This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
Per the posting at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Creating a bunch of redirects that are shortcuts, I'm proposing to create up to a couple of hundred redirects of the form EIW:Topic. These will be shortcuts (links) to the major sections of the Editor's index to Wikipedia. If you have any concerns about such redirects (specifically, about this pseudo-namespace), please comment at the bot request page. I note that the matter was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Namespace#Procedure for creating a new pseudo-namespace?, where (I believe) there was no opposition to the concept, once it was clearly explained.
This proposal is primarily intended to aid editors answering questions at the help desk, but will be useful to any editor wanting to point someone to a particular topic in the index that is relevant to a question or discussion. The EIW pseudo-namespace will make these shortcuts much easier to understand (and shorter). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Really, the way that only some words in an article are linked to other articles seems arbitrary. Couldn't there be a system where clicking on a word automatically links to the article with that name, and manually defining a hyperlink would only be required for multiple-word phrases or relevant articles with different titles? One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its linked-ness, but this would improve it greatly. 216.45.231.50 ( talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There should be a feature that enables one to discuss with others subjects that are not policy related, like wars, elections, protests, etc. Wikipedia should be more than an encyclopedia, it should be a community that cares about others.
-- Tom.mevlie ( talk) 07:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Besides answering the question, " Is wikidrama bad?" I would also like to introduce the idea of using avatars for each point of view to make debates more amusing, as was suggested at http://www.communitywiki.org/WikiDrama Thespian Seagull ( talk) 15:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been considering this issue for some time, and I believe I have a solution for our Sisyphus problem. Too often quality articles (especially those on popular topics), once they are raised up to a high level, only suffer entropic decay. Vandalism is just the smallest problem; more significant are POV insertions, bad rewordings, and the addition of random facts which maybe "belong somewhere", but don't fit in the article. And it is hard (or even undesirable) to prevent such changes, because we are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, and always up-to-date.
Perhaps, indeed, it is impossible to fully satisfy both "reliable" and "up-to-date". So, I suggest a new namespace as a refuge for articles that have already been found to be of high quality (FA or GA). This would be a complementary process, not a replacement to our current set-up. Changes to such articles would be slow and deliberative, with more of a conservative tilt to this process. And I think elevating and preserving FAs and GAs in this way will only encourage further high quality submissions, as the hard work that is put into these will no longer be in danger of random entropic decay. "Slow Wikipedia" would not be up-to-the-minute; but it would be the most reliable, most readable and most accurate resource out there.
I propose:
So, what do you all think?-- Pharos ( talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I had proposed the idea of making and "Edu" version of Wikipedia at Wikipedia Suggestions but never got any replies. This is what happened: <snip> It doesn't seem that any significant suggestions will get ever implemented. This has frustrated the heck outta me and I don't think I'll be giving any more ideas. ~ RayLast « Talk!» 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Korea has made some video games, manwha(their version of manga), animation,movies, etc.. I can't find any articles about Korea's entertainment section. It seems their manwha, video games, and animations are neglected. I think we need a Korea Entertainment Project. 71.142.242.233 ( talk) 06:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
The current wording in the {{ prod}} tag is not very helpful or consistent with the deletion policy, WP:DP. I may not be able to claim newbie ignorance any more, but the first time I was confronted with someone tagging an article that was near and dear to me with a {{ prod}} tag, I did what I thought the {{ prod}} tag was indicating should be done to avoid deletion. Much to my surprise the article was then AfDd! I reacted rather badly, and accused that editor of bad faith, which I later regretted after being referred to WP:DP.
If the text in the {{ prod}} tag was more accurate and consistent with WP:DP this could be avoided. In fact, it would probably be a good idea if the {{ prod}} tag contains less text and does include a reference to WP:DP.
See also here: Template_talk:Prod#Proposed_rewording. Thanks. -- RenniePet ( talk) 08:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Google Map allows users to embed its navigable maps in the users' webpages, blogs, etc. but it comes with the Google Ads. However, Wikimapia.org (yes a non-profit) is also using Google maps, yet there is absolutely no advertisement running in the page. The only thing (I guess) you can call as advertisement there is the "powered by Google" logo. Maybe Wikipedia may make arrangements with Google to allow embedded Google maps in Wikipedia that comes with no ads. It will be very helpful in some articles, especially those that discuss the terrain and scape (e.g., cityscape) of a place and that no appropriate available free map is available. Wikipedia’s objective is to collect knowledge and make it available to millions of users worldwide. I believe Google maps can help booster Wikipedia’s current knowledge base.
As an example, in one of the articles I authored, Policies, activities and history of the Philippines in Spratly Islands, I have to phrase:
Aerial photos of Pagasa Island show that a rectangular portion of the coral base around Pagasa is reclaimed to serve as extension of the airstrip.
just to describe how the airstrip is constructed. Only Google maps can provide the visual information for that. And I tell you, visual informations are way better. I have thought of having a screenshot of the map, edit it, and upload it with a non-free fair use tag (specifically, {{ Non-free fair use in|Title of Article}}). However, I have doubts if that is acceptable.
-- Estarapapax Talk! Contribs! 12:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have patched up my old proposal. Please reconsider! Park Crawler ( talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently I've run into some difficulties with the Special:Newpages page. Users are frequently creating large numbers of articles in a relatively short period of time, clogging up the queue and making it harder to find actual articles in need of patrolling. Normally this isn't a problem in articles, but in the category namespace patrol where I do the bulk of my patrols, where a user can easily create many categories with little difficulty, this has become quite a nuisance.
It's a waste of the time and energy of patrollers to go through users whom we know aren't vandals. There are many examples to choose from:
Some are even from mainspace:
Giving administrators the power to flag trusted users, like the ones above, so that their creations are automatically patrolled would help reduce the strain on a greatly burdened system. It would allow us to actually evaluate questionable articles instead of developing carpal tunnel syndrome clearing out the backlogs of these users above. Please help us. Thank you. -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
When someone is googling for something, he or she probably clicks on the first option without being aware of the contents of the wikipedia disclaimer. Wikipedia disclaimer does not show up anytime in the process and even I, as an editor to wikipedia, was not aware of it before certain issues were brought up. If the main point of wikipedia is to provide information, then what's the point of not telling the readers about what they may see.
