:::::::::::::::Ridiculous… --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 03:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Ridiculous… --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 03:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Ludwigs2, one part of this is getting beyond frustrating: what word do you want me to use for taking the religious objections of Muslims into account? I don't care what ''your'' religious beliefs are, and I haven't accused you of attempting to preserve your own, but I don't see how you can argue about millions of upset Muslims on one hand and then deny that you want to modify Wikipedia guidelines to take their religious beliefs into account on the other.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 05:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Ludwigs2, one part of this is getting beyond frustrating: what word do you want me to use for taking the religious objections of Muslims into account? I don't care what ''your'' religious beliefs are, and I haven't accused you of attempting to preserve your own, but I don't see how you can argue about millions of upset Muslims on one hand and then deny that you want to modify Wikipedia guidelines to take their religious beliefs into account on the other.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 05:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::There is no mistaking you, Ludwigs. You want a specific result, and we're now into week two or three of your inability to accept that you won't get it. As to your suggestion of a depictions section, first, the argument that I (personally) reject it is unfounded. Second, the very fact that you are not arguing an equal lack of value to the calligraphy and other means of depicting Muhammad, and that you are not arguing as vehemently that they do not belong in any spot but a depictions section reveals the hypocrisy of your position. This is not, and never has been, about the "value" an image has. This has always been about images you don't like. I don't need to prove to you that the images have value because you have closed your mind and have shown you will move the goalposts as far as you need. I need only for the community to support my view, an consensus remains with me. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 15:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
''Images which can be moved, removed or replaced without changing the meaning of a section of the article are incidental.''
''Images which can be moved, removed or replaced without changing the meaning of a section of the article are incidental.''
Revision as of 15:03, 7 November 2011
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
There is an RfC here on whether to remove from the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
The proposal is a lot more complex than just removing the line ... but you can read it and the rational for it at the RfC... in any case, I echo SV's call for you to come and comment. Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia Is
Would it be correct to say, based on the information I have found on this page and on others, this:
Wikipedia is an organized compendium of knowledge. The knowledge contained in this compendium is fairly notable.
Good idea to start on the main missing policy "What Wikipedia is". But while the article subjects are notable, the individual pieces of information in the articles are not necessarily notable. North8000 (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting this discussion in response to a dispute on WP:ANI over the use of images on the Muhammad article. This discussion is not about that particular dispute (although you can read it here if you want the grisly details). It's about what I see as a growing misuse of WP:NOTCENSORED. I think it's time we agreed on exactly what that policy means.
Here's how I see it: WP:NOTCENSORED simply means that Wikipedia is not subject to any formal censorship. There is no 'censor body', such as the FCC, the BBFC or the Comics Code Authority, controlling what appears on Wikipedia; there is no equivalent of the Hays code restricting what content we can include. The only restrictions we are formally subject to are the law in the state of Florida, and WP:OFFICE actions. Beyond that, in principle, anything goes. (There are additional restrictions we've imposed on ourselves, such as the requirements of WP:BLP, but not because any outside body has forced us to do so.)
Some people seem to take NOTCENSORED much further than that, to mean something along the lines of 'content must not be removed solely for the reasons of being offensive to someone', or even 'offensiveness is never a legitimate reason to remove content'. I don't think the policy says anything of the kind. All that NOTCENSORED means is that there are no rules requiring that offensive content must be automatically removed, as copyright infringements and libellous material about living people must be. But it doesn't mean that content can't ever be removed for being offensive, providing there is a consensus to do so.
The policy page currently states '"being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds in itself for removal of content.'; but in reality, on several occasions images and text have been removed from various articles for being offensive or objectionable, where there was a local consensus to remove them, and that will continue to happen in future. (The only specific example I can think of at the moment is goatse.cx, but I'm sure it has happened on other articles as well.) Perhaps what the policy means is that offensiveness on its own is not enough, and content should only be removed where it is both offensive and of no educational value. But even if so, the offensiveness of the content is still a relevant factor to its removal.
Here's the TLDR version: that an image, or any other content, is offensive to many is not necessarily grounds for its removal from an article. But in some cases, it can be; and if a consensus of users agree that certain content is so offensive it should be removed, then it should be removed, and NOTCENSORED would not prevent that removal.
Please add your comments below. And remember, this is not about the specific Muhammad images (which I actually support including, for what it's worth), but the general principles here. Robofish (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding religious "offense" (for violating a religious edict, as the case you point to is about), it does indeed exactly say that. Last paragraph. With no waffle words like "should not". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN18:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot simply disconnect the various factors. They are, in order of causality, (1) a religious edict forbids those of certain sects of the Islamic faith from making or viewing such representations, (2) some from those sects believe such an edict applies to everyone, (3) their offense is over the fact that we are violating their understanding of their religious edict. They are all interconnected, and cannot stand alone when trying to make an unbiased point or argument on this matter. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN18:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree that we do not censor images unless legally bound by law or by the Foundation (eg child porn). But also agree that a consensus of editors can consider that an image may be inappropriate for an article despite the fact that it would otherwise be uncensored from the previous state. It would also behoove editors to consider appropriate community standards and chose images of least shock value if there are choices. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One final note: people seem to forget that WP:CENSOR does not magically invalidate other policies and guidelines that must be applied, such as bias, undue, relevance, rs, etc. This is why I see nothing wrong with wp:censor as it is. Whether image or text or quote, all of those (and others) must be applied in conjunction with wp:censor - not separately. That raises (in my mind) only one question... for those who do not realize that this is already addressed in numerous other policies that work in conjunction with each other, is it an issue where we need to clarify that which they should already know, or an issue of competence in respect to them not understanding the most basic policies that "control" Wikipedia? If people deem that the policies are so overwhelming that it is reasonable to not understand that they must be applied together, then yes, we need clarification. Otherwise... in myopinion it's a competence issue. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN18:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Perhaps what the policy means is that offensiveness on its own is not enough" - that is precisely the argument that has been made in this specific case. What ends up happening is advocates of censorship in this case engage in circular arguments, basically making the claim that "these images have no value because Muslims are offended". And no matter how many people opine that there is value, such arguments are inevitably ignored as if they were never made or the goalposts get moved in a bid to place an unreasonably strict burden of proof on one article that does not exist on others. The end result is always the same, however: requests for removal are predicated on offensiveness alone, with no legitimate additional argument. So in that sense, the argument that "your being offended is irrelevant" is accurate, because that is not sufficient to justify a special exception. After all: WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE (emphasis, Wikipedia's own) Resolute18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And ironically, though numerous other articles with similar "false" representations have been pointed out, and a Community-Wide RfC to address the claimed issue has been suggested, such is ignored or swatted aside, leaving these effortssingularly motivated towards "special case exception for this article" to avoid applying policies uniformly to it (as is done with other bios). Ironically, the page already has a bunch of special case exceptions, such as (on the talk pages) the massive disclaimers, the FAQ, the instructions on how not to view the images, the removal of all images of Muhammad in the top 1/3 of the article, the explanations of policy on the talk page and so on. It is time we stop adding more special case exceptions to this topic - or we pass a policy that treats all other such topics equally (which will of course destroy Wikipedia). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No. What happens is that advocates of humiliating Muslims engage in circular arguments, basically making the claim that "the value of these images musts not be examined / is enormous because Muslims are offended". These images are atypical for Islam (the obvious context of the article on Muhammad) and therefore misleading about the traditional iconography of Muhammad. Since a legitimate purpose can barely be construed, the inevitable effect is the impression of deliberate breaking of Muslim norms on a key article, perhaps the most important article, on Islam. If that's not tantamount to deliberate humiliation of Muslims, then I don't know what is. HansAdler19:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"These images are atypical for Islam (the obvious context of the article on Muhammad)" - No, that is a single potential context. Personally, I believe the obvious context is that Muhammad was a historical individual, and view him in the same light as other major historical figures. Consequent to your poor assumption on how people view this topic, you have led yourself into the bad faith argument that "humiliating Muslims" is a motivation. Of course, the "we must not offend" position is dominated by bad faith out of necessity, because it is an untenable position if one does not attempt to demonize their opponent. Consequently, that argument can safely be discarded as the fallacy it is. After all, we provide tools by which Muslims can respect their own beliefs without infringing on that of others. Resolute19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your claims of the context in which you see Muhammad at face value, for the sake of the argument, it is clearly at odds with the reception of Muhammad in reliable sources -- even after discarding all those that were written from a Muslim POV. HansAdler20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Psst... the images came from reliable sources (check the sourcing and informational captions). And ironically, in the display on Islam, the Metropolitan Museum of Art is showcasing various similar images. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably also make this part of the policy, since it's currently just in the editing guideline. Nothing should be retained out of fear that removal might be considered censorship. Honestly, I'd prefer rephrasing WP:NOTCENSORED into something like "Wikipedia allows controversial and offensive content where useful" instead of making it about "censorship", since the c-word is very loaded language to the American ear. Offensive content is a bit like fair use content: it has a place in the encyclopedia because sometimes there is no adequate substitute, but it should be used reluctantly and replaced when not needed. SDY (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is all very utopian, but who are you to tell me what is offensive? Who am I to tell you the same? How many people have to agree that something is offensive before it is considered so? More to the point, I don't consider these images offensive in the least. That opinion does not contradict the fact others feel differently, but why should their POV overrule mine? Resolute19:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is already covered in Wikipedia: Offensive material which already says don't cause undue offense. Undue offense is putting an image into an article that doesn't need to be there since it will cause undue offense (i.e. the image from dante's inferno was on the muhammad article and removed for undue offense.) It does however also state that if we are not creating undue offense then there needs to be an alternate reason for removing the image otherwise it falls under the purvue of WP:NOTCENSORED. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this comment, and would just add that when balancing factors that weigh in favor and against the inclusion of an image, the offensiveness of the image should be weighed minimally. Monty84519:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) So, you are proposing clarity to wp:censor for things already in numerous other policies? As I said, if it's that confusing, I'm supportive of such.
