Liberation Front history, Ian Smith history. You will find reasons (in form of edit summaries) why other users reverted your edits. utcursch 03:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Your complete blanking of the Bill Stewart article was certainly a valid edit. </sarcasm> Rick K 05:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Also this one. I would like this policy to be voted on and made official as well. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Managers of Wikipedia:

I'm a newcomer to Wikopedia. I have already become a registered contributor and have made a few such contributions to the Wikopedia encyclopedia. In so doing, I've come to realize that you suffer a bandwidth shortage that limits Wikopedia's value as an online reference. Pages often take anywhere from 15 to 60 seconds to appear, which often makes browsing or any serious research a rather frustrating endeavor. To that end, I have a few suggestions that might be considered, as follows:

-- REQUIRE ALL CONTRIBUTORS TO REGISTER. I don't think it would be asking too much to limit contributions to persons who register. With this change, people could browse the listings without registering but could not make edits. Requiring registration would also cut down on the instances of vandalism, since such fraudulent changes would be easier to trace if you had more information about the contributor than merely their IP address.

-- I'd be willing to contribute money to the Wikipedia Foundation if I knew more specifically how that money would be used. For instance, would it be used to help solve the current bandwidth shortage? If funding is a serious problem, perhaps you need to charge a small "contributor's fee" to support these much-needed upgrades. If you have as many contributors as I suspect, then asking each to contribute $5 or $10 per year may not be too much to ask. However, I believe that Wikipedia should always remain free to browsers who don't wish to edit its contents.

Thanks for letting me express my ideas. I think Wikipedia has a tremendous potential if these issues are addressed. I am very pleased that I stumbled upon this online resource, and I look forward to making additional contributions in the future.

Bart 18:06, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

The speed problems are caused primarily by server response time issues, not bandwidth limitations. To put it simply, Wikipedia's servers aren't fast enough to keep up with demand. Mandatory user registration isn't going to happen. Another fundraising drive is planned to start before too long. -- Cyrius| ✎ 18:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And just as a minor note: Because of the way the Wikipedia software works, viewing pages is *much* faster if you aren't logged in at the time. -- Carnildo 21:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are many types of documents that could be quite important for an article to be clear. Is there a place for them on wikipedia? For instance, an article about a poet could include his works on seperate pages, as long as it's legally correct. However, this doesn't seem to be the case. Why? Maybe there should be (or already is) a seperate wiki for it?

You're looking for Wikisource. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 03:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But only for items which are not copyrighted. Rick K 06:56, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Do we have a policy on absent or misleading edit summaries, meaning, is there an accepted way to approach editors who consistently do not include proper summaries? This may involve the abuse of the "minor edit" feature, but the two also happen independently of each other. -- Eddi (Talk) 13:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's no set-in-stone policy; one is encouraged, but not required, to summarize edits for the benefit of observers. If you think lack of edit summaries is a real problem, you can try posting a polite message to the editor's talk page explaining that edit summaries are considered beneficial and gently encouraging them to summarize their edits properly. If they're using misleading edit summaries, OTOH, a sterner warning is appropriate: misleading edit summaries are rude, when they're not a cover for malicious vandalism. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 17:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is, however, that approaching an editor without a policy might be considered rude or even harassing, which is not beneficial to any parties. I have seen several editors (i.e. more than 1) being asked to improve their behaviour with no avail. I would like to have a policy before critisising anyone. -- Eddi (Talk) 03:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do we need a policy stick to beat people into providing edit summaries? If they're told that edit summaries are appreciated and that summarizing one's edits is the polite thing to do, and they still refuse to summarize their edits, then what's the big deal? Are unsummarized edits really so irritating? Do all edits, even trivial typo or formatting fixes, really need to be summarized? Some people summarize each edit in detail, some people don't summarize any edits, some (like yours truly) summarize edits that need to be summarized. (Others use edit summaries to argue or flame, and the policy on edit summaries explicitly discourages that.) Not summarizing one's edits is, in my opinion, no more than a minor bad habit. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 04:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know that I often forget to put in the edit summary. Sorry. Personally, I would like a feature so that when I push the "Save page" button, a little box pops up that says "Edit summary? _______________" to give me a chance to fill in the edit summary right then. Morris 04:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Edit summary which advices Always fill the summary field. Referring to that when asking contributors to use edit summaries seems like the way to go. Thue | talk 14:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks – I'll see if the edit summary template can be used. By the way, I like the idea of a popup box prompting for missing edit summaries. Is it feasible?
Regarding encouragement of edit summaries: Yes, in my opinion, all edits should be summarised. How else can you distinguish minor edits from significant ones? Unless you virtually stalk editors there is no telling who leaves out summaries always or sometimes and why. The edit summary policy is there for a reason. -- Eddi (Talk) 00:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me if this has been discussed ad infinitum, and also if this is the wrong place for such a question.

