User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Muhammad images

So the Muhammad images case has concluded, with a fistful of images of Muhammad smeared over Muhammad with Wikipedia's middle finger and locked in there for several years. Tarc offers his enlightened commentary here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's all over but the crying, I suppose... Resolute 16:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And maybe a bit of crowing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. I mostly walked away from the article after the arb case, trusting the community would do the right thing. And it did. I wasn't going to comment on the result at all, but I'm not really sure what your purpose was in posting this thread. Resolute 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I, too, mostly kept my distance from the RfC, as ArbCom had suggested we leave it to previously uninvolved editors. The result was a shame. And shameful. Why would we host images that add nothing of relevance to the article and are profoundly offensive to many of our readers? I understand the free speech point, but would prefer we didn't alienate millions of our readers from an article that matters very much to them by gratuitously including pretty (to non-Muslims) images just to make a point. Of course, I'm not arguing we should remove all images of Muhammad from the article, just those that add little other than decoration (in the eyes of non-Muslims) and offensiveness (to our millions of Muslim readers).

I raised this here to see if Jimbo had any thoughts on the result. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the editors that contributed to the discussion made a consensus and that is that - users need to just accept that moving forwards - (at least for the foreseeable, consensus can and does change) however, as in real life, this consensus can also be wrong, and your opinion that,... I mostly walked away from the article after the arb case, trusting the community would do the right thing "And it did" is just that, your opinion, right or wrong users need to accept it for the foreseeable. Your comment , "It's all over but the crying" was imo , not beneficial to collaborative contributions and was more likely to divide than conquer - Youreallycan 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks goodness, religious censorship has been defeated :) GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What is "censurship"? NickCT (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Everybody, please play nice in the sandbox. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Anythonycole is the only one remaining of the Three Amigos (Ludwigs2 blocked for a year, Hans Adler retiring in a huff) at the Muhammad RfC that tried to see me go down with that ship, and is apparently still a bit bitter that I did not. I have no problems with what I said, though yes, it did begin to veer a bit off-topic from the article discussion. Christianity has been chased off the stage in Western society, particularly in America. I have always found it to be quite hypocritical that we deny respect to one religion in many aspects but bend over backwards to show deference and tolerance to another. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No offense intended, Tarc. I appreciate your candor. For the record, as I've said before, I don't want you to leave the project: you're a valuable asset. I just want you to stop being rude and insulting to others who have the temerity to disagree with you. I think I've noticed a moderation in that lately. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Christianity has been chased off the stage in Western society, particularly in America". ROFL! AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Christmas in the U.S. has been canceled this year, out of respect for Mayan religious views, which end the world 4 days earlier, and so the U.S. plans to End the World on 21 December 2012, in observance of Mayan beliefs, while re-creation of the World will occur on 22 December for other religions (just kidding). -Wikid77 (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think America is one of the most overtly christian countries in the western world. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Is Tarc nipping at the sauce this evening or something? That's a really bizarre thing to say. I can't walk down the street in Hawaii without running into at least six different denominations of Christianity. We've got churches on every street corner here. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