As for the word "censor", I think it should stay. Clearly, we have had numerous issues of attempted censorship by numerous religious organizations, governments, corporations and individuals. There is no other more accurate word to use. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm coming late to the party, but having read through the discussion to this point, I'm going to agree with SDY, to a point. However, a better phrasing might be "Wikipedia allows controversial content where such content's value to inform a casual reader overrides the potential to offend, as determined by WP:CONSENSUS." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Don't be gratuitous is already covered, true, but it's being missed, because WP:NOTCENSORED is being abused to force the retention of dubiously valuable content where it is easily demonstrated that it can and will be considered offensive. The arguments have revolved around "preventing censorship" instead of "writing a better article." As for Reso's question of "why should their POV overrule mine?" the obvious answer is that you are an editor, they are the reader, and we write the encyclopedia for the readers, not for the editors. SDY (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being gratuitous. The in depth explanations I go into about policies and guidelines for new and/or confused editors (including short breakdowns on my "Adoptee Guideline" page) will support such. As will the numerous times I've bugged more experienced editors to review such to ensure my understandings are correct (I think one or two such editors are active right here, for that matter). Not complaining about the "gratuitous" comment - fully aware it'd take digging through my activity here to realize such isn't the case, so it's an understandable mistake.
As for the readers/editors comment, I agree - but I think you are misapplying it. The vast majority of our readers do not follow any Islamic traditions or beliefs (language barrier, vast majority of Muslims not living in the US, specific Wikis in their languages and/or countries, etc). Thus, the vast majority of our readers (contrary to what may be perceived from the vocal minority) couldn't care less about this issue. I can provide the demographics if you like - they're on Wikipedia in one of the religion articles on my Watchlist as well as the "Wikipedians by religion" category (also on my watchlist). Thus, by your own argument, we're back at non censoring due to religious beliefs. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN19:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"because WP:NOTCENSORED is being abused to force the retention of dubiously valuable content" - that is disingenuous. NOTCENSORED is being cited to explain why simply being offended is not a valid argument. And that is separate from the fact that I strongly disagree with the opinion that the images are "dubiously valuable content". So far, the only reason put forward to challenge the value of the content is "it offends", which is a circular argument. Resolute20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to add something to NOTCENSORED, clearly indicating that while NOTCENSORED does not prevent the inclusion of questionable material within an article, consensus can decide to avoid the use of questionable material that otherwise meets all content inclusion policies on per-article bases. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Someone already thought of that in less ambiguous terms (ie: it's already there) "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view)[...]" Anyway, in this particular issue, that's already been hashed and rehashed, including with RfCs that went image by image and a stop at the Village Pump. The end result of weighing in exactly that (which always applied, new resolution or not) is what you see at the article now. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN19:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I have to agree with Tivanir2. Different articles should have different expectations of what kind of imagry should and should not be there based on shock value. For a topic on the depreciation of Muhammad in the media, one should expect to see such images. A general topic about Islam, probably not. A topic about Muhammad himself, possibly, but not nessasarily. In none of those should a picture of dante's inferno be placed. Maybe in an article about the historic definitions of Muslims by Christians, but even then not necessarily.
Changing it to allow "objectionable" to be a key factor would not only affect articles like those, but a lot more articles where the images do have a clear benifit to the reader (and the fact that they find them distateful may in fact drive home the point that the RS commentary says) and without those images there the quality would suffer.∞陣内Jinnai19:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)In part, all I think it needs is a statement that objectionable content can be removed when there's no consensus that it's useful for the article, and screaming "censorship!" does not overrule consensus. I agree that offensiveness is a minor consideration in a relative sense, but WP:NOTCENSORED should not be a valid argument for retention of material by itself and we should steer editors towards "It's useful for the article" as the defense against "the image is offensive" instead of jumping straight for the policy. SDY (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(to SDY) Exactly the reason why, after numerous consensus, an RfC and a Village Pump attempt, the images have remained. That would make this a "non-issue" then. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific proposal for a change to NOTCENSORED here? I will likely oppose any change that gives greater weight to people's feeling of offense. The problem in most instances is not that material is intrinsically offensive; instead, some people choose to take offense. I doubt there are good reasons to cater to those choices. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may be one forthcoming - or more disruptiveness on the Muhammad/Images talk page. The gist does seem to be that a few editors are suggesting such, even though it hasn't been ironed out. This is in relation to the new resolution (already included in the top of wp:censor) and applying it in just such a fashion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually what we are trying to point out. In one of my more aggresive posts on the subject (sorry to keep bringing it up but as the reason its being discussed it is the perfect example) I pointed out the top front page wasn't a picture of the danish cartoon bomb hat muhammad. I also pointed out we didn't have explicitly offensive images, since the only reason they are being objected to is they are of the muhammad (in the biography.) If the editors were trying to be offensive there are dozens of pictures out there that can be used to actual try to offend anyone. Besides a religious proscription there is nothing offense about any of the images at hand, so that falls perfectly under WP:NOTCENSORED in my mind. But then as I have pointed out I am also willing to remove pictures from the article that don't add value or support unless of course we want to change the article to have a reason to include them. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the top front page wasn't a picture of the danish cartoon bomb hat muhammad" -- correct, but surely not for want of trying. The Muhammad article always insults Muslims exactly up to the point that it can get away with it. For some time this included a painting of Muhammad in hell. HansAdler20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those who wish their religious beliefs to trump my quest for scientific, artistic and historic knowledge always offend/insult me exactly up to the point that they can get away with it. Hmmm... works both ways. Guess we should turn to policy to see what to do. Oh, yeah, prohibition on catering to any religious belief, and goal of increasing scientific, artistic and historic information. Hmmm... ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm actually it is for the fact that we don't try to offend. As I already pointed out the Dante's inferno pictures were removed for being needlessly offensive in the article. That is why people supported they be removed in the first place. I reiterate that if the image was in any biography, and depicted anyone else, this entire point would be moot. The only reason it is in contestation now is because people are bringing in religious views covered under NOTCENSORED. I am fairly certain the editors that are using NOTCENSORED would come down quickly and harshly on anyone assuming the bomb hat muhammad image would be appropriate for the section. Pictures of him preaching to his congregation (one example) are every bit as acceptable as any other religious figure under the same exact circumstances. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed WP:NOTCENSORED while explaining exclusion of specific content over at the archive of Talk:Goatse.cx. Paraphrase: "No, WP is not censored, but there are several sound policy and consensus-based reasons to exclude some content, including BLP, article type, and practicality, without having to resort to the usual reasons for censorship." --Lexein (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Straw poll
We might consider an RfC, but just as a general "sense of the senate" approach. If you want to, give a yea/nay or short comment in the blocks provided.
This is not specifically about the Muhammad article, which is in an WP:IAR situation anyway where general policy may simply not be applicable. Other articles have had similar problems in the past, and this is about the policy in general.
Offensiveness as argument
Complaints of offensiveness should be:
(Option 1) Completely disregarded or treated as disruption.
Disregarded yes disruption no. The only reason to take in offense is if something is needlessly offensive which is already posted under other policies such as offensive material. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the last half, as it is a different argument than the first half. That said, "this is offensive" is by definition a POV argument, and lending weight to such arguments violates a core policy. This is, of course, the same problem that moots option 3 on the third question about this policy overall: You simply cannot lend weight to the argument of offensiveness without first changing NPOV and the content disclaimer. Resolute23:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the option that I think is closest to my view, which is that offensiveness should be considered ever so slightly, but not as much as option two would suggest. If there is any decent argument in favor of inclusion then offensiveness should be totally disregarded. Monty84523:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This. I've seen several editors who were not familiar with this and often putting up {{censor}} for appropriate pages cuts down on those issues raised 90%. There are a few who still complain, but at least they try to raise something better than they object.∞陣内Jinnai21:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.That we do not adopt someone's view of what WP should be, is no reason to be pre-emptory about it, but should rather be seen as an opportunity for explanation. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Option 6) Disregarded if religion is the only basis for the claim. As a secular encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not consider religious objections in its editorial policy. This should not be taken as a license for images which are intended to attack rather than illustrate: lack of censorship does not justify intentional attack.
While the religion related images are the most hotly contested, there are a variety of other offensive images that are disputed. Why should we make a special exception that would allow more offensive images if they are religious, and be more restrictive when dealing with images offensive for other reasons? Monty84505:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Religious views are completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia. If you can indicate another class of completely irrelevant lines of thought, I'm willing to reword to encompass them as well.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She reports that it was mentioned in survey replies about a voluntary filter, not that she recommended filtering it or would support their removal.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Option 7) examined carefully to ensure the material is important for an understanding of the topic (relevant), as well as in conformity with other policies.
Though I might reword to examined and weighed as to how an issue is treated in any article, but 'not' whether the issue is treated at all in any article. "Other policies" always are usable as an argument, and need not be appended here. Collect (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship as argument
The argument that something should be retained per WP:NOTCENSORED with no other supporting arguments (i.e. why the content is good for the article) should be:
(Option 1) Completely disregarded.
If the fact that something is offensive is the only reason to include it, then obviously it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a shock site. HansAdler20:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they can't come up with a decent reason then it doesn't belong. This does not mean pointing to policies/guidelines (as the person could be a newbie), but if they cannot to come up with some other reason then it is clearly shock value if not vandalism.∞陣内Jinnai21:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC) <[reply]
NOTCENSORED isn't an argument in and of itself, it's a stern rebuttal to other poor arguments. (WP:COMPREHENSIVE is another such rebuttal.) Relevance or educational value are proper arguments that the NOTCENSORED side should typically cite. --Cybercobra(talk)11:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. If it fulfils no clear educational purpose and is without precedent in reliable sources, it's just as bad as OR. --JN46607:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning on WP was that people should reasonably expect that editors will have material which any given reader may dislike in any given article. It was not intended at any point to thus be extended to "no matter what the material is or the reason for its use, editors can not exercise reasonable editorial judgement as to its value in the article." Editorial discretion about any material found objectionable has always been part and parcel of what "editors" do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Option 2) A valid argument that might tip the balance of an existing discussion.