I am very new to Wikipedia, having lurked for awhile before making a login. During the lurk phase, I had occasion to look at a user page of a person who had reverted a minor change I'd made. I noticed he'd catalogued the dates upon which he had acheived certain numbers of edits, as if the primary reason to work on Wikipedia is to have more edits than the next guy.

That cannot possibly be the mindset of the majority of Wikiphiles, or the system wouldn't work. I've tried to find some info in the FAQ/wikiquette section about edit-count-inflation -- to no avail, but perhaps I wasn't looking in the right place.

Can an old hat please provide some insight on how Wikipedia deals with those who edit for the sakle of increasing their total number of edits?

Thanks,

Throbblefoot

In most communities, including Wikipedia, people who do things merely to seem like they merit status are visible as such, and said efforts are ignored. That being said, cataloguing numbers of edits, provided it isn't tossed around as evidence of quality contribution or status, seems harmless enough. For people who arn't out to glorify themselves, it's probably true that their number of edits provides a rough measure of the degree of their contributions, although it is certainly an abusable measure, and doesn't take into account the other ways someone can contribute. -- Improv 01:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) Mostly we laugh at these people and move on. Anyone who edits just to get a higher editcount is, to put it kindly, missing the point of editing here; anyone who cares about someone else's editcount really needs to find some more important things to care about. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 02:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If your only motivation is making your editcount bigger, humbug to you. Quality over quantity is always valued here on the 'pedia (as far as I've seen). That said, I smiled at my 100th and 200th edits, and will probably smile at my 1000th edit. It's kind of like celebrating a birthday - it doesn't make you a better person but it still gives people a rough estimate on your experience level. (of course there's always exceptions). [[User:Consequencefree| Ardent ^† _∈]] 02:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Was it me? I collect edit counts just as I collect everything else (but really - that stack of old newspapers will have to go at some time). Recording my milestones on my user page is just for me to chart my addiction. Probably half my edits are just vandalism or test rvs, and MoS corrections, so I accept that people like Mirv will just smile and shake their head. Whatever. Noisy | Talk 13:09, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, I think Noisy's argument is exactly right. I actually have a link to my edit count in my signature (the (c) at the end). It is not a matter of bragging - I only have about 730 edits, so bragging would be pointless. It is a matter of feeling good about reaching a certain milestone (and I would lose the link to the tool if I didn't put it there). Take a sporting analogy: in soccer, Thierry Henry does not set out to be the top scorer in the season, but he still celebrates that he is. In cricket, a batsman gets a great feeling about reaching a century - but he didn't set out solely to score a century. If you don't like people doing it, ignore it. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 17:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very for your responses. Some seem to think I meant that keeping track of your post count is inherently bad, which isn't my point. I think Consequencefree said it best: "If your only motivation is making your editcount bigger, humbug to you." The question I meant to ask was "how does the community manage the problem?" It seems that the general answer is "the system works," which I never doubted. I suppose I'll just have to stick around to figure it out!

For what it's worth (approximately nothing), I took the liberty of looking up your numbers of edits, and none of you are even in the same ballpark as the person I mentioned, who is closer to 10,000 edits than he is to any of your totals. I'm going to chalk him up as an anomaly. Thanks again! -Throbblefoot

I'd like to start a discussion and perhaps form a policy surrounding the inclusion of political slogans as their own articles.

I, for one, believe that slogans should be treated like songs in this respect. They should by all means be included in the relevant articles, but they do not each merit individual articles unless they have been particuliarly influencial. Of course more clear guidelines have to be developped to this end, but this is a starting point for discussion. [[User:Consequencefree| Ardent ^† _∈]] 01:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I strongly believe this is outside of Wikipedia scope. Regardless, such things do have intellectual and cultural value. I would advocate another location (perhaps a Wikimedia project) for such material. This would include slogans (e.g. "Hey Hey LBJ..."), catchphrases ("I know you are but what am I"), mottos ("E pluribus unum"), popular quotes ("Ask not what your country can do for you"), entertainment references (e.g. "Do you feel lucky, punk?"), and other cultural references.