Here is my suggestion:
As we have a "Did you know" on the main page that talks about interesting things about the article, we create a box at the top of any article and put up there notable facts about the article. Its content can range from the date of creation of the article, its status, its stability, the expected time to read it, important stuff, or even certain interesting content issues if there is a consensus for that. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I object to the disingenuous way in which this has been presented - the real agenda here is hidden in "or even certain interesting content issues if there is a consensus for that. ", this is an attempt to create a thin end of the wedge, what this editor is actually interested in is getting religious disclaimer stuck on the Muhammad article, once the disclaimer is in place, the next step will be "well we have the disclaimer in place, so we might as well hide the images". I have no issue with a statistic box making of objective facts about an article but under no circumstances should we start slapping subjective POV content disclaimers on article based upon the perceived offence of sections of our readers. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 23:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not support the idea of including disclaimers at the tops of articles, even when tucked away in content that is not a disclaimer. We are not subservient to Google and do not have to engage in any special behavior merely because our articles come up high in the search results. - Chardish ( talk) 08:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the Wikimorgue (see Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia: Positions) is a great idea and should be implemented ASAP to see what not to rewrite or to argue a point to bring back the article. The deletionists can be a little unreasonable at times (this is just my opinion; I am an inclusionist), and the Wikimorgue could help bring Wikipedia even more coverage on many subjects. It's a great idea and should be put into practice! Rdbrewster ( talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for bringing this back from the most recent archival, but I just thought it was interesting to note that this proposal was mentioned in New York Magazine (this very proposal, along with the name "Wikimorgue"): "Someone recently proposed a Wikimorgue—a bin of broken dreams where all rejects could still be read, as long as they weren't libelous or otherwise illegal. Like other middens, it would have much to tell us over time. We could call it the Deletopedia." Words to ponder. I know we're working on Wikipedia:Trash namespace, but maybe this might be a source of some renewed interest. Equazcion •✗/ C • 15:36, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Most of you probably know that there is a strong controversy regarding some images posted on Wikipedia article on Muhammad. More specifically these are the images that show an attempt to draw his face (i.e. this and this ). About one year back, on behalf of the community some editors and admins have decided to retain those images on the article. However, because of the changed circumstances (widespread awareness about the issue and a strong opinion against that decision) we need to revisit that decision. I have the following proposal to make in this regard. I have made this suggestion on designated Article talk page, but I have been told there, unless I get my proposal validated here, it is "hot air". So here I am. I request Wikipedia admins to go through this post and if it sounds reasonable, please request the admins who are deciding the fate of article Muhammad to atleast nullify the erlier concensus and reopen serious discussion.
The earlier consensus evidently still holds. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Context of the ProposalThere are some arguments to retain the debated images on Muhammad. They are summarized at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. While some of these arguments have merit, there is a more compelling counterargument for not including the images. And the counterargument can be summrized in short as "the images are misrepresentative". The FAQ page on this subject tries to refute the argument that the "Muhammad images are false" by comparing it with other pages like Homer, and Jesus. First of all, that's not a logic, that's an analogy and secondly, it is a very incorrect analogy indeed. It is a fact that Muhammad did not have any photograph or any painting drawn by any person that actually met him. This is probably the same case as Homer or Jesus. So no currently available image of Homer, Jesus or Muhammad can give a reasonable representation of the subject person. Saying so, the images of Homer or Jesus used on their respective Wikipedia articles have been regarded as the mainstream/popular view of their resemblance by many scholarly and/or popular sources. So these images, statues, etc. though probably have little practical value of exactly depicting the subject, have attained a symbolic value of representing the subject in the mind of modern people. This symbolic value may justify their inclusion in the articles on these subjects. However, this symbolic value is exactly what the images on Muhammad’s article lack. The images used in Muhammad page have seldom been used by any scholarly or popular source as the mainstream or popular view of his resemblance. These are isolated imaginary paintings arbitrarily labeled as "Muhammad", which have never ever received any acceptance as his representation (outside Wikipedia). So, these pictures have no more information value as to depicting Muhammad than a stick-man image that I can draw and label as Homer or Jesus. The fact that these images are old definitely increases their antique value and make them precious collection items for museums, but does not increase their value as a media portraying the subject. The "Fact" with respect to Muhammad's physical depiction is: Since Muhammad strongly discouraged portrayal of living things (including himself) his contemporaries never tried to portray him, or such paintings don't exist. However, throghout history there has been isolated attempts to paint him by both muslim and non-muslim sources, but such imgaes never got widespread acceptance as reasonable representation of Muhammad. And because of this fact, respected encyclopedias like Britannica, Encarta etc. have never used any arbitary image drawn by some historical person on their articles on Prophet Muhammad. By posting these images on the article and locking it permanently, a handful of Wikipedia admins are trying to distort this fact, and trying to give these images some sort of "recognition" of importance as the available pictoral depiction of Muhammad. Wikipedia's task is to establish and present the facts, not to give some arbitary imaginary paintings new value/recognition that they never received before, no matter how old these images be. Let me also clarify that I am not comparing my "straw-man" drawing with the drawings on Muhammad’s article in terms of quality, or historical significance; I am only saying they are comparable in terms of their relevance in illustrating the subject. Of course those images are important and have their place on Wikipedia. They can be good examples of historical works of art. They are even quite relevant for the article on Depiction of Muhammad, because they indeed are early attempts to draw Muhammad. But they should not be placed on the article on Muhammad because historically they have totally failed to establish their value as a representative illustration of Muhammad. Why is Muhammad’s case so unique that it has to be different from that of Homer, Jesus, or Buddha? It is simply because unlike all the others mentioned, it is a historically recorded fact that Muhammad forbid drawing living objects (especially himself). And because of this explicit prohibition, Muhammad’s followers as well as non-muslim scholars while researching on Muhammad have not recognized these images as an acceptable representation of the person. When I say, the images of Homer or Jesus are the mainstream view of the resemblance of these subjects, what I mean is these are iconic images that have helped serve as the representation of these people. For example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represents a group of people who have used those specific images of Jesus as a faithful representation of the person. Even if they don't qualify as mainstream, there is still a group that believed those images are good representation of Jesus. If the number of people believing they are good representation of Jesus is absolutely minimum, then those images have no place in Jesus’s article either. The point that I am trying to establish is, when we add an imaginary painting to a biography, it should meet a minimum test: does a significant number of people believe this is the available representative depiction of the person? Or in more “Wikipedia-like” words, can it be shown that independent reliable third party sources have reproduced these images or their likeness as a means to depict the subject in question. This is the test that Muhammad’s images fail. The references that have been provided in the article, include, University of Edinburgh and Ali, Wijdan. Both these scholalrly sources analyze these images as a part of analysis of histrory of art, not as part of their commentry on Muhammad. When it came to discussion of Muhammad, all respectable scholarly sources (including mainstream encyclopedias) have refrained from reproducing these images, because no matter how valuable they be in the study of art history, these images have not recieved any notable acceptance as good representation of Muhammad. Furthermore, by refraining from inserting these paintings in their respective articles, all these scholarly sources have tried to respect the fact that there is no widely accepted pictoral depiction of Muhammad. By going against this tradition, Wikipedia (or more specifically a handful of editors from Wikipedia, who have decided to establish censorship – in terms of limiting people’s edit right on article) is distorting the long established fact, trying to establish these handful of images as the “best available pictoral depiction of Muhammad”, which they are not, and perhaps least importantly have offended millions of people. The ProposalIn view of my argument above, I am proposing: since Wikipedia’s task is to faithfully reproduce facts and information as they are available in scholarly sources, these images should be removed from Muhammad article, placed on other relevant articles, where they are appropriate ( Depiction of Muhammad for example), and the article on Muhammad can mention:
This is not a request to compromise, or impose cencorship; neither is this Islamic law – this is simply a request to follow the scholalry tradition and stick to the facts, refraining from misrepresentation, which not only goes against Wikipedia values, but also destroys its credibility and acceptibility to millions of people. The request here is to stop distorting a long established fact that there is no acceptable pictoral depiction of Muhammad, because distorting fact goes against the fundamental value of any scholarly work. The request is to the Wikipedia admins to follow the tradition of majority of scholarly sources of not including such images while discussing life of Muhammad, than going its own way and setting a precedence not acceptable to a high number of people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its goal is to present facts as they are, not starting new trends. Thank you. Arman ( Talk) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC) DiscussionYahel Guhan
