Wikipedia:Content noticeboard
| History of this page |
|---|
This page is now historical, new posts should be made at the dispute resolution noticeboard.
|
Noticeboard archives
please remove messanger mohammed photographs from the page
Its a humble request to you wikipedia people to prophet mohammed's photographs from page. in islam photo of any live person or thing is haram.and the photo of prophet mohaammed is insult of him . so I request you please remove all photographs and cartoons of prophet mohammed . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.4.176 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- No. Wikipedia is not censored. Period. For further information, see: Talk:Muhammad/FAQ --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Does the number of images in an article (or their very inclusion) depend on the practice of sources?
Ok, I don't really know where to post such a question but I think this is a good starting place. There is a heated discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Hardcore_pornography_images#Reliable_sources between me and Jayen466 (talk · contribs) on the subject: Is it common practice to decide if we put images or not in an article by looking if and how many images do RS put on the subject? More precisely: if the majority of sources don't depict images of X, do we actively avoid to include images of X? I am personally convinced, from experience and lack of knowledge of any guideline/policy that says so, that the answer is a resounding "no" and the very notion strikes me as bizarre (example: academic papers, which by far and large are the majority of sources, and for sure the most authoritative, do not include artistic reconstructions of exoplanets: but we actually do regularly) but the other editor seems to be convinced otherwise (and wants to put it on the essay as if it was plain truth, while to me it strikes at plain falsity). Can someone clarify the matter?
Also notice that I do not intend to discuss if it should be so or not: this is another -interesting- matter of opinion, nor I want to discuss if sources help us understand if a given image reflects the article subject or not (of course they do). The crux of the matter is if decisions like "sources do not include images of X often, so we don't too, even if good images are available" are common practice or not here and now. Thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 02:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- We don't have much in the way of proscribing the regulation of any free content (provided it meets WP:IUP; it's non-free content that has the strings attached. No article needs images, but it'd be a point of content whether images as you suggest for the article above would not be "shocking" and just there to draw attention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Uh no, I'm not suggesting images for the essay. The crux is that Jayen466 is implying quite clearly in the essay (and saying explicitly in the discussion) that we already do that (counting images in sources and deciding if and how many images we put) for all other articles, and therefore applying it to sexual articles is a natural extension. His argument is explicitly detached from the specifics of the topic, and also one could for sure argue anyway that it should be the case (for this kind of articles or for others). But my concern is to see it presented as if it was already normal practice and policy. Is it or not? --Cyclopiatalk 13:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- We don't have much in the way of proscribing the regulation of any free content (provided it meets WP:IUP; it's non-free content that has the strings attached. No article needs images, but it'd be a point of content whether images as you suggest for the article above would not be "shocking" and just there to draw attention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a requirement that images should be pertinent and encyclopedically relevant. We wouldn't fill an article on Paris, say, with photographs of Paris kerbstones. Why not? Because reliable sources on Paris would not do so either. We use drawings as well as photographs of birds and flowers, because reliable sources do so. This does not usually need stating, but we do it nonetheless.
When it comes to hardcore pornography, shock images, images or videos of extreme violence and the like, we should do as reliable sources do that cover these things. We should be neither more nor less libertarian than real-world publications written for a gender- and age-mixed readership in our article illustration. I think this follows quite naturally from our basic content policies. I have no time for people who would like to impose a personal preference on Wikipedia that is a fringe – or completely absent – position in real world publishing. --JN466 19:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- If it's matter of "should" and "think", then it's settled. I only object to presenting opinions as facts. --Cyclopiatalk 19:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I agree with you in point, Jayen, but it's worth mentioning that "what the sources say" often does not actually work as an adequate benchmark (at least not alone). Take for example pretty much any subject on fiction or an element thereof. Many times we use critical commentary to justify non-free images, but in fulfilling WP:NFCC it often requires editors to do their own searching or synthesizing of content that would best meet the requirements. Has any other source had that image or ones like it? Maybe not. @Cyclopia, I wasn't saying that the issue of images in the essay was a problem, I was just pointing to the "shocking" element as germane to the particular issue. At the end of the day, though, it's just an essay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- My problem is not with the essay itself, I don't want to see hardcore images either. My problem is that I gave three good reasons in the other discussion why reliable sources might not include images on a subject (custom, availability, practicality) which do not apply to Wikipedia. There are plenty of good reasons not to use hardcore images. Lets not use one which is against common sense (do I have to remove images from articles because the sources I used could not use them?) --Muhandes (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Many reliable sources are often censored, which we are not. We are not the same as those sources. What follows naturally from our content policies and guidelines is that every subject almost always has at least 1 image when possible to help identify the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- You see, there's the rub. These sources are not censored, they apply editorial judgment. You are advocating a policy of no editorial judgment, where any free media we have goes onto the relevant Wikipedia page. You want Wikipedia to adopt an extremist position that you would not be able to implement if you worked for any reputable real-world publisher.