Slogans (and etc.) in and of themselves are not encyclopedic. The encyclopedic topic lies in the source of the slogan, whether as a company (e.g. McDonald's), organization (e.g. PETA), movement (e.g. Women's suffrage), personality (e.g. John F. Kennedy), movie (e.g. The Matrix), etc., etc.

But these things -- slogans, etc. -- do not in and of themselves belong in an encyclopedia. They are aspects of cultural literacy (though I don't just mean by E.D. Hirsch's antiquarian/canonist definition, but also that of contemporary and modern culture). They deserve a place, it's just not WP.

- Keith D. Tyler [ flame 01:20, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I feel that slogans definitely don't deserve their own articles. They may be well placed when they can add productively to an article. -- Improv 01:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • If we know the group they're associated with, I suggest a policy of merging any relevant information into the group's (or movement's, or whatever) article. Obviously if the group doesn't have an article we should consider that their slogan may just be non-notable. If we can work out who in specific actually said the phrase we can put it on WikiQuote, or even on the person's article. [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I would also note that if someone wants to find out about something like JFK's "Ask not..." statement, a search engine would find it in his article (assuming that it is there). Making it the title of a new article really wouldn't help much, because no one would be able to type it exactly correctly (including spacing and punctuation) so they would have to use a search function anyway. Morris 13:30, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

• My view is that they should normally be inlcuded within the relevant articles unless there is so much that can be said about them that they need to be spun off for page length, etc issues. Very notable slogans shoudld be set-up as redirects if they're needed. Thryduulf 17:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with most of the opinions stated here. However, if a slogan is used for any other purpose (say as the title of a book or name of a web site), one could argue that it has separate merit. Currently, we have the articles List of slogans, List_of_advertising_slogans, McDonald's_TV_campaigns_and_slogans, and List_of_NBC_slogans, in addition to categories Category:Political_slogans and Category:Advertising_slogans. We also have slogan articles that aren't even words, like Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun. The current precedent says that slogans are encyclopedic only if the word "Slogan:" is added to the article's title for NPOV purposes. In any case, a clear policy should be set for what is notable for a separate article, and qualifying articles should be re-titled for NPOV. DanP 09:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I'll put myself in the minority by saying that slogans are a perfectly good subject matter for Wikipedia articles, if the story of the slogan has enough substance to it. An example: there's a substantial litereature and an excellent Wikipedia article just on the documenting the use that Lenin made of Marx's slogan "From each according to his ability..." ---- Charles Stewart 12:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I know we can copy text from here as long as we follow the GNU policies. But can we also copy images?

Please let me know, Thanks

If the images are under the GFDL or a similar license, or are public domain, yes. Note, however, that many of the images are "copyrighted fair use", so using them yourself may not fall under the "fair use" doctrine. -- Carnildo 20:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Each image has an image page describing the license it is under. Just click on the image to see it. We strive to use images under weak licenses wherever possible, but some are under stricter terms, for the sake of quality. If you wish to use all of our images, you would want to use some kind of filter based on the tags on the image pages. I've suggested creating a separate download of "safe" images, but this doesn't seem to have materialized. Deco 19:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On controversial pages, saying 'some people believe' vs. 'many people believe' can be a point of disagreement and the choice could appear to subtly push the POV of the article toward one of the sides. Has there ever been discussion on this?-- Nectarflowed 09:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Best practise is to avoid both of those and any phrasing like it. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two things:

1. I changed the lead text of Category:Articles which may be biased to say that you shouldn't slap the template on an artcile until after raising the matter on the talk page; the previous text only suggested that one ought to get around to raising the matter there eventually...
2. WP:NPOV ought to have a section outlining how to go about raising a POV issue, and how to handle one that has been rasied. Currently the article has, nothing, not even a pointer to information on this. ---- Charles Stewart 09:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Sybian. The images at the bottom of the page were listed for deletion on the IfD page because they have embedded URLs which link to a commercial site. There was very little discussion about them on the IfD page, one person voting to delete, the person who spammed Wikipedia with them voting to keep. With no consensus, they're being kept. But do we really want to allow images on Wikipedia with URLs embedded in them? Rick K 01:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Based on the furor over the display/non-display of "offensive" images in articles, I've been looking into various methods of tagging images so that users can keep from seeing images that they find objectionable. However, none of the existing systems seem usable:

• PICS does not specify a vocabulary for describing images
• RSACi is obsolete, and the vocabulary was based on computer games, not web sites.
• ICRA's license does not appear to be suitable for use with Wikipedia, and requires a judgement call of "is this image suitable for young children?"
• SafeSurf has a very limited vocabulary for our purposes: only SS~~001 3 (profanity in a technical context), SS~~004 3 (nudity in a technical context), and SS~~005 3 (violence in a technical context) are applicable to Wikipedia.
• Vancouver Webpages has the same limitations as SafeSurf.

Are there any I've missed? -- Carnildo 23:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think this is definitely the way to go, though I agree that none of the existing systems will work for wikipedia. I think this is going to be a case where we need to roll our own; It'll have to be quite specific as we'll need to keep the descriptions such that everyone agrees with them. A few tag suggestions: visible genitals; visible breasts (female); visible breasts (male) (someone is bound to demand this one in response to the previous one); visible gentials as the focus of picture (tricky to get everyone to agree on but perhaps with some guidelines it can be done); open wounds or infections; deceased people; ... -- fvw * 23:34, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

I've been working on a list of my own, that I'll be posting soon. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't miss anything that could do the job instead. Should I post the list here, or on a new page in the Wikipedia namespace? -- Carnildo 00:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Will there also be tags like spiders for those people who have such bad arachnophobia that they can't even look at images of spiders. Evil Monkey∴ Hello? 00:18, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

This issue has been, and continues to be, discussed on Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 00:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a proposed image tagging system at Wikipedia:Descriptive image tagging. -- Carnildo 08:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering if there was a way to stop censorship hidden behind the banner of "defending against POVs". Too often it seems whenever someone says this they just want to start a witch hunt against the view they disagree with. I am currently faced with this problem in the George W. Bush article. -- Karmafist 06:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was just going to add Michael Häupl to the alphabetical list of people when I realized I had no idea about our policy here. As "ä" can be transcribed "ae" (and "ö" can be "oe" etc.), there are basically three options. Considering alphabetical lists in German, I have come across all of them, sometimes even within the same list (telephone directories). I'd like to avoid that kind of chaos in Wikipedia, so who can point me to a reference?

The three options (as I said, all taken from real life) are:

(1) ä regarded as a: Habicht, Hall, Haller, Haubner, Haunold, Häupl, Haupt, Häuser, Hausman, Hawelka.

(2) ä regarded as ae: Habicht, Häupl, Häuser, Hall, Haller, Haubner, Haunold, Haupt, Hausman, Hawelka.

(3) ä as a kind of addendum to a: Habicht, Hall, Haller, Haubner, Haunold, Haupt, Hausman, Hawelka, Häupl, Häuser.

With more and more German names being added to Wikipedia, I think this is something that should be discussed / clarified.

Could you please also put a brief message on my talk page? Thanks. <KF> 22:46, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

You might look at the Swedish alphabet and Finnish alphabet which sorts ä near the end of the alphabet.-- Henrygb 15:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Now of course I realize that there is also an article on the German alphabet. <KF> 11:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it should definitely be sorted as "a", since that's (I think) how most people would do it English. -- Khendon 12:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As this is a computer medium and some people are going to use computers to sort things have a look at:

• http://www.ex.ac.uk/~DCannon/ist-5-15/document/p237.txt
  • http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/xbd_chap07.html
  • http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~davidt/cit3611/C_UNIX/character_collation.htm

There is a problem with theses definitions, because the range is "Aa-Zz" so to get the full range of the alphabet one has to use "A through to z", because the algorithm for searching is not defined in the literature, a backwards and forwards search will turn up different sets for "A-Z" and "a-z". Philip Baird Shearer 13:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Browsing through the list of people shows me the following:

(1) In lots of cases, just as Khendon suggests, ä is treated as a etc. This is the Microsoft Windows "dictionary sorting" referred to in the German alphabet article. Random examples include Ludwig von Köchel ( List_of_people_by_name:_Ko), Ernst Jünger ( List_of_people_by_name:_Ju), Karl Böhm ( List_of_people_by_name:_Boa-Bok), and Georg von Schönerer ( List_of_people_by_name:_Schn-Scho). Could we agree on this rule?