Not you, it was the question that was unclear. "...something should be retained per WP:NOTCENSORED with no other supporting arguments ..." suggests articles could be random collections of stuff, purely by dint of that stuff being offensive to someone. There has to be much more than just some reason to consider content belongs in a specific article: it must be all of relevant, reliable, verifiable, etc. Being offensive simply has no bearing on those reasons.LeadSongDogcome howl!21:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the question, so I get blamed either way! ^^; Anyway, the point of the question is figuring out how much weight the WP:NOTCENSORED argument gets in content disputes, particularly with conflicting policies (e.g. verifiability, neutrality, etc...). The article where I encountered this issue had an image in the lead which had generated complaints, and attempts to replace it with a less interesting image were met with cries of censorship. The question is: how much weight does that cry of censorship get? It's hard to phrase into a succint question, and an actual RfC would require a better wording, but I'm just trying to get a sense of where we stand. SDY (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The weight it receives is totally dependent on the justifications of those who are arguing in favor of removal. If someone wants to remove an image claiming that it violates NFCC, and I argue WP:NOTCENSORED with nothing more, I deserve a {{trout}}. If someone is arguing that the image is offensive, and should be removed to avoid offending people, but has not made any other arguments, my argument of WP:NOTCENSORED with nothing more should be compelling. Monty84523:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I'm trying to get a sense of. It's a question of whether "offensive" can be answered with "notcensored" alone. The alternate view is that "offensive" requires a justification for inclusion. SDY (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is not also an argument that what ever is being held offensive lacks value, then I would say yes, offensive can be answered with notcensored. If the argument is the inclusion is either totally or nearly useless, and its also offensive, then notcensored would be an insufficient response without more. Monty84500:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Option 3) Valid arguments that should be a focus of discussion.
(Option 4) Compelling arguments that force a conclusion over consensus.
(Option 5) Anyone who attempts to apply notcensored to the exclusion of other policies should be invited to review the policies they are breaking by doing so.
By following this, options 1-4 become moot. Ignoring all other policies while solely using notcensored is actually against policy (multiple policies). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The specific policy in the section WP:NOTCENSORED on this project page is:
(Option 1) Perfectly clear as it is.
As Wikipedia works by applying all policies as well as relevant guidelines to each article (as opposed to one at the exclusion of the rest), the policies are perfect as is, since others need to be applied in conjunction, such as fringe/undue, bias, COI, censor, balance, pov, relevance, sourcing and others. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficiently clear - but unfortunately worded as to confuse readers (I think this makes sense) Part of it is there to tell folks "don't worry - everyone may well be upset at 'something' in articles" and the other part then states the policy that material must be relevant to the article (which other policies actually require) and conform to an ill-defined but WMF provided buzzword of "least astonishment" (?) which I fear is the major problem out of our control. Can anyone here really state what that term means in practice? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Option 2) Unclear and should explicitly state that offensiveness is not a meaningful concern.
Actually, it is clear, but it has not been proofed against overinterpretation due to wishful thinking. This should be done. HansAdler20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added option 4. Clarity just feeds trolls, enables the wikilawyers, and is ultimately futile. Trust that the community will continue to recognize a good argument when it sees it.LeadSongDogcome howl!21:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most reasonable of options presented thus far. As I note above, options 3 and 5 are moot. Placing meaningful weight on what offends someone is a violation of NPOV. Resolute23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's vague enough it allows wiggle room to eliminate things that go against good judgement. Again common sense should rein when dealing with things in this realm so we don't have knee jerk reactions with it but it should be a viable defense against sanitizing things for any particular group: political, ideological or any of the others. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Option 5) Unclear and should explicity state that offensiveness is meaningful concern in some articles and meaningless in others based on what the article's subject matter.
Changed this after I struck my last statement. This is mentioned, but in a vague manner and not made explicitly clear that what may be objectionable in one article may be fine in another and vice versa simply because of what the article is about.∞陣内Jinnai21:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions
Um, what? That proposal misconstrues many things. No one is arguing to ignore other policies (yet the implication exists). The last question is also ambiguous in that it implies things either contrary to policy or not applicable because of policy. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to modify the questions or add other options. I'm just trying to get a sense of where people stand. In particular, I want to move this away from a discussion about Muhammad, because that is its own hot place down under. SDY (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that the option 4 on the third question is not "policy should be incomprehensible" but "policy should not be prescriptive." Do those who support that option think the policy is not likely to confuse readers, but desirably vague, and should remain unchanged? SDY (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Egads, the formatting of this straw poll or whatever it is now is quite a fractured clusterfuck. I don't see how the slightest bit of "sense of the senate" can be plucked form this, and it has only been a few hours. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Due to a number of disputes that have arisen over the years involving NOTCENSORED, as well as the above-noted conflict, I am opening a policy RfC on the question below, which as far as I can tell is the crux of the problem. I believe our position on this subtle point needs to be clarified, particularly in light of the Recent foundation resolution on controversial content.
RfC Question
NOTCENSORED is necessary to protect controversial content which makes a clear and unambiguous contribution to an article; This is a given. That being said, does NOTCENSORED also protect controversial content that adds little or no value to the article?
In other words, while there is a strong consensus that controversial images of (say) penises or vaginas are necessary on their namesake pages, or that the cartoons of Muhammad on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy are central to the topic of that article, it is not clear that this same consensus extends to protect images which are merely decorative elements, artistic illustrations, unneeded exemplifications, page fillers, or other material of negligible content value for the article. --Ludwigs201:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of places where the issue of applying NOTCENSORED to incidental material has arisen (more may be added as the RfC progresses):
talk:Pregnancy over the use of an art nude image in the lead of the article
talk:Muhammad/Images, over the use of non-representative artwork depicting Muhammad
Support: Allowing NOTCENSORED to cover trivial material creates a difficult-to-resolve opening for violating NPOV: controversial images can be put on a page merely to be offensive, and held there by using NOTCENSORED to squelch discussion. This sets up the editing environment as a long-term BATTLEGROUND, where multiple editors try to address the issue and run into an endless wall of bureaucratic NOTCENSORED assertions. Wikipedia should not offend its readers with non-contributive controversial material (see wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). We offend where we have to, because we have to, not merely because we want to use that material. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)--Ludwigs215:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very cautious support. Given the murky definition of "incidental material" I'll support the following concepts: 1. If there is consensus that any content does not have educational value this policy is irrelevant and the content is not protected. 2. Complaints from readers about offensive material should at least be considered, and consistent complaints should require specific justification that the offensive content is truly necessary. Editors must not simply blow off the complaints as "not censored says we can" if there is an indication that a substantial number of readers strongly disapprove, though reader feedback does not override consensus. 3. NOTCENSORED must be clear enough that it cannot be used as a tool to censor talk page discussions of whether controversial content is appropriate. 4. Offensive content should not be used if there is non-offensive content that achieves the same goal. SDY (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wikipedia does not seek to include as much offensive material as possible merely because offensive material is permitted in appropriate contexts. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not protected in the name of opposing censorship. --JN46601:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support of principle NOTCENSORED should not "protect" any material. The purpose of NOTCENSORED is to provide a policy through which arguments that an image (or prose) should go for reasons of censorship can be squashed immediately. NOTCENSORED is a quick and easy response to a particular argument. it is not in any way an argument for the use of any material, as noted (perhaps in an extreme) by point 9 in the Wikipedia:Image use policy, "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article." Pictures should be evaluated for usage independent of whether they would or would not be censored elsewhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not censored is often used ideologically as a justification for keeping material that is otherwise of no inherent value, as if any material that we can include, also should be included. This proposal helps clarify that point.Griswaldo (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTCENSORED does protect incidental material
Support NOTCENSORED indicates that issues related to religion are not considered, and shields substantive images and less substantive images alike. That shield does not create license: the images may be removed for any number of reasons, but they should never be held to a higher standard than images in other articles. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and takes no notice of religious objections in its editorial policies.—Kww(talk) 01:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would argue that none of the listed examples are incidental material, the Goatse one especially. If it is an image of the specific subject, then it needs to be included for illustration. The Goatse image is of the specific subject of the website, I see no logical reason why it should be excluded. The pregnancy debate is a bit more iffy, but it is obviously true that a nude photograph more clearly shows what pregnancy looks like than a person who has clothes covering her body. And, as for Muhammad, what exactly is non-representative of images of Muhammad made by historic Muslim artists? I'm actually surprised there's so few images of Muhammad in that article, in comparison to, say, the article on Jesus. SilverserenC01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KWW and Silver seren above. Additionally: All "incidental material" should simply be judged by existing policy which already covers numerous reasons to include or remove any type of content on Wikipedia. NOTCENSORED does not, nor (in my recollection) ever has invalidated WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:NOTE, WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:BLP or any other part of WP:NOT (or various other policies and guidelines I may have missed). Proper application of all only leaves content that is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED (anything else automagically would be "prohibited" by the other policies). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN02:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support To the extent that the reason for wanting to remove the "incidental" material is based on offensiveness, WP:NOTCENSORED does apply. Offensiveness is not relevant, the question should be does the inclusion contribute to the article, or would the article be as good without the image (discounting any arguments to the effect that removal of offensiveness will make the article better. Monty84502:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This change, which seems to be specifically targeting medieval Islamic art from Persia and the Arab world, is unjustified. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if incidental material is being discussed for removal, it should be based on the merits of whether or not it it improves the article, not whether or not it's too offensive. For example, a picture of a dead woman impaled through her perineum shouldn't be removed from the article on women because it's offensive, but because it doesn't illustrate the subject very well; the article on women describes what living women are and do, so pictures living, healthy women better supplement the article. Conversely, the same picture could fit quite well in the article on the Rape of Nanking, because that could illustrate the events there quite well even though it's incidental (it's just one small part of the entire event, and wouldn't have any more significance than any number of other images). Removing it just because someone says it's offensive would be disruptive because the Rape of Nanking happened, and it's certainly representative of the events. It could be removed for any number of other reasons (quality, another image better supporting the surrounding text, or copyright issues, to name three), but removing it just for being "offensive" is not a valid one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know the picture you are referring to, and I agree with you. But the image is not incidental in rape of Nanking, and is not mere decoration; like certain images of the holocaust, it is an iconic image used by historians to show what happened. It has precedent in reliable sources covering the topic. What we are talking about are images that do not have such precedent, and do not reflect the typical illustration approach in reliable sources. --JN46617:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support With the way it currently reads NOTCENSORED simply allows disclussion of positions that purposefully paint something as being offensive where no offense is. If something can be disproven on a separate policy NOTCENSORED doesn't even come into play since it goes off the policy that it violates. Something strictly removed because a group has considered it offensive is not meritous and leads to censorship of many articles for specific gains of groups in all spectrums. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per kww, SilverSeren and Mathsci. I would add that the entire question is flawed, as it relies on multiple POVs: First that the material is trivial. Second that it is offensive. The result is the circular argument that the material is trivial because it is offensive, and it is offensive because it is trivial. This proposal is an attempt at neutering WP:NOTCENSORED in violation of WP:NPOV. Resolute16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NOTCENSORED does (properly) apply to "incidental" material. To censor something is to remove it because some people find it offensive or otherwise objectionable, and I think it is right that Wikipedia would not be swayed by such feelings even if the material is incidental. There might be other reasons to remove "incidental" material -- but we shouldn't do so in deference to a desire for censorship. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Although I would support this position because of the proposer of the RFC, NOTCENSORED does and should apply to "trivial images". If an image is really "trivial" or "incidental" images, it should be removed, regardless. However, the images in question are not "incidental", and this would increase the edit wars on the article-that-should-not-be-named. — Arthur Rubin(talk)23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the key to the problem. You are wrong. Wikipedia abounds with trivial, uninformative images, that dress up pages, and say nothing that isn't covered in the text. See the lead image of ADHD. Generally, they're not a problem, often they make the article more appealing. But if you think an image can be removed simply on the basis that it adds nothing to the readers' understanding, we're on different projects. I defy you to remove the lead image of ADHD on the basis that it is trivial. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Support It is and should remain a basic principle that applies to all WP content, The attempt to remove so-called incidental material from its protection is an excellent illustration of the slippery slope in action: try to find opportunities for gradually removing the protection. Many have been proposed, and the only safe course is to reject every one of them. As pointed out above, his is a particularly poorly thought out one, because of the additional slipperiness of the words used. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The proposal appears to be "Wikipedia is not censored, except when it is." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so remove any content if it's truly unencyclopedic, whether images or text or whatever. But be prepared to be reverted, defend your actions on the talk page, and accept consensus whether or not it's on your side. If somebody in that conversation invokes NOTCENSORED spuriously, say so. This is the process we have now, and I see no reason to change it. Lagrange61317:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support . If a policy restricts content, in my view, it should only do so to preserve truth (not to sound too grandiose). No number of sources calling some piece of media "incidental" to a given topic will conclusively establish it as "incidental." If we rewrite NOTCENSORED to explicitly not protect so-called "incidental" media, we will, in effect, condone OR.Divergentgrad (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI don't see the alternative as workable as it relies too much on an agreement about what is incidental. Not censored and irrelevant should be two different inquiries, although, they can under certain contextual circumstances inform one another. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
To clarify Ludwigs2's questions, as the results will need to be applied uniformly, here is a short list of other articles that this will apply to:
Thing is, most of those other articles you're talking about have images which are independently notable, and those images are a part of how those people are perceived. Muhammad is unusual in that there isn't a rich artistic tradition of depiction, and the images we're using for the article are fairly obscure. Including a couple isn't ridiculous, there is an artistic history there, but it's nothing like Orthodox icons or the fact that a
Interestingly, the Metropolitan Museum of Art disagrees with you. So does the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Guess which I find more notable? Your opinion, or theirs? And if we were to judge by policies and guidelines, which would I *have* to choose as a more reliable source - you or them? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, this is exactly what I didn't want to do, which is make this RfC a complete rehash of the Muhammad debate. I completely disagree with you, but this isn't the time or place for that discussion. SDY (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It IS the Muhammad debate - and that's not my fault: he wrote it, not me. Did you even read his RfC? It asks (paraphrased, but accurately), "since the images are of no value, shouldn't we change wp:censor so we can remove them?" Did you also fail to notice he is the one who brought up that article? Again, that wasn't me. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Side note (question): You disagree that those two museums (and others, I am sure) have stances on the matter more valid than yours? Is that honestly what you are trying to say? If so, please point me to your notable history book on the matter or something similar. If not, then the question is irrelevant, and I am not sure what you are disagreeing with and would appreciate clarification. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such images are prized for their rarity. None of these museums assert that pictures like this hang in mosques or people's homes, are a customary illustration in Islamic texts, or are in any way representative of mainstream religious art in the Islamic tradition. Islamic religious art has taken a completely different direction to religious art in other cultures, as a look into any book or encyclopedia article on it will tell you. ("For practical purposes, representations are not found in religious art, although matters are quite different in secular art. Instead there occurred very soon a replacement of imagery with calligraphy and the concomitant transformation of calligraphy into a major artistic medium." Encyclopaedia Britannica, Islamic Arts, Macropaedia, Vol. 22, p. 76.) --JN46616:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is closer to that museum than it is a mosque or an individual's home. given we are an institution intended to collect and share knowledge, I think you have just added a fine argument for why Wikipedia should retain the images. Resolute16:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are sharing knowledge on a fringe aspect of Islamic art, while neglecting the mainstream. It's like having an article on the Bugatti Veyron that is all about the wheel nuts. --JN46617:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On fa.wp, the consensus seems to have been that the images should not be excluded because this amounts to suppressing an important aspect of Islamic history and culture. --FormerIP (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, this was a golden age in Persian culture, universally recognized in the academic world. From his self-description on en.wkipedia.org, Jayen466 has no expertise in Islamic art. Given that, it's hard to know why he is making such bold assertions. Could it be just some form of WP:GAME? Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be daft, Mathsci. Iran is a Shiite country, and it's tolerant of figurative depictions of Muhammad in a way the majority Sunni tradition is not. If you look at the Turkish and especially the Arabic Muhammad articles, you'll find a lot of useful, culturally iconic imagery that we don't feature. --JN46607:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The description on the website of the Fitzwilliam Museum of the Book of Kings has a more detailed commentary than you have given of the page in the illuminated manuscript depicting the veiled Prophet Muhammad that I mentioned elsewhere. You have actively campaigned on this very issue on fr.wikipedia.org (fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Sondage/Installation d'un Filtre d'image) and are currently also airing your views on wikipedia review. Issues like this have arisen in real life and various experts on Islamic art seem not to agree with your stance. As a recent example, Thomas P. Campbell, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, said in June about the Museum's decision to display images of the Prophet in the new Islamic gallery: “We hope that it does not become a lightning-rod issue. These are not 20th-century cartoons setting out to be confrontational. They’re representative of a great tradition of art. ... We could duck [this issue], but I don’t think it would be the responsible thing to do. Then we’d just be accused of ducking it.” [3]Mathsci (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely an art exhibition, designed to showcase tons of art, is very different from our aim of creating a set of images that aid the understanding of the reader? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. In the case of the Met, I assume that the Islamic collection is designed to educate the US public on aspects of the Islamic world. In addition, I also assume that in post-9/11 New York they are sensitive to causing offense. There are also other accounts, e.g. these essays by Islamic scholars Timothy Winter[4] and Omid Safi[5]. Mathsci (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar debate with Griswaldo (article on religion or biography on a person who happens to be a religious figure). Besides disagreeing with me, he advised me that I am "sorely out of (my) depth here"[6] and my comments are "that much more ignorant".[7] There are others who seem to hold a similar view (sans the "interesting" comments against those who disagree). This of course means one of the most important basis's for determining how to handle the images is being disputed by others. And thus, this problem will continue since not even a major basis for things can be agreed upon. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would define incidental material as material that adds practically no educational value to an article, but is just being included because it is related to the subject. All those examples of "non-representative" artwork in the comments section are far from incidental. Monty84502:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: I added a comment above to show the true effect, even though the goals may be to censor only those particular articles. The RfC is biased in implying, from the start, that there is no value to the images. But that was expected (which is why on the Muhammad Images talk page, we wouldn't agree to this RfC proposal). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN02:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is this, an RfC on if we've stopped beating our wives? Ludwigs loaded the RfC question, i.e. "That being said, does NOTCENSORED also protect controversial content that adds little or no value to the article?" He has staked a position at Talk:Muhammad/images that has garnered precious little support, that images of Muhammed are of no value to the article. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this is to allow discussion about whether material is incidental or not. There's no hard and fast rule; I trust editors can work it out. however, we need to stop the use of nontcensored as a hard and fast rule that protects every image no matter how stupid it might be.
Frankly, I'm just tired of trying to discuss this issue and getting jumped on by fanatics who have their teeth sunk into NOTCENSORED. it just produces a whole lot of dumb arguments. --Ludwigs215:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're tired of discussing the issue, feel free to find something else to do. The principle of "not censored" is perfectly applicable to content that religious fundamentalism wants to remove from the project. All this is is an endaround a consensus that you do not like. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2: This is not about whether the material is incidental or not. You imply as fact that it is, and ask if it should be removed under policy. And the underlying reasons are once again because you believe we should adhere to religious beliefs.[8][9][10] Each time you try to tack on whatever handy rationale you think might appease some - but the one consistency is you wish (as you've stated) all images to be removed[11] to not offend/to honor religious beliefs. Oh, and this time I provided diffs to your words. So, don't bother wasting your time claiming I'm attacking you or misportraying your motives (or I'll add a half dozen more diffs to each). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all poll options since question is flawed. None of the 3 examples are purely incidental and no particular definition of incidental-ness is stipulated. --Cybercobra(talk)11:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Defining incidental
SDY had a good question about what counts as "incidental" material. Let's start at one extreme, and see if we can walk back to a reasonable definition:
Imagine that the article is Automobile, in a section about different types of vehicles. An editor wants to replace an existing picture showing a sports car with another picture showing a similar sports car with a naked woman walking past it (e.g., perhaps the snapshot was taken at a nudist facility).