Lor
Nihiltres
SP-KP
Rmosler
gren
Therefore
AecisA lot has been said about this subject already. I will probably repeat most of it, but I will say what I have to say nonetheless. Several users have brought forward the argument of non-representation, that it hasn't been established that Muhammad looked anything like the images. To be blunt: that is irrelevant. It has been established that these images were made as portraits of Muhammad. The artists clearly intended the main figure to be Muhammad. Whether they succeeded in doing this, whether they remained true to the original, is not relevant. They could have painted him with blond hair and braces; if that was what Muhammad looked like to them, we add such pictures. I don't see any reason not to include these significant historical sources. A ecis Brievenbus 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Anakin101Wholehearted support. I've never previously given an opinion on the issue of the Muhammad images, because I'm not Muslim, I've never really looked into it, and always assumed that WP:NOT#CENSORED adequately answered the question. Having read Arman's proposal, I think I've changed my mind for the reason he explains, and also some other reasons, and here's why (forgive the length of this, I beg):
Now, please tell me your opinions on that, everybody. If I am completely misguided please correct me, or if you more or less agree with me please say so! • Anakin ( talk) 14:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thw1309I understand and respect your position. For you, a devote Muslim, there is a problem to read an article with pictures of your prophet. For me, an average user of Wikipedia, the picture above can give me a much better impression of the unique position, this man Muhammad has in your islamic value system, than ten or twenty sentences would give me. Therefore, it's important for me to see images within the context of the article. If you can only follow the special interests of a special group by denying the interests of the whole community, then it's not the way of wikipedia, to give you the right to deny these other interests. We do not make improvements for some users, if this means a change for the worse for other users. Every removal of useful images or relocation to another article is such a change for the worse. I think, there is a possibility, to give you access to the article, without any violations of your religious instructions. If you open the article, you will see, there are no images of Muhammad to be seen. They all are in the lower parts of the article. On top of the article, we could place a disambiguation to a subpage of the article. There, the content of the article can be repeated without the images. This would improve Wikipedia for you and other Muslims, without reducing it's usefulness for me and other average users. If we can produce all these Introduction-to-versions of existing scientific articles for readers with lower knowledge on a subject, Wikipedia will survive a second version without pictures too.-- Thw1309 ( talk) 11:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Λua∫ Wi se ( Operibus anteire)Support removing. So, I think we should not have an argument regarding why they should be deleted, but rather-like every single picture on WP- we should think why they should stay. The topic is controversial, and I think no fair compromise can be reached to satisfy both parties. Thus, we might start a whole separate article for them, and remove them from this particular article. Λua∫ Wi se ( Operibus anteire) 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
agrSupport. While I strongly oppose censorship of Wikipedia, considerations of good taste and respect for the views of different cultures can influence how and where information is presented. Moving the images in question to an article devoted to them, with a link from the main article, would not materially diminish the main article. On the contrary, keeping them there is likely more damaging since, in practice, it will deprive us of input from many Muslim editors. I believe that would be a great loss. I also think there are parallels in the way we treat other religions on Wikipedia. We use CE/BCE for dates in articles on Judaism and AD/BC in articles on Christianity, for example. But before the Wiki-lawyers start to explain why those accommodations are somehow different, I will acknowledge that there are unique aspects to this situation. Conflicts involving Islam are a major source of tension in the world today. There are those on both sides who seem intent on exacerbating those tensions, generally citing their deeply held principles. Wikipedia can serve an important calming role by serving as a meeting place where ideas are exchanged. Keeping images of the prophet in this article sends an exclusionary message, whether we like it or not. If moving the images to their own article makes Muslims feel more welcome here, I'm all for doing so.-- agr ( talk) 17:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
WolfkeeperSupport removing from Mohammad. It's not about censorship (the images would be in Depiction of Muhammad still anyway), it's not about being offensive to Moslems, they can still be offended in depictions, but it's just that there's no evidence whatsoever of notable sources linking articles on Mohammad to these kinds pictures, and thus their inclusion is either OR or overemphasis or both. If that evidence can be found in a reasonable number of notable sources then my position will change; for example what does EB do here? What do other encyclopedias do? I see no evidence that anybody else has even bothered to check, they haven't done the work; given that, and given the fact that most of the articles on Mohammad are extremely likely to be Moslem, and absent images like these, I vote to remove right now.- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC) High on a treeOppose I have already responded to Talk:Muhammad/images. but I have to say that I find it quite unfortunate that this debate has to be duplicated in yet another venue. But okay, here we go again:
Regards, High on a tree ( talk) 05:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC) LankiveilOppose. Many have already covered the points that I would like to cover above, and far more eloquently than I could. I would however like to add that I find the notion and suggestion that we should only depict the subjects of biographies according to the cultural norms of the culture that they come from to be bizarre. Wikipedia's goal is to provide information to the reader, and having these images in the article facilitates that. I think that having respectful antique images of Islamic Persian and Turkish origin is certainly appropriate for the Muhammad article. With that said, I am not opposed at all to providing a gadget to hide the images for Muslims that might be offended by them, and placing a large prominent notice at the top of the article instructing interested readers on how they can activate or use said gadget. Such an informational message would not be a "disclaimer" in my mind, which is what has so far sunk previous attempts to do something like that. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC). Jmlk17Strong Oppose Since I am quite involved in the issue as a whole, I'll keep my comments short and sweet. I believe that a disclaimer, hidden image template, or anything of the sort would be a dangerous precedent, and would only allow further issues to bypass our views on censorship, among other concrete policies. For instance, there are some who object to curse words, some who object to photos on sexual intercourse, and those who can find offense out of any one of our 2 million+ articles. If we truly do value our open encyclopedia, as well as our views on never censoring anything as it could hinder our core, then this article should and must be no different. Jmlk 1 7 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Ron DuvallComment Can we please relist? I don't think this has gotten enough discussion. This issue is extremely important to the future of mankind. Ron Duvall ( talk) 06:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
AbdComment There are no images of Muhammad that have any reliability at all; various substreams of Islamic culture did allow certain kinds of images, but these were all later inventions. There are descriptions of his appearance in words that can be used to generate some speculative image, but, of course, these are highly unreliable. In articles on this subject, serious authors may show historical images as such, not as being actual "images of Muhammad." There are no images of Muhammad, there are images taken from various people's imaginations. None of them have sufficient currency to be notable in an article on Muhammad; where they are notable is in specialized articles, such as those on the famous or infamous cartoons. However, having said all that, it's a fact that certain actions, legitimate under personal freedom, can be highly dangerous due to fanaticism in the world. One may wish to take the risk on oneself, but what if gratuitous insult causes injury to one's neighbors? Don't tease the dogs when you are taking your children for a walk; in fact, don't tease them at any time. It's disruptive, even if you have a "right" to do it. -- Abd ( talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Dbachmannoppose per (*stifles a yawn*) nearly everyone else over the past months, see Talk:Muhammad/images. There is no way we can implement any "no images of X" guideline. Any concerns regarding the encyclopedic value of any given image need to be raised on a case-by-case basis. dab (𒁳) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
GnangarraOppose removal of images. Any removal images will be seen as censorship by supporters of Anti-Islamic groups. And be seen as a Victory by Islamic groups in censoring Wikipedia content. All other issues for the removal of content will then be argued on the basis that a precendent was set in complying with the requirements of Islam. As they are now claimed to be false, then there's no offense to the laws of Islam and no reason to be concerned about them being there in the first place. Gnan garra 12:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC) SpinningsparkOppose removal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (Pillar 1 of the
Five Pillars). The pictures are of genuine academic interest, showing a depiction in Ottoman Empire times and therefore belong here whoever it upsets. MCB
Fredrick Day
SeraphimbladeAbsolutely no removal. Even if the pictures don't depict exactly what Muhammad looked like, they are historic and educational, as to what a culture thought Muhammad looked like. And we do not remove things because they offend someone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
I have posted the suggestions in the help desk but all I get is people telling me to post them here or in Bugzilla. I've done that but have gotten nothing back. I just want someone to tell me no were not doing that or yes we want to do that.