(2) In certain cases, the umlaut is ignored: Händel redirects to George Frideric Handel, which is at least partly understandable if you read the article. But we should be aware of the fact that occasionally the umlaut might be ignored for no good reason. Check, for example, the list of people for the not-yet-written article on the German actor Heinz Rühmann, which you will find under Ruhmann, Heinz.

(3) Wherever the ae, oe, ue spelling is actually used, even if this is contentious ( Arnold Schoenberg), names are alphabetised according to their spelling.

Thanks everybody. I still have to have a look at the external links above. <KF> 15:17, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Though I don't know if this has been discussed or is a problem now or ever will be, should &agrave, &aacute, &aring, etc. also be discussed relative to alphabetizing? Cigarette 16:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps i chose the wrong place for List of people by name#Alphabetizing these names when (without consultation) i formalized my experience on this a few weeks short of a year ago. Despite a link on the third line of the page to the section, its existence seems little known! Suggestions? -- Jerzy (t) 06:47, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Out of interest, who agrees that there should be such a thing as "general knowledge" in Wikipedia articles? In other words, knowledge that is so general it doesn't need a source to back it up. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm relatively ambivalent. It's at least possible that some information could be undisputed by people with at least moderate knowledge of a given subject, but still either unpublished or hard to find. Maurreen 06:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"General knowledge"...um, would that be stuff as obvious as the back of my hand? Of COURSE it has a place in an encyclopedia! 4.250.168.230 09:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can you define general knowledge a bit more clearly, please? For me, evolution is general knowledge, but apparently some people deny its existence. A lot of people I know are interested in little-known English-modernist writers; for them, J.H. Prynne is an extremely well-known figure with clearly defined ideas about writing, but I suspect that he may need more explaining than we currently give him for the general reader. There are probably places in Africa where the Simpsons are as unknown as they are in my house. I guess that what I mean is that the sum total of really general knowledge is so small as to not make a significant impact one way or another here. Not to even go near how much so called general knowledge is, in fact, of questionable accuracy. Filiocht 09:39, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Confirm queried sources#Widely-believed but unreferenced facts, where I argue that it would be a bad idea to have a policy that forced editors to find sources for claims like "rain is composed chiefly of water", or "animals can die of starvation", or "the nose is an organ associated with the sense of smell", or "the round orange thing visible in the sky is called the sun". — AlanBarrett 16:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can give an example of something I wrote recently that I think is clearly true, but for which it would be very difficult to come up with formal citations: in the article on The Living Corpse, I remarked that Herman Bernstein, who wrote about that Tolstoy play when it received its first New York performance (in Yiddish) in 1911 was one of the New York Times few Jewish correspondents at that time. I think that is clearly true: Bernstein certainly was Jewish (he later went on to edit a Yiddish-language newspaper, Der Tog), and the New York Times had few Jewish correspondents at the time (but where does one get a citation for that?), and it is certainly relevant (it's why he knew that this important play was to be put on in New York, which escaped the attention of most of the English-language media).

In this case, the issue isn't so much "common knowledge" or "general knowledge" as the fact that if you basically know the topic you are writing about, there are some things that just become "obvious" not because someone said exactly the same thing in print before, but because that's simply the lay of the land. If a citation can be added, great, but the lack of citation is not a reason to delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:24, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• In point of fact, most of the content of Wikipedia is inserted on the sole authority of the contributor, or on the group authority of the editors that choose to collaborate on something. If people are pretty sure that they know something and are sure that nobody with any reasonable knowledge of the subject will dispute it, they just put it in.

Citations tend to appear only when a) a contributor is researching something on the edge of or beyond what they believe is their own area of knowledge, or b) when a fact is challenged.

Beethoven: "He is widely regarded as one of the greatest of composers, and his reputation inspired – and in some cases intimidated – composers, musicians, and audiences who were to come after him." Citation? What citation? Force: F = m · a? Oh, yeah? Sez who? New York "New York is a state ... whose U.S. postal abbreviation is NY." Funny, I don't see any reference to any o-fish-shul USPS document backing up THAT statement.

Me, I've spouted out all sorts of unsourced statements. About the larval state of a sea urchin being called a "pluteus." And the 1960s Madison, Wisconsin counterculture "being centered in the neighborhood of Mifflin and Bassett streets, referred to as Mifflin-Bassett or Miffland." And rice pudding having "a mild flavor and a soft consistency."