Can we all agree that:
such an image would count as potentially offensive material for the purposes of NOTCENSORED;
that the nudity serves no educational purpose (for that article); and
the image deserves no special protection under NOTCENSORED.
Does anyone disagree? Does anyone think that NOTCENSORED requires us to prefer the image that happens to contain both a nude woman and a sports car over the image that shows a sports car but no humans? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious, yes. But I think that as we "work backward," we will restrict ourselves to only some lines of thinking and not others. We can't hope to cover all possible shades of gray, and certainly not from all perspectives. I don't think we can expect to define "incidental" material for all topics, all at once, since really it is up to an expert on a given topic to decide whether something is incidental. In the case of the car, I'm sure everyone would agree you need do no original research to decide the nude woman adds nothing to your understanding of automobiles. But when it comes to our famous example above, it appears that, depending on the expert whose work you consult, certain cartoons will be declared "incidental" or not, and so it would be impossible to declare something incidental without doing some level of so-called "original research." Divergentgrad (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, all other things about those two theoretical pictures being equal, it is simple enough to choose the picture that illustrates the subject best. You don't need any policy changes for that; just read Wikipedia:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. ¶ Here's a tougher example. Assume we only have one rare automobile picture (say a prototype) which has bikini clad (or even topless) girl centrally posing with it (so that clipping her out of the image would be noticeable to the viewer). What would you prefer our putative policy on incidentally objectionable material recommend in this case? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ASCII, the issue here is that we occasionally do have people say that removing such an image is pure censorship, even when we have unobjectionable options available. That's the problem Ludwigs is trying to deal with: a needlessly offensive picture, being defended as something that requires more than the ordinary reasons to replace it with something else—as in, it's not good enough to just use your editorial judgment and treat it like any other picture, e.g., the way you would decide between a photograph of the car vs a photograph of the car with a clothed person.
Re: "we occasionally do have people say that removing such an image is pure censorship. That's the problem Ludwigs is trying to deal with". Absolutely not. Just look at the examples Ludwigs2 gave: Muhammad depictions, etc. His idea of incidental is very different from mine or yours. And let's not engage in hair splitting here. I used "girl" generically; assume she is of legal age for porn shoots in Florida. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WhatamiIdoing, that's not what Ludwigs2 is attempting to address at all. If he was, I might even try to figure out a way to support wording that would. What he is attempting to do is incorporate religious sensitivity in Wikipedia editorial policy. That's a very bad thing to be fighting for, and I can't foresee any time where I would support it.—Kww(talk) 21:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kww - you really have no idea what I'm trying to do, and what you just said was patently idiotic nonsense. I swear...
Defining 'incidental material' is fairly easy in principle (though as I write this I'm beginning to think that 'gratuitous' is a better word):
Images of things which are not described in the article text are incidental
Images which can be moved, removed or replaced without changing the meaning of a section of the article are incidental
So, if your car-with-nude-model image is the only image we have and we deem it necessary for the article to have an image of the car, then the image is protected; but if we have another image without a nude model, then the first image can be replaced without changing the meaning of the article, so it becomes incidental. that doesn't mean it necessarily will be removed, only that NOTCENSORED does not apply and we can have a discussion about removing it.
Kww's meaningless noise aside, the point here is not to remove every controversial image that doesn't meet some preset criteria, but merely place a lower-limit on the application of NOTCENSORED so that we don't get tangled in these pissy wars over tangential images that really don't help build the article much at all. We can solve these kinds of disputes IF we can talk about them; the goal here is to preclude editors from beating us over the head with policy to keep those conversations from happening. --Ludwigs221:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the origins of this discussion, I don't think Kww's comment counts as "meaningless noise" at all. Perhaps you're simply not the right person to drive this one forward. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with that definition of incidental. Applying that definition to Obama, the infobox picture of the president, File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg would be incidental to the article, as the sitting for that photo is not discussed in the article, and it could be removed without changing the meaning of the article. Any image that is REALLY incidental should be removed for not adding to the article, regardless of censorship. Monty84522:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2, sometimes it is hard to take you seriously. Are you denying that you consider religious objections to be worthy of consideration by Wikipedia editors? Have I not been explicit in saying that I think to do so is fundamentally wrong? What part of my "meaningless noise" said anything much different?—Kww(talk) 22:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kww: I will AGF that you actually believe that statement. however, as I have said many, many, many times, this is not about religion for me (any more than the same argument on Pregnancy or Goatse.cx was about nudity). For me, this is about NPOV and ethics: about not using images that offend out readers without some good encyclopedic reason to do so. Frankly, I am baffled by the fact that you don't instantly accept this. It wouldn't surprise me more if we went out ballroom dancing and you start flailing around like you're in a mosh pit. I've got nothing against moshing, mind you, but trying to carry that 'if you get hurt you shouldn't have come here' attitude into wikipedia's editing practices is bizarre. or so it seems to me.
I don't see that we lose anything that matters to the encyclopedia by showing a little common courtesy where we can. you seem to see common courtesy as some infectious form of radical censorship. that position is just such a complete non-sequitor to me that I cannot even fathom why you would hold. maybe if you could explain that to me we could get somewhere. --Ludwigs223:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the religious objections of a billion Muslims and the religious objections of three remote tribespeople are precisely and absolutely equal, because popularity has nothing to do with whether an objection is valid, and neither side's objection has any merit that a secular encyclopedia can evaluate. Taking one into account without taking the other into account is morally abhorrent. The only way to treat them both equally is to disregard them both, and that is precisely what we have to do. By any measure that is relevant to an encyclopedia, the images of Mohammed are not controversial at all. I'm not worried that your stance will result in massive censorship, I'm worried that your stance will result in highly selective censorship favoring some large groups, which is a more damaging result by far.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and there we have the central flaw in your belief structure, where you say: "the only way to treat them both equally is to disregard them both." You've committed yourself to a scorched earth policy that denies the interests and feelings of our readers, but for what purpose? I could see this kind of rigid resistance if - say - we somehow had an actual life-drawing of Muhammad. Heck, if we had an actual image of the prophet I'd be pitching in right beside you against those billion Muslims. But we're talking about non-representative artwork from a particular historical period that is of no direct relevance to this particular article - what's in here that is so important that it requires this intensity of resistance?
You and I both know the answer to that: you are standing on a principle. it's a good principle, too - wikipedia should not be censored - but like any good thing too much of it is bad. If you cannot draw the line anywhere except "absolutely not, never" then you condemn yourself and the rest of us to endless amounts of pointless fighting. On the other hand, if you show a little common courtesy on cases like this (where the gain to the page is so minor that it's really not worth it) you will find that it becomes easier to stand up for the principle where it really matters. --Ludwigs200:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"You've committed yourself to a scorched earth policy that denies the interests and feelings of our readers" - The interests and feelings of which readers? Do you actually think they all feel the same way? That they all feel the same as you do? If that was the case, why do you think you are finding so much resistance? Besides, as I have pointed out repeatedly, "we" have already shown more than enough common courtesy. We have agreed to more than enough compromises. That you choose to ignore these facts reveals that negotiating with you is worthless, because you have shown that you will not accept anything other than exactly what you want. Resolute00:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Resolute: You keep mistaking me for someone who wants to achieve a particular result, when in fact I am someone who wants to have an open discussion. I disagree with your assessment (I don't believe this is a matter of 'compromise' but rather a matter of 'encyclopedic balance'. If the images don't help the article at all (as I believe) then why would we compromise with someone who wants to use them? You believe they have value, prove it to me, and then we'll start talking balance. And please note, I already suggested to you how the images could be retained meaningfully (with a section dedicated to discussing them). You chose to reject that approach, so now you have to justify their value on your own.
@Kww: that is something I can agree with - I have my own principles, as I have said repeatedly. You want to eliminate the principles I stand on; I only want to place some moderate restrictions on yours. who's being more reasonable? --Ludwigs201:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giving weight to religious sensitivities is not a moderate restriction on my principles, Ludwigs2. It's gutting them. If we were having a "reasonableness" contest, I'm confident I would prevail.—Kww(talk) 01:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really!?! let's have one then - how shall we set the rules? I'll skip the fact that you've (again) implied my position is religious. As far as I can see the two extremes in this battle are (A) denying all 'sensibilities' (as you put it) and (Z) giving in to all 'sensibilities'. You're firmly ensconced at extreme A, while I'm on the Aish side of the median (remember, all I'm asking is that we allow discussion about these sensibilities for images that are not clearly necessary for the article). how is your position more reasonable than mine? --Ludwigs203:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs, we'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who is less reasonable than you, as you persist in the same intellectual dishonesty every time you post. You have no right to claim "not clearly necessary for the article" as if it were fact. Many editors here have opined that the images are quite clearly necessary. You argue from the tiny, tiny, minority POV that thy are not. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, the famous river defense. You've tried to hang your hat on various ways to save the poor Muslims from having to look at pictures they don't like...WMF resolutions that don't apply, broadsides against WP:NOTCENSORED, "incidental images", argumentum ad Jimboem...and not a single one has really set the world on fire. I can imagine the frustration when someone just knows they're right and the world is a bunch of blind buffoons (never happened to me personally, but I have an awfully good imagination), but that doesn't really excuse making demonstrably false accusations here. I told you awhile ago that image removal would simply never happen; here we are, no closer to your goal. Isn't it about time to wind this down? Tarc (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2, one part of this is getting beyond frustrating: what word do you want me to use for taking the religious objections of Muslims into account? I don't care what your religious beliefs are, and I haven't accused you of attempting to preserve your own, but I don't see how you can argue about millions of upset Muslims on one hand and then deny that you want to modify Wikipedia guidelines to take their religious beliefs into account on the other.—Kww(talk) 05:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mistaking you, Ludwigs. You want a specific result, and we're now into week two or three of your inability to accept that you won't get it. As to your suggestion of a depictions section, first, the argument that I (personally) reject it is unfounded. Second, the very fact that you are not arguing an equal lack of value to the calligraphy and other means of depicting Muhammad, and that you are not arguing as vehemently that they do not belong in any spot but a depictions section reveals the hypocrisy of your position. This is not, and never has been, about the "value" an image has. This has always been about images you don't like. I don't need to prove to you that the images have value because you have closed your mind and have shown you will move the goalposts as far as you need. I need only for the community to support my view, an consensus remains with me. Resolute15:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images which can be moved, removed or replaced without changing the meaning of a section of the article are incidental.