{{Comment:00215468|title=Suggestion}}
As the community anticipates a few closures of current RfBs as unsuccessful, I would like to bring to the community's attention that the traditional threshold for bureaucrat promotion still does not comply with WP:Consensus. Bureaucrats should be called to lower the approval threshold for new bureaucrats to that of a regular request for adminship. There is no plausible justification for such an extreme 90% threshold for new bureaucrats. It makes the whole process unfair for the candidate and unfair for the participants who'll have a slim minority of 10% decide for all. As a Wikipedian who believes in process, I think it's quite frustrating to see some great candidates be turned down despite clear consensus from the community for them to be approved and become new bureaucrats. Hús ö nd 00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It would seem best to keep discussion about this in one central place - it may even be time to create a separate location for this discussion, which is attracting quite a bit of support from participants at WT:RFA but would need a wider consensus should bureaucrats adjust their approach to RfB closures. WjB scribe 10:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
it may be useless, but could you add built-in increase text button? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.37.64 ( talk) 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my new proposal. Please consider! Park Crawler ( talk) 02:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please! :-D Park Crawler ( talk) 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we place these templates on frequently used pages, such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and so forth. Many users mill around these pages at any point in time; in my opinion, having the Wiki-ads there would boost WikiProject participation considerably and be a boon to article writing and so forth. However, I'm pretty sure that many editors are opposed to the idea, as they may think it too distracting. Just wanted to gain some consensus. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to ask permission to make the article "Hobo Bashing". I think it is somewhat important and currently increasing particulary in the U.S. I would like someone's opinion on making this article! Thanks- Letter 7/Caleb ( talk) 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose that a tag is introduced for when a plot summary in an article reaches an optimum length. At the moment some articles e.g Goodfellas, No Country for Old Men are subject to constant revisions with users placing uneccessary detail, speculation or their own interpretations of what happened.
When a consensus has been agreed upon the tag would be placed before the article which could read The plot summary below is considered to be a suitable length for the article. Please read discussion on talk pages before editing it. Obviously the wording would have to be discussed but I think you get the idea. Users would of course still be able to edit the plot summaries but would hopefully give them pause for thought before firing in. Yorkshiresky ( talk) 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
We should consider adding a lightweight, easy-to-use mechanism by which readers can quickly thank other editors for their edits. I envision a new button in article histories, diff pages, watchlists, etc.:
which alerts the recipient in a manner similar to a new user talk message:
Of course, the actual box would be far less ugly.
Suggested details:
Motivation: for various reasons, my recent editing pattern is such that most of my interactions with other users involve offering criticism or responding to it. I try to be civil and constructive, and there's no replacement for that, but the fact is that I'm passing on a lot of opportunities for strictly positive interaction. It feels awkward to leave a note on another user's talk page just to thank them for an edit to some article on my watchlist. Perhaps this makes me a terrible community member, but let's stipulate for a moment that it is an understandable affliction that probably happens to other editors as well. I would like to provide more positive feedback and encouragement, so if this proposal were implemented, I for one would use it all the time.
Obviously this proposal, if agreed upon, would require a software change. Melchoir ( talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Messages left at Wikipedia talk:Kindness Campaign and Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club. Melchoir ( talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I spent a few weeks at the hospital and I realized how Wikipedia mobile was important. There are several initiatives started everywhere, but nothing concrete and nothing multilingual. I wondered if it was appropriate to start a central page at m:Wikipedia mobile, to consolidate these discussions and pages.
Thanks for guiding me! Antaya ( talk) 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
...when Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.4 ( talk) 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that a category for Unanimous Supreme court decisions would be cool? I mean, Wikipedia is a learning environment at the same time as a research environment, and it would foster a lot of learning. And that's good for society. What do you think? -- Heero Kirashami ( talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Some articles have various edit wars over the length of trivia dedicated to a given subject. One policy could be implemented to have trivia appear in its own box in the discussion page. This would remove long lists from the article body.
We should consider adding a lightweight, easy-to-use mechanism by which readers can quickly thank other editors for their edits. I envision a new button in article histories, diff pages, watchlists, etc.:
which alerts the recipient in a manner similar to a new user talk message:
Of course, the actual box would be far less ugly.
Suggested details:
Motivation: for various reasons, my recent editing pattern is such that most of my interactions with other users involve offering criticism or responding to it. I try to be civil and constructive, and there's no replacement for that, but the fact is that I'm passing on a lot of opportunities for strictly positive interaction. It feels awkward to leave a note on another user's talk page just to thank them for an edit to some article on my watchlist. Perhaps this makes me a terrible community member, but let's stipulate for a moment that it is an understandable affliction that probably happens to other editors as well. I would like to provide more positive feedback and encouragement, so if this proposal were implemented, I for one would use it all the time.
Obviously this proposal, if agreed upon, would require a software change. Melchoir ( talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Messages left at Wikipedia talk:Kindness Campaign and Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club. Melchoir ( talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I spent a few weeks at the hospital and I realized how Wikipedia mobile was important. There are several initiatives started everywhere, but nothing concrete and nothing multilingual. I wondered if it was appropriate to start a central page at m:Wikipedia mobile, to consolidate these discussions and pages.
Thanks for guiding me! Antaya ( talk) 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose adding an extra magic word that will give the author(s) the option to have a page not indexed (anymore) by searchbots. I think this is useful especially for userpages, where people add information about themselves, sometimes with a username that is their actual name, or a name closely related to them. Often this userpage will be very high in the search results. Because of the overall pagerank of Wikipedia and the optimalisation for searchengines it will sometimes even come above someone's personal homepage or blog. To give these people an option to maintain their userpage and username but not have the page indexed I propose a __ (or something like this) magic word (note that Google will also remove a page from its search results when it encounters a robots noindex tag). Also this might be used for administrative pages that have explicitely no use of being indexed or found by searchengines. Another example: Someone writes an article about a new company, it gets deleted. What remains is the page where deletion is discussed, also these pages do very well in search results, which might be very unlucky for the owner of this company, but has not much use for Wikipedia. I could give many more examples where this could be useful, but I think you get the point. Free style 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
A related idea: I normally create articles in a user sandbox, then when they are ready create them in mainspace. I sometimes do the same when editing an existing page. It would be useful in such a case to turn off Categories while in the sandbox. I could add the categories but not have them show up in a category. Yes, I know that I can add a leading colon but that doesn't work when a transcluded template adds a category. If the NOINDEX word meant don't index, don't categorize, etc. that would be helpful. Sbowers3 ( talk) 13:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
Per the posting at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Creating a bunch of redirects that are shortcuts, I'm proposing to create up to a couple of hundred redirects of the form EIW:Topic. These will be shortcuts (links) to the major sections of the Editor's index to Wikipedia. If you have any concerns about such redirects (specifically, about this pseudo-namespace), please comment at the bot request page. I note that the matter was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Namespace#Procedure for creating a new pseudo-namespace?, where (I believe) there was no opposition to the concept, once it was clearly explained.