While Tarc's comment is clearly wrong as stated, it is true that sometimes we fail to put hard-learned lessons about Christianity into practice for other religions. In the USA it is relatively accepted by this point that people have a constitutional right to deface Bibles and crosses for art and politics, yet Koran burning still leads to a remarkable variety of legal and financial censorship actions. I think it is very important, whether we're speaking of a nation or of Wikipedia, for us to hold clear bedrock principles that say we can't censor content, period. Because once people perceive that we have a choice to do this or not to do it, it becomes a personal insult when we refuse to censor something. People are meant to be free and have the flexibility to do what they want - but governments are best kept chained to their oars. Wnt (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, no one is arguing we should do what we're told by Muslims. No one is arguing we are in any way compelled to remove images of Muhammad from this encyclopedia. That is, no one is arguing for censorship here. And I take issue with your claim that we, the community, don't have the right to choose whether a gratuitously offensive image belongs in an article. We do. That's not censorship. That's sentient humans exercising judgement and freedom. Our repudiation of censorship is not also a repudiation of our common sense and sensibility. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not just an American thing, same applies this side of the pond. The reason that Koran burning and so on is so contentious in the West is because it can quite often seem like a racist action. Of course it absolutely doesn't have to be and I certainly think spitting on the Koran (or at least what it represents) is too good for it, like all the Abrahamic holy books that can VERY easily be misinterpreted as an attack probably on Pakistanis here and Arabs on your side of the Atlantic. Knee-jerk offendarati are hardly known for giving the benefit of the doubt in this sort of instance, so that's why we're in this position... It's not "fair" to Christians in a sense but it's hardly as if Christians are discriminated against in the US (you could make a bit more of an argument that they are in the UK, but it wouldn't be much of one... about all you could say is people laugh at them - well, they do... but if you're going to believe that sort of thing you have to be prepared to take the rough with the smooth) Egg Centric 22:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not wrong in the slightest, Wnt. If you do not understand something I have said, I am more than happy to explain further. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your statement about religion in America is so off the mark I thought you were trying to be funny. As others have said, the United States is one of the most religious countries in the world. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The world would be better off, if we were all atheists. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Communists tried that; it didn't turn out so well for the religious and irreligious alike. There's this funny thing about protecting the rights of people you disagree with; in the end, you're really protecting your own freedom. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

People are bastards with or without religion. Religion is just one manifestation of man's propensity to put himself in a group and view with suspicion those outside of the group. If we were all atheists then people would find some other group to join, probably nationalistic, and still do all the stupid things they do now. In other words, you don't need Jesus to be a piece of crap, he's just the Western raison de jure. . SÆdon^talk 01:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that the purpose of the prohibition against depicting Muhammad is to prevent idol worship. Some serious dark-ages doublethink going on there. There is no chance of non-moslems idolizing Muhammad. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 23:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's say "almost no chance. Dahn (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the correction. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 20:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see the problem. It's clear from the RfC outcome, and the article as it stands, that Wikipedia is doing its best not to needlessly offend anybody's religious beliefs, but at the same time will not bow before anyone's self-professed righteous cause. The article, clearly, is avoiding depictions of the prophet. At the same time, it is also clearly not avoiding them entirely. The religious ban on idol worship has deep roots, there is something similar in Judaism as well. But the extreme version, by which violations by unbelievers of an abstract philosophical principle becomes an excuse among a historically marginalized group for channeling their rage and xenophobia, is not something we can reasonably deal with. Just like those in the west who wanted to re-invent the language to be gender-neutral, or something (and if you didn't do exactly what they said, you must be one of the oppressors), we can't jump and do cartwheels every time somebody with a cause wants to control what gets said in public. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I see that. I supported putting a button at the top so readers could hide images easily if they wanted to. I'm sorry that was a step too far for the anti censorship crowd. It looks to me that the only real way round the whole business and yet make Wikipedia available even to people with strong convictions or the children of same is to have a general way for people to do things like that where the editors do not make any explicit selection and where the main encyclopaedia is not affected in any substantial way. I really would like to cater to some extent for people with strong views about sex or killing or religion or taboos or phobias. If some Scientologist is happy to let their child only view pages in Wikipedia which have no relation to Scientology I say let them if it is no great bother to us. rather than we must pry their eyes open with toothpicks attitude. Dmcq (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken on at least one point, Wikidemon. You say that it is clear from the RfC outcome that Wikipedia is doing its best not to needlessly offend anybody's religious beliefs. You, and not only you, have missed the point of the RfC. This RfC found that it is OK to needlessly offend Muslims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, it seems to come down to the basic question of what we're doing here... Editing an encyclopedia? Or trying to score cultural points? —MistyMorn (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, if you are addressing me, I didn't understand that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, sorry... I thought that was clear from the context. More specifically: Are we focused on making good, pertinent articles with the ingredients needed within their scope? Or do we, as a publication, feel the need to inject non-essential material simply because we can, even though we know that a proportion of our readership are going to find it offensive? Judging from the present conversation, there may be a variety of triggers for the latter mechanism, ranging from perceived persecution of Christians in the USA to occupying the moral high ground of atheism and demonstrating our liberation from all forms of censorship. That sort of stuff looks to me like cultural point scoring. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry. You were quite clear, I was being dense. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't say that! —MistyMorn (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But you are valuing a strongly held belief by editors of Wikipedia lower than strongly held beliefs of some religion. I would like to cater for both of them and a lot more besides rather than go on about how bad one crowd or another are. Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Acid test: Do the figurative portrayals substantially contribute to the understanding of the main topic of the page? If they do, then there's a genuine issue. But if they don't, what's the problem? —MistyMorn (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:PERTINENCE is the appropriate guideline. It says things like "Efforts should be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal" and "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." The images are pertinent and and as the guideline says mages are an important part of any article's presentation. Removing them for religious reasons would directly conflict with WP:NOTCENSORED. As I said you are valuing some deeply held religious beliefs over and above the thought out and agreed beliefs of editors of Wikipedia that have been put into the policies and guidelines by consensus. That's why you see no problem.. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the figure/caption in WP:PERTINENCE illustrates why I see no genuine problem. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are only saying remove the images because of their beliefs, you would have no objection otherwise. Therefore your objection comes under WP:CENSOR. That's really all there is to it. Dmcq (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are only saying... That's really all there is to it.
I seem to have heard that sort of argument somewhere before. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