Maybe 0.1% of everything in WIkipedia is sourced. We should strive to increase that to maybe 1%.

Terrible, I know, but there you have it. Deal with it. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I found what looks like copyvio concern in Persistent Organic Pollutant. I replaced the block of text in the middle that the submitter marked as "The following paragraphs (until the trends) are from an article in the Environmental Chemistry Group Newsletter, issue no. 14, July 2001." (italics mine). Is replacing part of the article with the copyvio template correct? (I also left a message on the submitter's talk page asking if the copyright was cleared and lsited it at WP:CP). RJFJR 22:58, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

The copyvio has to be deleted (not just edited out). I don't really know what's meant to happen here - I assume we have to delete the article and then reinstate an earlier version of the article without the copyvio. Sounds like an ugly process, jguk 09:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, copyvios in history aren't a problem unless the copyright owner bitches. -- SPUI ( talk) 16:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Policy is, just edit it out, with a clear edit summary as to why it is being removed. If the copyright owner asks for a true deletion, then we can get a developer to actually remove it from the history, but it rarely has been necessary, which is fortunate, because it is a major hassle. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:21, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Can't administrators handle this now, with selective undeletion? Or does that only work for consecutive revisions? — Korath ( Talk) 00:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a policy on writing about family members. I got criticised for starting an article on my grandfather Roberto Weiss. A deletion debate confirmed my own feeling that he should be in Wikipedia, purely on merit. It seems to me that an article should not be judged on the basis of the person who writes it, but should be purely judged on it's own merit. I would say the same for articles about oneself. For instance, George Michael or Margaret Thatcher should be allowed to contribute to the articles on themselves, as it is clear that these people deserve to have an article on merit (these are randomn examples). What do folk think? -- SqueakBox 18:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's not banned, but it is discouraged. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:56, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I found out this web site ( http://www.greatestinfo.org/). It is using the Wikipedia icon for its own use and does not clearly respect Wikipedia policy. You may contact them, it is an english site and my english is not good enough to.

This one looks pretty inappropriately deceptive: looks exactly like you are in Wikipedia (except their main page is all screwed up). -- Jmabel | Talk 18:45, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've made a note at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi. Their interwiki links even lead to our foreign-language wikipedias. Could be a phishing site for our passwords. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Mno. Rick K 00:13, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Should include a link to one of the pages describing how to add/edit the page, since it isn't super clear, especially to old returning wikipedians like me that you need to add a category tag to the article in question, instead of editting the category. Maybe instead of the 'edit this page' link at the top (which isn't precisely true), those links should be disabled.
~ender 2004-02-24 23:18:MST

The edit links are useful for inserting or changing explanatory text as to the scope of the category. The rules for inclusion aren't always obvious just from the category name. For example, the description of Category:Propaganda currently includes the statement, "The intent of the category is for government sponsored and items easily classified as propaganda." JamesMLane 10:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is some discussion in Talk:Supercentenarian over whether my recent conversion of several bullet-point lists to tables is worthwhile or not. The main concern is that one editor uses the lynx web browser and (I understand) the tables display vitually identically to the lists but are much more difficult for him to edit (although other text browsers and editors may make it easier).

I think policy ( Wikipedia:How to use tables, "When tables are appropriate", "When tables are inappropriate") is to have tables where they add value ("Tables are perfect for organizing any information that is best presented in a row-and-column format ... Many times, a list is best left as a list ... consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns"). I think these ones conform to policy, but I'd be gratful for other views, and also on whether the web browser/editing issue is a significant one. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are too many Categories existing, especially some with only one article. Shouldn't this list be reorganized and many of them be put into subcategories? Tezeti 02:01, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if this was asked at some other place. Is it automatically allowed to publish screenshots (prepared by myself) of GPL software (what is the typical licence? GFDL?) or should the author be contacted first? -- Fpga 07:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As long as the screenshot is being used educationally, to illustrate an article about the software (and not something peripheral) for instance, screenshots are considered fair use, whether the software involved is free or not. Just put the {{ screenshot}} tag onto the image description page, along with all the information you have about the source and relevance of the image (the fact that you created the screenshot, the software's name and version number, the fact that it's GPL, etc.) As a courtesy to the software designers, you may include the company's or creator's names, or a link to their official site, but it's not required. It's certainly courteous to let them know that the image is being used on Wikipedia -- they may even have a better one they're willing to share. — Catherine\ ^talk 21:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Requested moves STRAW POLL on where votes for "Requested Moves" should be placed. It is an important meta-page and others might like to vote on the issue. The straw poll is open for one week. Philip Baird Shearer 19:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently edited a page for the date of January 18th. I posted my mother's date of death. It's been removed, somewhat expectedly. Does this mean my mother is not as important as all of the other people listed? What criteria is used to determine if a person is notable enough to be commemorated? I'm pretty educated (master's degree, Geography) and I read every newspaper I can get my hands on ,but somehow I have never heard of many of the people listed. I'm sure many of the people that are listed are important to a very small number of people, but unknown to much of the world. Why are they allowed? My mom was an important person to me and many other people. I realize that if everybody did what I did, then there would be many more entries. Is that such a bad thing?