This would be impossible to make sense of or apply in practice. Any image in an article contributes to its meaning. This is true even in the case of images that are unencyclopaedic. A childish drawing of a giant spunking cock in the article on Robert Kilroy-Silk, for example, ought to be removed if someone is really insisting. But there is no denying that the meaning of the article would thereby be changed.
And the idea that an image is incidental if it can reasonably be moved within the article just seems odd. --FormerIP (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FormerIP, Monty: you are both thinking in exaggerated terms. We do not need NOTCENSORED to make the argument that there should be an image of Obama on his article - whether or not you consider the image 'incidental', there is no real reason to remove it. This whole discussion only applies to 'controversial' images where there is that added factor to be taken into consideration. And if a controversial image adds nothing to the topic of the article (what does a 'giant spunking cock' have to do with RKS?) then removing it does not change the meaning of the article in any real way. remember, 'meaning' in this sense is determined by its encyclopedic use, not by the personal meanings that editors might attach to the image.
Again, there is no way to make editors use common sense if they do not wish to. however, what we can do is try to keep policy from being used in ways that violate common sense.
Nomoskedasticity: your opinion is ill-considered. If Kww et al can only argue their side of the debate by making up cheap lies about my opinions and attitudes then I can't really stop them, but I can't respect them for it either. I don't mind if they criticize my behavior - sometimes my behavior is quite worthy of criticism, this I know, so that's justified - but their efforts at Geraldo-style psychologism are seriously worthy of contempt. if they cannot be sincere enough to deal with me fairly, then what use are they except to fill the page with bile?
I don't care who takes the lead on this - anyone who wants to lead, go for it! I'll speak my mind on the issues either way. --Ludwigs223:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Obama picture(s) and "there is no real reason to remove it". But think of the racists and white supremacists! Many of them will surely be offended to see a picture of an African American sitting in the presidential office, signing bills, etc. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if there are racists and white supremacists who want to make that argument, please, let them. I'll make popcorn and sell tickets. There is nothing in policy that would support that position, and quite a lot that could be leveraged to oppose it.
You really don't get it , ASCII - I'm happy to let anyone make a content argument on wikipedia (safe in the assumption that policy and editorial judgment can handle whatever weirdness gets thrown at us). what I'm trying to do here is forestall a quirk of policy that is leveraged to suppress content arguments. We don't need NOTCENSORED to protect that image of Obama, because we have far better arguments that will do the job. We also don't need editors using NOTCENSORED to plaster controversial images wherever they like for no readily apparent reason. discrimination, please. --Ludwigs223:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that matter? But in fact, I'm not personally offended: I'm not a dualist, so religious squabbles over iconography strike me as silly. But by the same token (that I'm not a dualist) I see no particular reason to snub religious beliefs. Frankly, I think all religions are charmingly daft; I love the ritual and respect the beliefs, and think that all religions would be wonderful assets to humanity except that some people get so OCD about defending or attacking them. it's even worse now that secularism has become so prominent - hard-nosed secularists are just as bad in their way as religious zealots.
I got into this dispute because I assumed that people simply hadn't thought through the ramifications of their acts, and that a bit of discussion and refocusing would unwind the nonsense and let common sense happen. One of these days I'll learn better than to expect things like that, and on that day I suppose I'll leave the project forever. --Ludwigs201:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With one possible exception, I think we all have a pretty good grasp of "irrelevant" at this point in the discussion: If some kid spams a penis picture—or a butterfly picture, or a picture of Queen Elizabeth—into Algebra, we revert it as vandalism and go about the rest of today's work. We don't say the butterfly picture is irrelevant and should be removed, but the equally off-topic penis picture has to stay so we can show off what a cool, not-censored kind of place Wikipedia is.
But let's get back to the (at least mostly) relevant pictures: Would anyone here actually defend an image of a sports car with a nude person standing next to it, if an image without a nude person is available? Does anyone think that choosing the zero-nudity-containing image actually violates this policy? (I didn't think this was such a difficult question, but nobody seems to be willing to answer it...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't have much relationship to the example that dominates this discussion, but I think Mohammed is a relatively poor example for the actual question, which is how we should address the over-invocation of NOTCENSORED by people who are trying to include "controversial content that adds little or no value to the article" (=the words from the RFC question).
So what counts "controversial content that adds little or no value to the article"? You and I agree that a car with a naked person standing next to it provides nothing educational to the reader (on the subject of automobiles, vs an image without a naked person).
Can we fairly generalize that particular example to a statement along the lines of "Pictures including naked humans, when the article is not about nudity, sexuality, or medical conditions" (and possibly other categories; feel free to suggest expansion)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In part, the Wikimedia Foundation's May 2011 resolution concerning controversial images says
Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers [...] "Controversial content" includes all of these categories. [...] We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement. [...] principle of least astonishment: [...] respect [readers'] expectations of what any page or feature might contain.
This policy presently says
Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable where these materials are relevant to the topic. Discussion of any such potentially objectionable material should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Per the Foundation, controversial material should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': one that respects the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic.
But the Foundation goes further than this. It urges us to pay particular attention to the educational value of controversial content, not just relevance. Hundreds of thousands of images and statements may be relevant to a given article, but not all relevant material will have real educational value. I'd like to see this policy incorporate both of these elements of the Foundation resolution, educational use and principle of least astonishment, by replacing the above with the words of the Foundation
Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and respect the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.
I think "respect the reader's expectations" sounds too much like an enjoinder to simply ensure that no-one is ever offended by anything, which is too much. Maybe "consider reader expectations". On a more minor point, "content of a ... religious nature" is not always controversial, which a literal reading of the above would suggest. Maybe "particularly involving sexuality, violence or religion". I also think the first sentence of the existing paragraph should be retained. --FormerIP (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"respects the conventional expectations of readers" is already part of the policy. With regard to "content of a ... religious nature" is not always controversial, does this clear up the ambiguity?
Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and respect the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.
With regard to retaining the first sentence, the purpose of this post is to argue that relevance alone is not enough to justify inclusion of any content, real educational value needs to be demonstrated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is differently worded so as to not to give the impression of an enjoinder. We are asked to follow a principle. In your version, "respect the reader's expectations" is too strong. What if a reader comments: "I don't expect to see human nipples on Wikipedia". What process would we go through in order to respect this?
I don't get your point about the existing first sentence. It doesn't say that relevance alone is enough, it just clarifies that controvesial relevant content is includable on WP. I think your proposal is unbalanced if it focuses only on what is not allowed. And the difference between "relevance" and "real educational value" is too opaque to be useful, I think. All information that is relevant to an encyclopaedia is, by definition, of real educational value, surely? --FormerIP (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. "Consider" rather than "respect." That is different from the Foundation's use of "least astonishment." And would give us
Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.
which seems reasonable to me. With regard to the first sentence, I'm concerned that readers may take it that relevance alone is sufficient to justify inclusion of content, controversial or otherwise. Obviously educational merit, BLP, NPOV, etc, etc, also apply. Perhaps we could simply remove "where these materials are relevant to the topic"
Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable. Pay particular attention to placement and categorization of controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether the content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain.