This proposal is primarily intended to aid editors answering questions at the help desk, but will be useful to any editor wanting to point someone to a particular topic in the index that is relevant to a question or discussion. The EIW pseudo-namespace will make these shortcuts much easier to understand (and shorter). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Really, the way that only some words in an article are linked to other articles seems arbitrary. Couldn't there be a system where clicking on a word automatically links to the article with that name, and manually defining a hyperlink would only be required for multiple-word phrases or relevant articles with different titles? One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its linked-ness, but this would improve it greatly. 216.45.231.50 ( talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There should be a feature that enables one to discuss with others subjects that are not policy related, like wars, elections, protests, etc. Wikipedia should be more than an encyclopedia, it should be a community that cares about others.
-- Tom.mevlie ( talk) 07:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Besides answering the question, " Is wikidrama bad?" I would also like to introduce the idea of using avatars for each point of view to make debates more amusing, as was suggested at http://www.communitywiki.org/WikiDrama Thespian Seagull ( talk) 15:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been considering this issue for some time, and I believe I have a solution for our Sisyphus problem. Too often quality articles (especially those on popular topics), once they are raised up to a high level, only suffer entropic decay. Vandalism is just the smallest problem; more significant are POV insertions, bad rewordings, and the addition of random facts which maybe "belong somewhere", but don't fit in the article. And it is hard (or even undesirable) to prevent such changes, because we are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, and always up-to-date.
Perhaps, indeed, it is impossible to fully satisfy both "reliable" and "up-to-date". So, I suggest a new namespace as a refuge for articles that have already been found to be of high quality (FA or GA). This would be a complementary process, not a replacement to our current set-up. Changes to such articles would be slow and deliberative, with more of a conservative tilt to this process. And I think elevating and preserving FAs and GAs in this way will only encourage further high quality submissions, as the hard work that is put into these will no longer be in danger of random entropic decay. "Slow Wikipedia" would not be up-to-the-minute; but it would be the most reliable, most readable and most accurate resource out there.
I propose:
So, what do you all think?-- Pharos ( talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I had proposed the idea of making and "Edu" version of Wikipedia at Wikipedia Suggestions but never got any replies. This is what happened: <snip> It doesn't seem that any significant suggestions will get ever implemented. This has frustrated the heck outta me and I don't think I'll be giving any more ideas. ~ RayLast « Talk!» 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Korea has made some video games, manwha(their version of manga), animation,movies, etc.. I can't find any articles about Korea's entertainment section. It seems their manwha, video games, and animations are neglected. I think we need a Korea Entertainment Project. 71.142.242.233 ( talk) 06:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
The current wording in the {{ prod}} tag is not very helpful or consistent with the deletion policy, WP:DP. I may not be able to claim newbie ignorance any more, but the first time I was confronted with someone tagging an article that was near and dear to me with a {{ prod}} tag, I did what I thought the {{ prod}} tag was indicating should be done to avoid deletion. Much to my surprise the article was then AfDd! I reacted rather badly, and accused that editor of bad faith, which I later regretted after being referred to WP:DP.
If the text in the {{ prod}} tag was more accurate and consistent with WP:DP this could be avoided. In fact, it would probably be a good idea if the {{ prod}} tag contains less text and does include a reference to WP:DP.
See also here: Template_talk:Prod#Proposed_rewording. Thanks. -- RenniePet ( talk) 08:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Google Map allows users to embed its navigable maps in the users' webpages, blogs, etc. but it comes with the Google Ads. However, Wikimapia.org (yes a non-profit) is also using Google maps, yet there is absolutely no advertisement running in the page. The only thing (I guess) you can call as advertisement there is the "powered by Google" logo. Maybe Wikipedia may make arrangements with Google to allow embedded Google maps in Wikipedia that comes with no ads. It will be very helpful in some articles, especially those that discuss the terrain and scape (e.g., cityscape) of a place and that no appropriate available free map is available. Wikipedia’s objective is to collect knowledge and make it available to millions of users worldwide. I believe Google maps can help booster Wikipedia’s current knowledge base.
As an example, in one of the articles I authored, Policies, activities and history of the Philippines in Spratly Islands, I have to phrase:
Aerial photos of Pagasa Island show that a rectangular portion of the coral base around Pagasa is reclaimed to serve as extension of the airstrip.
just to describe how the airstrip is constructed. Only Google maps can provide the visual information for that. And I tell you, visual informations are way better. I have thought of having a screenshot of the map, edit it, and upload it with a non-free fair use tag (specifically, {{ Non-free fair use in|Title of Article}}). However, I have doubts if that is acceptable.
-- Estarapapax Talk! Contribs! 12:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have patched up my old proposal. Please reconsider! Park Crawler ( talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently I've run into some difficulties with the Special:Newpages page. Users are frequently creating large numbers of articles in a relatively short period of time, clogging up the queue and making it harder to find actual articles in need of patrolling. Normally this isn't a problem in articles, but in the category namespace patrol where I do the bulk of my patrols, where a user can easily create many categories with little difficulty, this has become quite a nuisance.
It's a waste of the time and energy of patrollers to go through users whom we know aren't vandals. There are many examples to choose from:
Some are even from mainspace:
Giving administrators the power to flag trusted users, like the ones above, so that their creations are automatically patrolled would help reduce the strain on a greatly burdened system. It would allow us to actually evaluate questionable articles instead of developing carpal tunnel syndrome clearing out the backlogs of these users above. Please help us. Thank you. -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
When someone is googling for something, he or she probably clicks on the first option without being aware of the contents of the wikipedia disclaimer. Wikipedia disclaimer does not show up anytime in the process and even I, as an editor to wikipedia, was not aware of it before certain issues were brought up. If the main point of wikipedia is to provide information, then what's the point of not telling the readers about what they may see.