Thanks,

Alex Mazarakos

esquilax@tmail.com

To ask your question is to answer it. If everyone's mother was listed, January 18th and all the other dates would have millions of entries. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not... Wikipedia is not a memorial page. -- Curps 01:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's this then - [23] ...? - XED. talk 15:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the page you reference says clearly, It's a sister project that is not part of Wikipedia. It is like Wikibooks. It was created precisely to deal with issues involving victims of the September 11th attacks. And "Wikipedia is not a memorial page" is a policy that was defined precisely because of issues involved in memorializing these victims. The consensus was that simply being a victim of September 11th, while tragic and enormously important to their families, did not merit a biographical entry in an encyclopedia. The Britannica does not contain individual articles on everyone who perished on the Titanic, or even a list. At the same time, it was felt that memorial material that had been contributed should have a place somewhere because September 11th was such a significant event, so this separate memorial project, outside of Wikipedia, was created. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do all the Tsunami victims get a sister project? After all, about a hundred times more died. Does the Second Congo War get a sister project site - more people die every week there than the event memorialised by the 'sister project'. Or are some people worth more? Could you provide a mathematical formula of different peoples worth when considering whether to have memorial pages? - XED. talk 16:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Life is not fair. That's it. -- Toytoy 16:46, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

If there's a VfD for the 911 Memoriam project, you know my decision.

The 911 Memoriam project, in my opinion, is a miserable one. I visited it the first time minutes ago and was disappointed. Not to mention its meaningless purpose, many articles over there are not even worthy to read. Very few people are linked by others. Opinions are not verifiable. That project is basically not immune to disguised vandalism.

For example, in an article it is said: "He enjoyed taking motorcycle trips with his wife." So what? If I add "He enjoyed taking Hells Angels style motorcycle trips with his gang of bisexual pot-smoking drug-abusing child-molestering lovers." It will surely be reverted in no time even if it was true. But if I say: "He enjoyed taking motorcycle trips with his wife and his dog."? How about: "He enjoyed taking motorcycle trips with his wife and his talented frisbee dog."? A cold reader may even experiment with these low-quality personal pages:

• Cold reader: "He likes water."
• Innocent family member: "He likes swimming."
• Cold reader: "He is good at swimming."
• Innocent family member: "He used to be a member of the local swimming team."

There is an article that was TOTALLY WRITTEN IN UPPERCASE LETTERS. Thankfully, most people who dies do not have a dedicated article at all (saves me much time reading all the boring nonsense). That project is a failure. -- Toytoy 17:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has various policies and customs regarding what is and is not included. These inevitably involve human judgement and "bright lines" cannot be set.

When there is clear consensus that a person is notable, facts about that person are included. When there is clear consensus that a person is not notable, facts about that person may be removed. These judgements are reliable and consistent for very notable people and for very non-notable people. In the middle, there is inevitably inconsistency. There is no way to avoid this.

It is frequently argued we should include anything factual, because it is the only way to avoid this inconsistency. But Wikipedian consensus does not accept this argument. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Being "encyclopedic" is a higher priority than being perfectly consistent. I'm sorry your feelings were hurt, but I think you misunderstand Wikipedia's goals and policies. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Community Portal is currently being heavily vandalised. Perhaps a new policy could be introduced to allow earlier blocking for vandalising pages in the Wikipedia: and Template: namspaces (e.g. block on third offense)? Bart133 (t) 23:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A user doesn't have to get all four warnings before they are blocked. For someone vandalising many pages, or the same page repeatedly, I'll often skip warning levels. I do make sure that a user gets at least one warning (and time to react to it) before I block them, unless they're a particularly nasty vandal or a repeat offender on a new username or IP, such as Willy.