Sorry FormerIP, I just noticed I didn't answer your question. I'm trying to make it clear that relevant means both related to the topic and important to the topic. At Talk:Muhammad/images we've proposed that there are degrees of image usefulness
misleading or harmful
useless - no relation to the topic
related to the topic but adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the article or section
adds to the readers' understanding of the article or section
adds enough to the readers' understanding of the article or section to justify the space it takes up (related, educational and (WP:DUE)
(edit conflict)I think that an image is more educational than an existing one is a valid reason to replace the image, however we must be extremely careful not to confuse the educational value of an image with the risk that prudish educational institutions may take offense to the image. That some readers or schools may find an image offensive makes it no less educational. Likewise, there should be no astonishment in finding a photograph of a human penis in the Human penis article. Really that is all common sense. The problem is that I think the foundations choice of words is nebulous, and can be read to suite the views of the reader. It can be read as consistent with current policy, or much more broadly. Monty84502:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, we know that the end result here is, our article on Muhammad will have the most common image of the figure, because for the remaining portion of the world that isn't of the Muslim religion that would be otherwise offended by the image, we are using it in an educational manner. That needs to be understood that is very much not likely to change. Ergo, the point of this exercise is to clear up that NOTCENSORED cannot be used to deny the use of material that a minority group would find patently offensive. This is in line with the Foundation's resolution. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be very helpful if we establish, straight out, that the decision here does not apply to the Muhammad article, period. That issue has been through enough debate and comment that it bears the risk of just beating a dead horse to try and address it here. Would anyone oppose specifically exempting that article from any changes or consensus arrived at here, since there'a already a specific consensus there? SDY (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, (IMO) very very wrong. Policies and policy changes get applied uniformly with no bias due to religious beliefs. If you wish otherwise, then it is the last paragraph of WP:CENSOR which we need to be discussing changes to. Until then, your statement has no merit.ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN02:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, I may disagree with the outcome of this initiative (especially if it means wholesale removal of images from that article - overturning multiple consensus and an RfC and Village Pump proposal to keep the images), but I will still support the community's voice in it. Uniform. No exceptions (see my list above in the Comments section of Ludwigs2's "RfC"). etc. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think that is an unrealistic proposition. While no RFC here should be able to outright overrule the existing consensus at the Muhammad article, a policy shift here would unavoidably shift the statusquo there. The next time the debate starts in earnest at Muhammad, any change here WILL be used as a justification to reach a different consensus there, it may not sucseed, but it will be tried. It is also a terrible idea to explicitly exempt one article or subject from a general policy standpoint. Monty84503:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it may eventually affect that article, which is unavoidable, I just don't want to turn this discussion into yet another WP:COATRACK of that discussion. As far as blind and uniform application of policies to all articles I don't think that's necessarily a demand. While consensus can change on what to do over there, and the policy will inevitably be influenced by those discussions, we have to write this policy to apply to more than just Muhammad. SDY (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is already a coatrack of the Muhammad images debate. This discussion does not get started if not for all of the arguments there, so lets not pretend this is something it isn't. These proposals are a direct challenge to the prevailing view at that article, while the unintended consequences on other articles has not yet been explored or considered. Pretending that this isn't about that is just that: fantasy. Resolute16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, note that the 6 images of Muhammad we have in the Muhammad article are very far indeed from representing the way Muhammad is most commonly portrayed. That's the whole problem in that article. Such depictions were very rare. The mainstream representations of Muhammad are calligraphy and pictograms, and there is a very rich tradition of those. For background, see [12] We're demonstrating and propagating our ignorance of Islam by illustrating the Muhammad article like the article on Jesus. --JN46603:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we not vote on this yet? I've already changed my thinking somewhat thanks to input from FormerIP and I'd like to see more discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little too early, I agree. One thing to consider is bluelinking in some of the other policies and editing guidelines. The other thing I'd very much like to see is a a clear statement that controversial content can and should be removed if there is consensus to remove it. Redundant, perhaps, but I've seen some arguments over the past year that could be read as treating WP:NOTCENSORED as an absolute, which is obviously false, but some defensive writing (i.e. "cannot be misunderstood") on that account wouldn't hurt. SDY (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. The next time the article on Muhammad makes the news, we'll have a ton of IPs and single purpose accounts proposing removal of all images - and have to follow that consensus. Same applies for other controversial topics. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What sock/meat puppetry? And how would they know if (as another example) an editor simply made a few posts on some high trafficked Islamic forums? And, you KNOW that such results, regardless of how they found out about the images, will be argued forever as reason to remove them all by some of the very editors here who have already made such arguments. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm rapidly losing interest in this, because it appears that this is just a coatrack of the Muhammad discussion. A thousand voices with one argument do not win over six voices with five arguments. We are not a democracy. If nothing else, I'm bumfuzzled by the obsessive/compulsive nature of the discussion over the Muhammad article, and I'm going to go work on something useful in the encyclopedia instead of trade barbs with people. SDY (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Monty's comment, I've just searched this talk page archive for "astonishment" and "foundation" and can't find a discussion on this topic.
Does anybody have criticisms or suggestions wrt the latest iteration of my proposed change
Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable. Pay particular attention to placement and categorization of controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether the content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain.
As per others, I dislike the "readers' expectations" portion. We are seeing that hashed out as well on the Muhammad article. I'd prefer "and consider ensure including such content fits within all of Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines such as (see my list above)" - those policies and guidelines really do cover pretty much every scenario brought up. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Yes, FormerIP objected to "respect readers' expectations" and recommended "consider readers' expectations." The principle of least astonishment is a specific recommendation of the foundation resolution wrt controversial content. And you are arguing that it doesn't belong in this policy. That, I guess, is what this thread is about: should the Foundation resolution be reflected in this policy? I'll be interested to hear what others have to say on that question, since it doesn't appear to have been discussed on this page before. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check this [13] out to get an idea of the battle ahead. During all of this, someone changed the disclaimer heading on the talk page to say something very different than what the consensus was. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Anthony: Just for clarification (as it appears some of my intent hasn't been clear to others), it's not the intent I disagree with - it is simply the ambiguity of the word. For instance, by applying WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, I think it covers some of the scenarios we've been talking about. Hopefully that makes what I am trying to say make more sense. I'm too tired to propose better wording right now - maybe tomorrow if you or someone else hasn't thought of something. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN05:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wedded to including the principle of least astonishment, though I favour it. I'm more concerned to clarify that controversial content needs to have demonstrable real educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need this kind of change. The foundation resolution was targeted at Commons, which was being used as a porn holding tank. Our policies and procedures are adequate to ensure that only images with relevance to an encyclopedia are kept, and additional language will only be used to justify the removal of material that shouldn't be removed.—Kww(talk) 11:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't being used as a porn holding bank, that was a moral panic. Policy needs to make it clear that offensive material should have a demonstrable educational use if it is to be placed in an article. I don't think the resolution only addresses Commons, but have asked a board member for clarification. [14] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that was a moral panic. However, here is the problem: "Offensive material should have a demonstrable educational value if it is to be placed in an article". Most opponents are trapped in circular reasoning that educational merit is lacking because the images are controversial. But while some argue the controversy is a reason to remove images, I would argue that that same controversy is why they should stay. If they weren't considered educational, there would not be such high support for their retention. The educational value of these images has already been proven. Also, I would suggest that the removal of the image of Muhammad burning in hell showed that there is no need to alter this policy, because as Jimbo said on his talk page, this project has a pretty good handle on things. Material which is intended to be provocative has been removed. But material for which offence is incidental has not. This is appropriate, in my view. Resolute16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for other editors you characterize as opponents, but, assuming you include me in that group, I am capable of distinguishing between educational content and offensiveness. I cannot see that being controversial should ever be a reason to include an image that has no educational relevance to the article or section topic. With regard to the remainder of your comment, I'm not here to discuss Muhammad, there are plenty of other venues where you can do that :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, in various cases it is not that simple, and you are not able to distinguish such as an absolute by applying our own determination/opinion. And neither am I. Nor anyone else here. What may be educational to me may not be to you. And there will be a few issues/items/whatever where you will not be able to understand why I find something educational or vice-versa. If you rip your computer apart and pull all the components off the board and start writing up what each is, I will not find it educational in the least bit. I could point out what each component is while asleep with both hands tied behind my back. Betcha there are tons of people who would find it educational though. Now, back to the issue as I am stating it. There are things that fit into a category where people wont understand why something provides educational value (unlike my obvious example above). Does the article on a stove show detailed instructions on how to turn on the burner? No. No educational value - to us. It's about weighing what the community deems as educational. Not our beliefs. In this, it's a foregone conclusion that there is a lack of knowledge in this country on this topic. Thus, everything has a higher educational value for most our audience. Which doesn't apply to people like you or Jayen or such who are knowledgeable. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Respect the reader's expectations" is feel-good but meaningless drivel in the absence of well-designed surveys of the readership's reactions and expectations. As far as I can tell those surveys don't happen on Wikipedia. At best, Wikipedia editors are surveyed from time to time, and it's usually a highly-biased self-selected sample. Wikipedia articles are written according to WP:NPOV, which balances contents based on how reliable sources deal with the material, not based on what a hypothetical and practically-never-properly-surveyed readership would like to see. [And be careful what you wish for. What if turns out that the people hitting the article on porn simply want to see lots of porn? Studies of internet bulk traffic and of Google top queries suggest this might be true. "The customer is always right?" We turn Wikipedia into a free porn site then?] On the other hand, simply adding that wording to the policy without doing any reader/customer studies [which is a far more likely scenario] just opens another gate for WP:Wikilawyers to argue "I know that it's offensive to the readers because such-and-such subset of the population objects to this material based on my deep gut feeling" as way to override WP:NPOV. So, I oppose this change as pointless verbiage at best and dangerously WP:CREEPy armament in the hands of POV pushers in more contentious cases. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any changes to the current policy of this kind. The entire premise of "particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature" is absolutely ridiculous. These are are different as can be. Sexual or violent material can be harmful to young people (I'm talking about Cock and ball torture etc. not nudity). Religious material is entirely different. "Religion" is a very very broad tent. I'm a church-goer myself and I think religion is great when it helps us address questions of our place in the universe, provides comfort, gives us guidance in being good people, and draws us together as a community. Stuff like taboos on eating pigs etc, though, is just rank superstition. Superstition gets mixed up with religion, and this is a problem. Avoiding idolatry is reasonable (idolatry arguably interferes with a truer connection to the Divine and so forth), so it's reasonable for Muslims to not build statues of Muhammed or pray to pictures of him. A taboo on any images of him anywhere is just superstition. I oppose giving any special-pleading rights to people's superstitions. Herostratus (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think my wording reflects the Foundation resolution. I recommend it, as well as this study by two researchers commissioned by the board, and the report of the board working group. Please consider their arguments. The purpose is only to avoid unnecessary controversy, without sacrificing a jot of educational value. No one, in these two threads or at Talk:Muhammad/images is arguing we shouldn't use depictions of Muhammad. The argument is we shouldn't use them when they do not add to the readers' understanding. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that kind of "research" was and is a waste of donated money. I've not seen any empirical evidence of what the readers expect in that study. Only two "expert" opinions. Those are a dime a dozen on a topic like this. Wanna buy some parental control software? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the expert's user page, half of which is dedicated to telling us who he isn't, just the relevant part: I'm actually the Robert Harris who has written a couple of books introducing newcomers to classical music and who has created a few series for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about music, most recently "20 Pieces of Music that Changed the World". (Music is my second career). Although for the time being, I'm happy to be known within the Wikimedia community as the consultant working on the study of "potentially objectionable" images. Speaks for itself. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If all you have to offer is expert opinion, the you'd better be an expert. Applies to court proceedings and most businesses, especially those that spend their own money. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the proposed changes. I don't actually see any problem. Of course, people are always going to make lots of noise about contentious issues like this - but prior consensus has established that it's not our job to make judgements about what is/is not 'offensive' - we should only be concerned with encycloapedic value, and appropriately neutral coverage. I think the 'least astonishment' remark is fine as it is. Chzz ► 16:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When an image is controversial and adds nothing relevant to the readers' understanding, I believe we should not use it. We frequently use images that do not add to the readers' understanding (see the lead image at Pain), and I don't object to them usually, but I do when they are offensive or harmful. That's the intention of this proposed amendment, simply to avoid gratuitous controversy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I thought it was pretty clear but perhaps I'm too close to it. Wikipedia abounds with images related to the topic but that don't add relevant understanding. To argue such images off the encyclopedia using current policy, controversial or not, at least the way policy is presently interpreted, is impossible. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you honestly believe that editors engaging in second guessing what "reader's expectation" might be does anything to alleviate that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That language is already in the policy. My proposed text clarifies that editors should make sure controversial content has relevant educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there in lies the catch; who determines educational value. Two people will almost never assign the same value to the same thing. I think it will just lead us back to square one personally since we have already seen different individuals put separate values on images. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could believe that. It is rather difficult to, however, when the goalposts are continually moved, as in this case. Resolute03:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All pictures have educational value: "a picture is worth a 1000 words." It comes down to editorial judgment whether it is relevant, and how it's relevant (eg. does it mislead) and that is determined by consensus. Perhaps reference to pictures used in other reference works, in this "controversial" arena, would be one helpful criteria. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the subjectivity, potential for abuse, and harm to our content that the wording would produce as well as the implication by this proposal that policy should be based around the WMF, and not on internal community consensus. Defining content that is sexual, violent, etc as potentially offensive is injecting clear bias in our handling of that content. Everything has the potential to be offensive, and to decide only to treat material that is objectionable to the general population differently from material that is potentially offensive to smaller groups is showing a clear preference for the majority of readers. It also becomes troublesome to decide on what is potentially offensive to the majority of users, do we choose American societal norms, and place a preference for American readers over others? Or Western societal norms over Muslim? What this change is implicitly asserting by singling out violence, sex, and religion is that we should avoid info that is "potentially offensive to the general English speaking audience" which is clear WP:POV. Also, Wikipedia is a self-governing community that works on broad internal consensus, and should take WMF's recommendations as just that, and not as a incentive for uprooting long held policies.AerobicFox (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Everything" has the potential to be offensive? Here's the image from the lead of our article about apples. Can you tell me what could be offensive about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a radical environmental zealot, Wikipedia is ruining people's health by using images of genetically altered apples to represent the fruit instead of organic or heirloom apples. This is part of a growing trend on Wikipedia to represent fruit as it has become and not as it naturally is, please replace with a picture of an apple grown organically(as apples have been grown for the majority of history), and stop being part of the movement to poison people's diet with unnatural food. Etc, etc.