Here is my suggestion:
As we have a "Did you know" on the main page that talks about interesting things about the article, we create a box at the top of any article and put up there notable facts about the article. Its content can range from the date of creation of the article, its status, its stability, the expected time to read it, important stuff, or even certain interesting content issues if there is a consensus for that. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I object to the disingenuous way in which this has been presented - the real agenda here is hidden in "or even certain interesting content issues if there is a consensus for that. ", this is an attempt to create a thin end of the wedge, what this editor is actually interested in is getting religious disclaimer stuck on the Muhammad article, once the disclaimer is in place, the next step will be "well we have the disclaimer in place, so we might as well hide the images". I have no issue with a statistic box making of objective facts about an article but under no circumstances should we start slapping subjective POV content disclaimers on article based upon the perceived offence of sections of our readers. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 23:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not support the idea of including disclaimers at the tops of articles, even when tucked away in content that is not a disclaimer. We are not subservient to Google and do not have to engage in any special behavior merely because our articles come up high in the search results. - Chardish ( talk) 08:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the Wikimorgue (see Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia: Positions) is a great idea and should be implemented ASAP to see what not to rewrite or to argue a point to bring back the article. The deletionists can be a little unreasonable at times (this is just my opinion; I am an inclusionist), and the Wikimorgue could help bring Wikipedia even more coverage on many subjects. It's a great idea and should be put into practice! Rdbrewster ( talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for bringing this back from the most recent archival, but I just thought it was interesting to note that this proposal was mentioned in New York Magazine (this very proposal, along with the name "Wikimorgue"): "Someone recently proposed a Wikimorgue—a bin of broken dreams where all rejects could still be read, as long as they weren't libelous or otherwise illegal. Like other middens, it would have much to tell us over time. We could call it the Deletopedia." Words to ponder. I know we're working on Wikipedia:Trash namespace, but maybe this might be a source of some renewed interest. Equazcion •✗/ C • 15:36, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Most of you probably know that there is a strong controversy regarding some images posted on Wikipedia article on Muhammad. More specifically these are the images that show an attempt to draw his face (i.e. this and this ). About one year back, on behalf of the community some editors and admins have decided to retain those images on the article. However, because of the changed circumstances (widespread awareness about the issue and a strong opinion against that decision) we need to revisit that decision. I have the following proposal to make in this regard. I have made this suggestion on designated Article talk page, but I have been told there, unless I get my proposal validated here, it is "hot air". So here I am. I request Wikipedia admins to go through this post and if it sounds reasonable, please request the admins who are deciding the fate of article Muhammad to atleast nullify the erlier concensus and reopen serious discussion.
The earlier consensus evidently still holds. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Context of the ProposalThere are some arguments to retain the debated images on Muhammad. They are summarized at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. While some of these arguments have merit, there is a more compelling counterargument for not including the images. And the counterargument can be summrized in short as "the images are misrepresentative". The FAQ page on this subject tries to refute the argument that the "Muhammad images are false" by comparing it with other pages like Homer, and Jesus. First of all, that's not a logic, that's an analogy and secondly, it is a very incorrect analogy indeed. It is a fact that Muhammad did not have any photograph or any painting drawn by any person that actually met him. This is probably the same case as Homer or Jesus. So no currently available image of Homer, Jesus or Muhammad can give a reasonable representation of the subject person. Saying so, the images of Homer or Jesus used on their respective Wikipedia articles have been regarded as the mainstream/popular view of their resemblance by many scholarly and/or popular sources. So these images, statues, etc. though probably have little practical value of exactly depicting the subject, have attained a symbolic value of representing the subject in the mind of modern people. This symbolic value may justify their inclusion in the articles on these subjects. However, this symbolic value is exactly what the images on Muhammad’s article lack. The images used in Muhammad page have seldom been used by any scholarly or popular source as the mainstream or popular view of his resemblance. These are isolated imaginary paintings arbitrarily labeled as "Muhammad", which have never ever received any acceptance as his representation (outside Wikipedia). So, these pictures have no more information value as to depicting Muhammad than a stick-man image that I can draw and label as Homer or Jesus. The fact that these images are old definitely increases their antique value and make them precious collection items for museums, but does not increase their value as a media portraying the subject. The "Fact" with respect to Muhammad's physical depiction is: Since Muhammad strongly discouraged portrayal of living things (including himself) his contemporaries never tried to portray him, or such paintings don't exist. However, throghout history there has been isolated attempts to paint him by both muslim and non-muslim sources, but such imgaes never got widespread acceptance as reasonable representation of Muhammad. And because of this fact, respected encyclopedias like Britannica, Encarta etc. have never used any arbitary image drawn by some historical person on their articles on Prophet Muhammad. By posting these images on the article and locking it permanently, a handful of Wikipedia admins are trying to distort this fact, and trying to give these images some sort of "recognition" of importance as the available pictoral depiction of Muhammad. Wikipedia's task is to establish and present the facts, not to give some arbitary imaginary paintings new value/recognition that they never received before, no matter how old these images be. Let me also clarify that I am not comparing my "straw-man" drawing with the drawings on Muhammad’s article in terms of quality, or historical significance; I am only saying they are comparable in terms of their relevance in illustrating the subject. Of course those images are important and have their place on Wikipedia. They can be good examples of historical works of art. They are even quite relevant for the article on Depiction of Muhammad, because they indeed are early attempts to draw Muhammad. But they should not be placed on the article on Muhammad because historically they have totally failed to establish their value as a representative illustration of Muhammad. Why is Muhammad’s case so unique that it has to be different from that of Homer, Jesus, or Buddha? It is simply because unlike all the others mentioned, it is a historically recorded fact that Muhammad forbid drawing living objects (especially himself). And because of this explicit prohibition, Muhammad’s followers as well as non-muslim scholars while researching on Muhammad have not recognized these images as an acceptable representation of the person. When I say, the images of Homer or Jesus are the mainstream view of the resemblance of these subjects, what I mean is these are iconic images that have helped serve as the representation of these people. For example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represents a group of people who have used those specific images of Jesus as a faithful representation of the person. Even if they don't qualify as mainstream, there is still a group that believed those images are good representation of Jesus. If the number of people believing they are good representation of Jesus is absolutely minimum, then those images have no place in Jesus’s article either. The point that I am trying to establish is, when we add an imaginary painting to a biography, it should meet a minimum test: does a significant number of people believe this is the available representative depiction of the person? Or in more “Wikipedia-like” words, can it be shown that independent reliable third party sources have reproduced these images or their likeness as a means to depict the subject in question. This is the test that Muhammad’s images fail. The references that have been provided in the article, include, University of Edinburgh and Ali, Wijdan. Both these scholalrly sources analyze these images as a part of analysis of histrory of art, not as part of their commentry on Muhammad. When it came to discussion of Muhammad, all respectable scholarly sources (including mainstream encyclopedias) have refrained from reproducing these images, because no matter how valuable they be in the study of art history, these images have not recieved any notable acceptance as good representation of Muhammad. Furthermore, by refraining from inserting these paintings in their respective articles, all these scholarly sources have tried to respect the fact that there is no widely accepted pictoral depiction of Muhammad. By going against this tradition, Wikipedia (or more specifically a handful of editors from Wikipedia, who have decided to establish censorship – in terms of limiting people’s edit right on article) is distorting the long established fact, trying to establish these handful of images as the “best available pictoral depiction of Muhammad”, which they are not, and perhaps least importantly have offended millions of people. The ProposalIn view of my argument above, I am proposing: since Wikipedia’s task is to faithfully reproduce facts and information as they are available in scholarly sources, these images should be removed from Muhammad article, placed on other relevant articles, where they are appropriate ( Depiction of Muhammad for example), and the article on Muhammad can mention:
This is not a request to compromise, or impose cencorship; neither is this Islamic law – this is simply a request to follow the scholalry tradition and stick to the facts, refraining from misrepresentation, which not only goes against Wikipedia values, but also destroys its credibility and acceptibility to millions of people. The request here is to stop distorting a long established fact that there is no acceptable pictoral depiction of Muhammad, because distorting fact goes against the fundamental value of any scholarly work. The request is to the Wikipedia admins to follow the tradition of majority of scholarly sources of not including such images while discussing life of Muhammad, than going its own way and setting a precedence not acceptable to a high number of people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its goal is to present facts as they are, not starting new trends. Thank you. Arman ( Talk) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC) DiscussionYahel Guhan