- There is a difference between censorship and editorial judgment. We have freedom of speech. There is nothing to prevent the New York Times or The Guardian from printing the goatse image, or putting a gang bang video on their website. The reason they don't do it has nothing to do with censorship. --JN466 09:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- By your own argument, this is not a matter of reliability but of judgment. There is nothing compelling us to the same judgment calls. You suggestion in essence means that Wikipedia must adhere to the moral (or worse, practical) judgment of some editor, which I find a very bad idea. We should not include hardcore images because we find them unhelpful, shocking, etc. not because someone else does. --Muhandes (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not saying that we should follow the judgment of any particular publication's editor, but that our judgment should in some NPOV manner reflect the judgment of the complete pool of sources available to us. In other words, that we should strive to be representative, rather than extremist, in our illustrations, just like we try to give representative overviews in our texts, presenting points of view in proportion to their prevalence. Such decisions about "representativeness" are, according to our core policies, always made on the basis of sources, not on the basis of individual Wikipedians' judgments. --JN466 12:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here is another place where we differ. You see the existence of an image as a point of view, deserving neutrality and representativeness. I see an image as a tool of illustration, nothing more. But even to your view, I still maintain that sources may choose not to use illustrations as a matter of availability, custom, or practicality, not only judgment. These do not apply to us at all, which was my original concern. Just to make it clear, I am referring to the idea in general, not to its application in the case of hardcore pornography. --Muhandes (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- That is not quite accurate. I don't see an image as a point of view. I share your view that it is a tool of illustration, and nothing more. I am also aware that sources may choose not to use illustrations at all, for reasons entirely unrelated to their appropriateness: many academic books for example simply do not feature illustrations at all. But in any given area, we would do well to ensure that our style of illustration does not depart systematically from that of reliable sources. For example, a medical article should have the kind of photograph commonly found in medical textbooks; we should not use an image that is deliberately shocking, unless that kind of shocking image simply goes with the territory and is commonly used in reliable sources. Our article on goatse should not have the goatse picture if it is very clear from looking at sources writing about it that they don't include the picture; not because it is unavailable, but because they choose not to. (We can provide a link to it instead, so that people who have read about and still want to see it can.) Similarly with the Nikki Catsouras pictures; we had them in the article at one time, I believe, and then got rid of them because it was extremist to have them when no reputable publication discussing the case would print them. --JN466 14:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Simply put, in your own words, if "many academic books for example simply do not feature illustrations at all" I don't see why "we would do well to ensure that our style of illustration does not depart systematically from that of reliable sources". Let me put it another way. I think it is good to follow the reasoning of reliable sources for not including images, if we agree with it. But if the don't agree with the reasoning then it shouldn't be followed. In the case of hardcore porn we agree with the reasoning of reliable sources. In other areas we might not. What the essay now says is that no matter what the reasoning is, we should follow it, to which I don't agree. --Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Our community demographcis are very strongly skewed, unrepresentative of the general population for whom we write. Community judgment can be off-mainstream; see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners for example. Recourse to reliable sources is in line with core policies and should be available as a failsafe in Wikipedia; otherwise we may one day end up with CC-licensed beheading or bukkake videos on our pages and become an extremist rather than mainstream educational source. --JN466 19:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- As you did not addressed my main concern, that the reasons for not including images might not apply, I am left unconvinced. --Muhandes (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- You say that in the case of hardcore pornography, you agree with the reasoning of reliable sources, and that is the only area the essay addresses. I'd say there is more than one way to skin a cat, and it doesn't really matter by which thought process we arrive at a conclusion, if the conclusion is the same. Cheers, --JN466 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I thought I made it clear before, I agree with the conclusion, and I even agree that in this case it stems from the same reasoning RS use. I just think that having a paragraph that says this is the practice in all fields is dangerous. Cheers. --Muhandes (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Tweaked and restricted as an argument applying to this specific area. Best, --JN466 18:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I thought I made it clear before, I agree with the conclusion, and I even agree that in this case it stems from the same reasoning RS use. I just think that having a paragraph that says this is the practice in all fields is dangerous. Cheers. --Muhandes (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- You say that in the case of hardcore pornography, you agree with the reasoning of reliable sources, and that is the only area the essay addresses. I'd say there is more than one way to skin a cat, and it doesn't really matter by which thought process we arrive at a conclusion, if the conclusion is the same. Cheers, --JN466 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- As you did not addressed my main concern, that the reasons for not including images might not apply, I am left unconvinced. --Muhandes (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Our community demographcis are very strongly skewed, unrepresentative of the general population for whom we write. Community judgment can be off-mainstream; see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners for example. Recourse to reliable sources is in line with core policies and should be available as a failsafe in Wikipedia; otherwise we may one day end up with CC-licensed beheading or bukkake videos on our pages and become an extremist rather than mainstream educational source. --JN466 19:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Simply put, in your own words, if "many academic books for example simply do not feature illustrations at all" I don't see why "we would do well to ensure that our style of illustration does not depart systematically from that of reliable sources". Let me put it another way. I think it is good to follow the reasoning of reliable sources for not including images, if we agree with it. But if the don't agree with the reasoning then it shouldn't be followed. In the case of hardcore porn we agree with the reasoning of reliable sources. In other areas we might not. What the essay now says is that no matter what the reasoning is, we should follow it, to which I don't agree. --Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- That is not quite accurate. I don't see an image as a point of view. I share your view that it is a tool of illustration, and nothing more. I am also aware that sources may choose not to use illustrations at all, for reasons entirely unrelated to their appropriateness: many academic books for example simply do not feature illustrations at all. But in any given area, we would do well to ensure that our style of illustration does not depart systematically from that of reliable sources. For example, a medical article should have the kind of photograph commonly found in medical textbooks; we should not use an image that is deliberately shocking, unless that kind of shocking image simply goes with the territory and is commonly used in reliable sources. Our article on goatse should not have the goatse picture if it is very clear from looking at sources writing about it that they don't include the picture; not because it is unavailable, but because they choose not to. (We can provide a link to it instead, so that people who have read about and still want to see it can.) Similarly with the Nikki Catsouras pictures; we had them in the article at one time, I believe, and then got rid of them because it was extremist to have them when no reputable publication discussing the case would print them. --JN466 14:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here is another place where we differ. You see the existence of an image as a point of view, deserving neutrality and representativeness. I see an image as a tool of illustration, nothing more. But even to your view, I still maintain that sources may choose not to use illustrations as a matter of availability, custom, or practicality, not only judgment. These do not apply to us at all, which was my original concern. Just to make it clear, I am referring to the idea in general, not to its application in the case of hardcore pornography. --Muhandes (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not saying that we should follow the judgment of any particular publication's editor, but that our judgment should in some NPOV manner reflect the judgment of the complete pool of sources available to us. In other words, that we should strive to be representative, rather than extremist, in our illustrations, just like we try to give representative overviews in our texts, presenting points of view in proportion to their prevalence. Such decisions about "representativeness" are, according to our core policies, always made on the basis of sources, not on the basis of individual Wikipedians' judgments. --JN466 12:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- By your own argument, this is not a matter of reliability but of judgment. There is nothing compelling us to the same judgment calls. You suggestion in essence means that Wikipedia must adhere to the moral (or worse, practical) judgment of some editor, which I find a very bad idea. We should not include hardcore images because we find them unhelpful, shocking, etc. not because someone else does. --Muhandes (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Errrr, shouldn't we be looking at other encyclopedias? To see if they use images in entries of similar size.