The community portal does seem to get more than its share of vandalism. The one beating on it for the last few hours had an AOL address; eventually I gave them a 15-minute timeout as a "warning shot between the eyes", and while they came back as an new IP address shortly afterwards, they seem to have gotten bored and moved on.- gadfium 00:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Classical definition of republic was recently deleted as being POV and original research. The creator of that article has moved it to Wikinfo, as is his right, but he has also gone through replacing internal links with links to the Wikinfo page [24] and adding it to the external links section of other articles [25]. I feel that if an article was poor enough to be deleted it is also not worth being linked to. The author of the piece disagrees and my removal of the links have been removed. As there is no official policy in this area what do others think? - SimonP 21:29, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia policy on user's that post open letters on their web sites that give specific instructions to readers to create accounts on Wikipedia and auto-revert edits for a specific page? In other words, is there such a thing as incitement to revert/edit war. What could be done about such a user? Should something be done about such a user? -- Axon 19:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Based on the precedent established in enforcing ArbCom decisions, I think this is considered proxy editing, and all edits done at the direction of the person posting the letter are considered edits by that person. -- Carnildo 23:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you response , Carnildo. So, they would count in, for example, a breach of the 3RR? How would I go about dealing with this situation? -- Axon 04:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Report the situation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- Carnildo 19:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for your help. Lastly, do you have a link to the ArbCom decision where the precedent for proxy editing was established? -- Axon 12:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no specific policy, but votes by anons and by people who created accounts after the filing of the VfD are generally discounted. Rick K 22:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Rick, I don't see anything about VfD in Axon's question. Axon, am I right in guessing that Rick's answer is basically unrelated to your question? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jmabel, no, there is no VfD. The user in question has simply displayed "dummy" instructions on his blog on how to revert a specific page: create user, log in, go to this URL, click edit, copy-and-paste a comment and hit enter, etc. This has not been done to sway a vote but to create an edit war. Random users are now logging onto wikipedia and automatically reverting all my edits to the page -- Axon 04:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My explanation was the only thing in Wikipedia which has to do with the discounting of sock puppets actions. Rick K 20:33, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Is what user GRider doing considered to be within wikiquette ? Look at the user profile and the number of VfD postings that the user is making. A large number of VfD entries seem to be without substantiation, and therefore could appear random and rather subjective, even qualifying as vandalism. Am I being not accomodating enough in my approach to Wikipedia, or is this user just annoying ? Any advice welcome ! Thanks

As far as I can tell, he's going through the list of stub biography articles and listing those that don't establish notability. It's part of an informal effort by a number of users to clean up the article space. -- Carnildo 06:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Considering it was never established exactly what "notability" meant, let alone establish it as a criteria for deletion (the vote failed to pass), this effort is probably a bit premature. Pcb21| Pete 14:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it is was too difficult to fix the "notability" criterion by formal arguments, perhaps this VfD drive will give criteria by precedent. -- Pjacobi 15:16, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably wasn't being clear. The precedent established was that many (a majority at least) didn't want to use notability at all as a criterion. Using verifiability as the main criterion was much better supported. Seems to make sense to me, as in practice people who still dare to frequent vfd end up introducing systemic bias by using notability. Pcb21| Pete 19:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, ignoring the notability criterion in an encyclopedia just feels incredibly wrong to me. Bur perhpa it's all too late for the English Wikipedia. -- Pjacobi 22:12, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

I personally wonder whether GRider's recent flood of VfD nominations is an example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Are these good-faith nominations of articles he genuinely thinks should be deleted, or are they invitations to debate policy? The latter would be inappropriate because VfD is for implementing policy, not debating it. It needn't bother anyone much. Plenty of people do annoying things in VfD and I don't think there's any call to do anything particular about this, other than cast votes for any articles that you feel need your vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed this, with answers.com

They are using wikipedia articles in their own format, and placing advertising over the articles.

does anyone know about this? and is wikipedia getting money from this?

The GNU Free Documentation License allows others to reuse Wikipedia content, for profit if they so desire. -- Cyrius| ✎ 20:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Last I checked, answers.com was doing everything properly with respect to re-using Wikipedia content: they mention and link to the GFDL, they name Wikipedia as the source, and they have a link back to the original article.