Lor
Nihiltres
SP-KP
Rmosler
gren
Therefore
AecisA lot has been said about this subject already. I will probably repeat most of it, but I will say what I have to say nonetheless. Several users have brought forward the argument of non-representation, that it hasn't been established that Muhammad looked anything like the images. To be blunt: that is irrelevant. It has been established that these images were made as portraits of Muhammad. The artists clearly intended the main figure to be Muhammad. Whether they succeeded in doing this, whether they remained true to the original, is not relevant. They could have painted him with blond hair and braces; if that was what Muhammad looked like to them, we add such pictures. I don't see any reason not to include these significant historical sources. A ecis Brievenbus 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Anakin101Wholehearted support. I've never previously given an opinion on the issue of the Muhammad images, because I'm not Muslim, I've never really looked into it, and always assumed that WP:NOT#CENSORED adequately answered the question. Having read Arman's proposal, I think I've changed my mind for the reason he explains, and also some other reasons, and here's why (forgive the length of this, I beg):
Now, please tell me your opinions on that, everybody. If I am completely misguided please correct me, or if you more or less agree with me please say so! • Anakin ( talk) 14:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thw1309I understand and respect your position. For you, a devote Muslim, there is a problem to read an article with pictures of your prophet. For me, an average user of Wikipedia, the picture above can give me a much better impression of the unique position, this man Muhammad has in your islamic value system, than ten or twenty sentences would give me. Therefore, it's important for me to see images within the context of the article. If you can only follow the special interests of a special group by denying the interests of the whole community, then it's not the way of wikipedia, to give you the right to deny these other interests. We do not make improvements for some users, if this means a change for the worse for other users. Every removal of useful images or relocation to another article is such a change for the worse. I think, there is a possibility, to give you access to the article, without any violations of your religious instructions. If you open the article, you will see, there are no images of Muhammad to be seen. They all are in the lower parts of the article. On top of the article, we could place a disambiguation to a subpage of the article. There, the content of the article can be repeated without the images. This would improve Wikipedia for you and other Muslims, without reducing it's usefulness for me and other average users. If we can produce all these Introduction-to-versions of existing scientific articles for readers with lower knowledge on a subject, Wikipedia will survive a second version without pictures too.-- Thw1309 ( talk) 11:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Λua∫ Wi se ( Operibus anteire)Support removing. So, I think we should not have an argument regarding why they should be deleted, but rather-like every single picture on WP- we should think why they should stay. The topic is controversial, and I think no fair compromise can be reached to satisfy both parties. Thus, we might start a whole separate article for them, and remove them from this particular article. Λua∫ Wi se ( Operibus anteire) 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
agrSupport. While I strongly oppose censorship of Wikipedia, considerations of good taste and respect for the views of different cultures can influence how and where information is presented. Moving the images in question to an article devoted to them, with a link from the main article, would not materially diminish the main article. On the contrary, keeping them there is likely more damaging since, in practice, it will deprive us of input from many Muslim editors. I believe that would be a great loss. I also think there are parallels in the way we treat other religions on Wikipedia. We use CE/BCE for dates in articles on Judaism and AD/BC in articles on Christianity, for example. But before the Wiki-lawyers start to explain why those accommodations are somehow different, I will acknowledge that there are unique aspects to this situation. Conflicts involving Islam are a major source of tension in the world today. There are those on both sides who seem intent on exacerbating those tensions, generally citing their deeply held principles. Wikipedia can serve an important calming role by serving as a meeting place where ideas are exchanged. Keeping images of the prophet in this article sends an exclusionary message, whether we like it or not. If moving the images to their own article makes Muslims feel more welcome here, I'm all for doing so.-- agr ( talk) 17:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
WolfkeeperSupport removing from Mohammad. It's not about censorship (the images would be in Depiction of Muhammad still anyway), it's not about being offensive to Moslems, they can still be offended in depictions, but it's just that there's no evidence whatsoever of notable sources linking articles on Mohammad to these kinds pictures, and thus their inclusion is either OR or overemphasis or both. If that evidence can be found in a reasonable number of notable sources then my position will change; for example what does EB do here? What do other encyclopedias do? I see no evidence that anybody else has even bothered to check, they haven't done the work; given that, and given the fact that most of the articles on Mohammad are extremely likely to be Moslem, and absent images like these, I vote to remove right now.- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC) High on a treeOppose I have already responded to Talk:Muhammad/images. but I have to say that I find it quite unfortunate that this debate has to be duplicated in yet another venue. But okay, here we go again:
Regards, High on a tree ( talk) 05:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC) LankiveilOppose. Many have already covered the points that I would like to cover above, and far more eloquently than I could. I would however like to add that I find the notion and suggestion that we should only depict the subjects of biographies according to the cultural norms of the culture that they come from to be bizarre. Wikipedia's goal is to provide information to the reader, and having these images in the article facilitates that. I think that having respectful antique images of Islamic Persian and Turkish origin is certainly appropriate for the Muhammad article. With that said, I am not opposed at all to providing a gadget to hide the images for Muslims that might be offended by them, and placing a large prominent notice at the top of the article instructing interested readers on how they can activate or use said gadget. Such an informational message would not be a "disclaimer" in my mind, which is what has so far sunk previous attempts to do something like that. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC). Jmlk17Strong Oppose Since I am quite involved in the issue as a whole, I'll keep my comments short and sweet. I believe that a disclaimer, hidden image template, or anything of the sort would be a dangerous precedent, and would only allow further issues to bypass our views on censorship, among other concrete policies. For instance, there are some who object to curse words, some who object to photos on sexual intercourse, and those who can find offense out of any one of our 2 million+ articles. If we truly do value our open encyclopedia, as well as our views on never censoring anything as it could hinder our core, then this article should and must be no different. Jmlk 1 7 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Ron DuvallComment Can we please relist? I don't think this has gotten enough discussion. This issue is extremely important to the future of mankind. Ron Duvall ( talk) 06:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
AbdComment There are no images of Muhammad that have any reliability at all; various substreams of Islamic culture did allow certain kinds of images, but these were all later inventions. There are descriptions of his appearance in words that can be used to generate some speculative image, but, of course, these are highly unreliable. In articles on this subject, serious authors may show historical images as such, not as being actual "images of Muhammad." There are no images of Muhammad, there are images taken from various people's imaginations. None of them have sufficient currency to be notable in an article on Muhammad; where they are notable is in specialized articles, such as those on the famous or infamous cartoons. However, having said all that, it's a fact that certain actions, legitimate under personal freedom, can be highly dangerous due to fanaticism in the world. One may wish to take the risk on oneself, but what if gratuitous insult causes injury to one's neighbors? Don't tease the dogs when you are taking your children for a walk; in fact, don't tease them at any time. It's disruptive, even if you have a "right" to do it. -- Abd ( talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Dbachmannoppose per (*stifles a yawn*) nearly everyone else over the past months, see Talk:Muhammad/images. There is no way we can implement any "no images of X" guideline. Any concerns regarding the encyclopedic value of any given image need to be raised on a case-by-case basis. dab (𒁳) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
GnangarraOppose removal of images. Any removal images will be seen as censorship by supporters of Anti-Islamic groups. And be seen as a Victory by Islamic groups in censoring Wikipedia content. All other issues for the removal of content will then be argued on the basis that a precendent was set in complying with the requirements of Islam. As they are now claimed to be false, then there's no offense to the laws of Islam and no reason to be concerned about them being there in the first place. Gnan garra 12:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC) SpinningsparkOppose removal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (Pillar 1 of the
Five Pillars). The pictures are of genuine academic interest, showing a depiction in Ottoman Empire times and therefore belong here whoever it upsets. MCB
Fredrick Day
SeraphimbladeAbsolutely no removal. Even if the pictures don't depict exactly what Muhammad looked like, they are historic and educational, as to what a culture thought Muhammad looked like. And we do not remove things because they offend someone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
I have posted the suggestions in the help desk but all I get is people telling me to post them here or in Bugzilla. I've done that but have gotten nothing back. I just want someone to tell me no were not doing that or yes we want to do that.