And believe me, these people are out there: www.amazon.com/review/R3TKTSOPJ83EXA/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=6305942331&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful(Link is blacklisted) Amazon Review of "The Tigger Movie"
I found this movie very disappointing. It was so full of low-level slapstick violence that it felt more like a warner brother's cartoon than a Winnie the Pooh Movie. While the story was a sweet message, Eeyore's home being smashed by a rock and roo crashing into closets concerned my two year old deeply. What happened to a great storyline without the bells and whistles of violence to move it along? I'll stick to the Blustery Day. Once again, Disney gets a D-.
I don't see the Amazon reviewer claiming to be offended. Do you? "I don't like to show violent storylines to my child" is not the same thing as "I'm offended by this movie".
As for your creative apple response, it appears to me that the apple in question is a Fuji, which is a "natural" cross that originated decades before genetic engineering was even possible. Do you want to try again? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't really feel a need to "try again" at explaining something to you. How incredibly petty to even tell another to do that. Unless you wish to make a counter argument that argues that "potentially offensive" things are limited in scope you are not adding anything by making potshots at others posts. Yes, the vast majority of Fuji apples we eat are genetically modified(here are their patents); whether I should have said "virtually everything" as opposed to "everything" or "offended/shocked/disgusted/any other negative reaction" on top of "offended" will not move this discussion any further.AerobicFox (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even "virtually everything". The vast majority of images we use, as we use them, have basically zero potential for offensiveness.
BTW, you might like to read a bit about plant patents. Patents are not restricted to genetically engineered items; they are also freely assigned to anyone who happens to be the first person to notice a naturally occurring mutation. All of the patents I checked in your list involved zero genetic engineering:
"The new variety of apple tree, `Moana` was discovered as a limb sport mutation of a `Nagafu-6` (unpatented) Fuji apple tree which was then growing in a cultivated orchard controlled by the inventors, and which is located at Upper Moutere, Nelson,New Zealand in May, 1996, during routine orchard operations."
"The new Malus `FUJIKO` was discovered by the inventors, Michelangelo Leis and Carlo Mazzola, in the summer of 2002 in a block of Fuji apple tree designated as `NAGAFU 12` (unpatented), growing in a cultivated area of an orchard in Migliaro,Ferrara, Italy."
"The present invention relates to a variety of an apple tree obtained by branch mutation and by selection of the variety Fuji. "
"The new cultivar `Candy` originated as a limb sport mutation of `Aztec` Fuji (not patented). It was discovered by the inventor in a cultivated orchard at Upper Moutere, Nelson, New Zealand."
I put the Foundation resolution forward not as an edict for us to obey, but as a proposition to consider. I am addressing the use of controversial images only where their use is of no real didactic value; the kind of image that WP:IUP expressly identifies as worthy of avoiding:
(Images) should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter
Wikipedia abounds with images that fail to conform to this policy. I am proposing that, when content is controversial, we should pay particular attention to whether it conforms to IUP in that respect and, if not, apply IUP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changes. This seems to be an end-run by those espousing a minority viewpoint about the propriety of displaying historic representations of middle eastern deities. Unable to fillibuster or edit war their way to a reversal of policy, now they take another tack. The policy is well-established and works fine, leave it alone. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one. Again, no one. One more time, no one here is discussing middle eastern deities. You have accused me of engaging in fillibuster (sic), edit war, and end-run (whatever that is). I know I'm not guilty of the first two. Please strike your completely uninformed comment, as it may confuse or mislead others. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation of WMF resolution requires new software features
The rather poorly quoted (in the current policy) foundation statement says:
“
The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms that:
Wikimedia projects are not censored. Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. "Controversial content" includes all of these categories. We recognize that we serve a global and diverse (in age, background and values) audience, and we support access to information for all.
Wikimedia projects are curated and edited collections, according to certain principles: namely, we host only content that is both free and educational in nature.
We support the principle of user choice; readers should have control over their experience on the projects.
We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain.
[two Commons-related bullets omitted]
We ask the Executive Director, in consultation with the community, to develop and implement a personal image hiding feature that will enable readers to easily hide images hosted on the projects that they do not wish to view, either when first viewing the image or ahead of time through preference settings. We affirm that no image should be permanently removed because of this feature, only hidden; that the language used in the interface and development of this feature be as neutral and inclusive as possible; that the principle of least astonishment for the reader is applied; and that the feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both logged-in and logged-out readers.
”
8.0-8.5
Arabic
7.5-8.0
Persian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean
7.0-7.5
Vietnamese, Hebrew
6.5-7.0
Hungarian, Portuguese, Turkish
6.0-6.5
Spanish, Russian
5.5-6.0
English, French, Polish, Italian
5.0-5.5
Dutch, Norwegian, Finnish, Bulgarian
4.5-5.0
Czech, Romanian
4.0-4.5
German
3.5-4.0
(none)
3.0-3.5
Swedish, Danish, Estonian
I'm afraid that WMF has to put their money where their mouth is. It's unreasonable to expect Wikipedia editors to determine how "content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain" because those expectations vary widely, as it is actually acknowledged in the first WMF resolution bullet. So, the only reasonable way to implement user choice on something like the images of Muhammad without offending at least some group of readers is to have a "Muslim user" or perhaps more accurately "Sunni user" or just "hide Muhammad images" checkbox in the putative "personal image hiding feature". The ball is really in WMF's court on this. Until they implement their "personal image hiding feature", their resolution is unimplementable. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought such features already existed? I thought some of that was the basis for the instructions on the Muhammad FAQ page? No, I am not being sarcastic - I have no intentions of disabling any images on Wikipedia for myself, so I haven't tried those features. Does anyone know if they work? And do they adequately address this? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a BIG gap in coverage then. I wonder what it would take to make a cookie based version for anon users? It wouldn't even affect other users who eventually got a leased IP, or even users on say a library machine if written properly (cookie expires on browser restart or something). Thanks for pointing out the hole in its capabilities. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The foundation is working on a image filter, over which a great deal of discussion has occurred on meta. It is not without controversy itself, especially on the de.wiki. Resolute20:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone should look at the map on the talk page there: m:Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en (now copied here). Pretty much what I expected with respect to the Arabic-speaking editors vs English-speaking ones. And given what you've told me about German speakers' resistance, their score (lower than that of English speakers) is not surprising either. [Correction: I was informed on meta that this map is language-based, not country based ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)][reply]
Getting the technical ability in place is just the first 1%. The next step will be creation of a classification system with the hundreds of different parameters for each image (e.g. women without head veils, women being allowed to drive cars, anything homosexuality related, etc.) to classify it per the hundreds of different definitions of decency. Then comes getting somebody to classify each image according to each of those hundreds of parameters. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of creating a category system for the personal image filter appears to have been abandoned. [15] There is a brainstorming page on Meta dedicated to finding a workable solution: [16]. --JN46607:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, the bruhaha in en.wiki is just the follow-up to that putative WMF abandonment of their reader-centered filter plan? If the WMF can't figure out how to prevent some Muslims from seeing images that piss these guys off, then we just remove them, even if those images are acceptable to everyone else? That's actually contrary to the WMF statement, which only supports hiding such contents from those who don't wanna see it, not deleting it altogether. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