Also, RS can have different goals than wikipedia's goals. Also, the number of images might be determined by the cultural background of authors, trying to please or attract potential readers, government rules and censorship, costs of including photographies in the text, limitations in how pages they can afford to print, etc. We have our own goals and restrictions, and we should adapt the number of images to them.
Speaking of which, the current criteria for inclusion is "Pertinence and encyclopedic nature"?, with stuff like "inform readers by providing visual information" and "utility and educational value". This is not related to the abundance of images in sources, and we would make a disservice by abandoning our goals in favor of random goals and restrictions that have never been valid for our articles.
And about including offensive material, we already have WP:IMAGE#Offensive_images andWikipedia:Offensive material. Stuff like "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Again, no relationship with appearances in sources.
Finally, to illustrate the problem, we compare a sociological paper in a journal with a educational book written by the same expert in sexology. The paper will only have graphics, but the book might have all sorts of illustrations depending on the targeted readership. Which one are we going to use as guidance? They have different images because they have different goals and restrictions. We should do the same, use our own criteria, criteria that fit wikipedia's goals and restrictions. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- First, we cover many things not covered by other encyclopedias, so looking at other encyclopedias is often not an option. The 2005 goatse poll resulted in overwhelming consensus not to display the image, although the omission of the image did arguably cause the article to be "less informative". However, the decision was in good agreement with the practices of reliable sources, who would discuss the image, but not print it. The danger with community-based standards is analogous to the problems that we avoid through WP:NOR. While we cannot base our image use on any one particular RS, we should not be an outlier in our image use either, compared to reputable sources. --JN466 21:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
A mess of WP:Content Forks
- These are intertwined with each other
- List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Redirect List of wars by death toll)
- List of battles and other violent events by death toll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of natural disasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Redirect: List of natural disasters by death toll)
- List of accidents and disasters by death toll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- These two below are fine on their own but are in part duplicated in the above
- List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Redirect: List of genocides)
 |
|
.
The problem with The articles listed above the tag are Scoped in a way that makes them redundant to at least one other in the list above. Requester opens up the floor on how to re-scope these so they are not all excessively redundant of each other.
The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments/Opinions/Suggestions
I don't think these articles are redundant at all. As I recall, "List of wars and disasters", "List of battles and other violent events" and "List of accidents and disasters" were all originally part of the "List of wars and disasters" article, and the consensus after a long discussion was to separate them into different articles. If they are re-merged we are just going to get the same complaints as before. The articles do in fact deal with discrete topics, and it makes logical sense to keep them separate. Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
AfD the lot?
Also mentioned this at WP:HD, where I was asking where to ask this, but here seems appropriate. I've just found this list and the category 'Baloch tribes'. All the articles seem nonsensical to me but there are a good 100 or so, so I'd like at least a second opinion on what to do or if I'm missing the point of them. Thanks Stu.W UK (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Uninvolved Admin available for an RfC close?
Could I get an uninvolved admin to parse through and formally close this RfC? Consensus seemed pretty clear. It should be fairly easy. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Done--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- You're the man Sarek. Thanks! NickCT (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement; appeal to uninvolved long-standing editors
The article Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement has a long history of fractious editing, involving socks of previously banned editors, and administrators who are involved with same (either in sympathy or conflict).
Previous RFCs have largely attracted either people already involved with the article, or editors who gave their two cents and then departed without changing anything on the page. That is why I am raising the issue here rather than making another RFC.
I would greatly appreciate some fresh perspective on this article, and ideally for lots more established editors to add it to their watchlist, and add good content. What are the thoughts of this noticeboard's readers on the article as it currently stands?
Many thanks, BillMasen (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just looked briefly at the lead section, comparing the version before you edited to the current version, and it looks like it has suffered under your control. I am a longtime editor but I choose not to punch the tar baby that this appears to be. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dealing with LaRouche socks does indeed make this a tar baby! If I wanted to control the article, I wouldn't be asking for the community's input. I'm sorry you can't help. BillMasen (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)