{{Comment:00215468|title=Suggestion}}
As the community anticipates a few closures of current RfBs as unsuccessful, I would like to bring to the community's attention that the traditional threshold for bureaucrat promotion still does not comply with WP:Consensus. Bureaucrats should be called to lower the approval threshold for new bureaucrats to that of a regular request for adminship. There is no plausible justification for such an extreme 90% threshold for new bureaucrats. It makes the whole process unfair for the candidate and unfair for the participants who'll have a slim minority of 10% decide for all. As a Wikipedian who believes in process, I think it's quite frustrating to see some great candidates be turned down despite clear consensus from the community for them to be approved and become new bureaucrats. Hús ö nd 00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It would seem best to keep discussion about this in one central place - it may even be time to create a separate location for this discussion, which is attracting quite a bit of support from participants at WT:RFA but would need a wider consensus should bureaucrats adjust their approach to RfB closures. WjB scribe 10:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
it may be useless, but could you add built-in increase text button? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.37.64 ( talk) 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my new proposal. Please consider! Park Crawler ( talk) 02:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please! :-D Park Crawler ( talk) 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we place these templates on frequently used pages, such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and so forth. Many users mill around these pages at any point in time; in my opinion, having the Wiki-ads there would boost WikiProject participation considerably and be a boon to article writing and so forth. However, I'm pretty sure that many editors are opposed to the idea, as they may think it too distracting. Just wanted to gain some consensus. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to ask permission to make the article "Hobo Bashing". I think it is somewhat important and currently increasing particulary in the U.S. I would like someone's opinion on making this article! Thanks- Letter 7/Caleb ( talk) 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose that a tag is introduced for when a plot summary in an article reaches an optimum length. At the moment some articles e.g Goodfellas, No Country for Old Men are subject to constant revisions with users placing uneccessary detail, speculation or their own interpretations of what happened.
When a consensus has been agreed upon the tag would be placed before the article which could read The plot summary below is considered to be a suitable length for the article. Please read discussion on talk pages before editing it. Obviously the wording would have to be discussed but I think you get the idea. Users would of course still be able to edit the plot summaries but would hopefully give them pause for thought before firing in. Yorkshiresky ( talk) 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
We should consider adding a lightweight, easy-to-use mechanism by which readers can quickly thank other editors for their edits. I envision a new button in article histories, diff pages, watchlists, etc.:
which alerts the recipient in a manner similar to a new user talk message:
Of course, the actual box would be far less ugly.
Suggested details:
Motivation: for various reasons, my recent editing pattern is such that most of my interactions with other users involve offering criticism or responding to it. I try to be civil and constructive, and there's no replacement for that, but the fact is that I'm passing on a lot of opportunities for strictly positive interaction. It feels awkward to leave a note on another user's talk page just to thank them for an edit to some article on my watchlist. Perhaps this makes me a terrible community member, but let's stipulate for a moment that it is an understandable affliction that probably happens to other editors as well. I would like to provide more positive feedback and encouragement, so if this proposal were implemented, I for one would use it all the time.
Obviously this proposal, if agreed upon, would require a software change. Melchoir ( talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Messages left at Wikipedia talk:Kindness Campaign and Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club. Melchoir ( talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I spent a few weeks at the hospital and I realized how Wikipedia mobile was important. There are several initiatives started everywhere, but nothing concrete and nothing multilingual. I wondered if it was appropriate to start a central page at m:Wikipedia mobile, to consolidate these discussions and pages.
Thanks for guiding me! Antaya ( talk) 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
...when Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.4 ( talk) 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that a category for Unanimous Supreme court decisions would be cool? I mean, Wikipedia is a learning environment at the same time as a research environment, and it would foster a lot of learning. And that's good for society. What do you think? -- Heero Kirashami ( talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Some articles have various edit wars over the length of trivia dedicated to a given subject. One policy could be implemented to have trivia appear in its own box in the discussion page. This would remove long lists from the article body.
We should consider adding a lightweight, easy-to-use mechanism by which readers can quickly thank other editors for their edits. I envision a new button in article histories, diff pages, watchlists, etc.:
which alerts the recipient in a manner similar to a new user talk message:
Of course, the actual box would be far less ugly.
Suggested details:
Motivation: for various reasons, my recent editing pattern is such that most of my interactions with other users involve offering criticism or responding to it. I try to be civil and constructive, and there's no replacement for that, but the fact is that I'm passing on a lot of opportunities for strictly positive interaction. It feels awkward to leave a note on another user's talk page just to thank them for an edit to some article on my watchlist. Perhaps this makes me a terrible community member, but let's stipulate for a moment that it is an understandable affliction that probably happens to other editors as well. I would like to provide more positive feedback and encouragement, so if this proposal were implemented, I for one would use it all the time.
Obviously this proposal, if agreed upon, would require a software change. Melchoir ( talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Messages left at Wikipedia talk:Kindness Campaign and Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club. Melchoir ( talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I spent a few weeks at the hospital and I realized how Wikipedia mobile was important. There are several initiatives started everywhere, but nothing concrete and nothing multilingual. I wondered if it was appropriate to start a central page at m:Wikipedia mobile, to consolidate these discussions and pages.
Thanks for guiding me! Antaya ( talk) 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose adding an extra magic word that will give the author(s) the option to have a page not indexed (anymore) by searchbots. I think this is useful especially for userpages, where people add information about themselves, sometimes with a username that is their actual name, or a name closely related to them. Often this userpage will be very high in the search results. Because of the overall pagerank of Wikipedia and the optimalisation for searchengines it will sometimes even come above someone's personal homepage or blog. To give these people an option to maintain their userpage and username but not have the page indexed I propose a __ (or something like this) magic word (note that Google will also remove a page from its search results when it encounters a robots noindex tag). Also this might be used for administrative pages that have explicitely no use of being indexed or found by searchengines. Another example: Someone writes an article about a new company, it gets deleted. What remains is the page where deletion is discussed, also these pages do very well in search results, which might be very unlucky for the owner of this company, but has not much use for Wikipedia. I could give many more examples where this could be useful, but I think you get the point. Free style 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
A related idea: I normally create articles in a user sandbox, then when they are ready create them in mainspace. I sometimes do the same when editing an existing page. It would be useful in such a case to turn off Categories while in the sandbox. I could add the categories but not have them show up in a category. Yes, I know that I can add a leading colon but that doesn't work when a transcluded template adds a category. If the NOINDEX word meant don't index, don't categorize, etc. that would be helpful. Sbowers3 ( talk) 13:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)