One last clarification attempt at my comments above. Yes, the US is a Christian-centered nation, I do not argue against that. However, in the past where it was very rigid and very exclusionary of non-Christians is a thing of the past. Prayer in public schools, nativity scenes on the town square and the like have been largely removed as a more multicultural approach becomes ingrained in society. I am supportive of all that...hell, I'd like to get "under God" out of the Pledge, even. My issue with the Muhammad and depictions though is that deferring to their religious beliefs is taking a step backwards into the old days when we were more deferential to Christianity. We (non-Muslims) should not have to censor ourselves just because us looking at images of their prophet makes them uncomfortable, any more that I should have to worry about Catholics and blasphemy if I say "goddamnit" in public. Being unoffended is not a right. And Anthony, the "needlessly offend" argument was thoroughly squashed in the RfC. Please drop it. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Only, it's not censorship we're discussing. Censorship is mandatory, imposed, enforced. Self-censorship is what Soviet journalists did to save time: they would not include copy that they knew would be removed by the state censor. There is no censorship of any kind being contemplated here. What I've been arguing for is our right to exercise discernment. It's very different. It's an act of free will exercised by editors unconstrained by anything but a commitment to the foundation's mission. Gratuitously alienating millions of readers from an article just because we can, and for no educational benefit, works against the foundation's mission.

I don't know any Muslims that particularly care whether you look at images of Muhammad. I know a number that would rather not look at such images themselves, though. And having unnecessary depictions of Muhammad on Muhammad effectively alienates them from the article. It's a bit like images of vaginas. I don't mind you looking at images of vaginas but I'm not going to bother with an article that is plastered with them for no good reason, neither would many people.

You and Wikipedia have the right to offend, but doing so when it could be avoided without diminishing the encyclopedia is puerile. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're begging the question. Others disagree that the images are "gratuitously offensive", provide "no educational benefit" and could be removed "without diminishing the encyclopedia". In fact, it's explicitly noted in the RfC's closing statement that images shouldn't be added "without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so". —David Levy 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I know others disagree with me. They're wrong. Just because there are a number of people who disagree with me doesn't mean they're right. (Argumentum ad populum.) This image adds nothing relevant to the section it's illustrating. It's gratuitous and offensive to many of our readers. Indeed, it gets Muhammad's hair length wrong, according to Ali's description of the prophet. It is pretty and breaks up the text nicely. It may be an aid to memory. But it adds nothing to the reader's understanding, and alienates millions of readers. Great. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even expressing agreement with the prevailing opinion, let alone asserting that its popularity makes it correct. I'm addressing your misrepresentation of the RfC's outcome and the underlying rationales.

You're treating the images' superfluousness as a given and asserting that they've been included "just to make a point", because editors have decided that it's "OK to needlessly offend Muslims". That's false. The images' inclusion reflects consensus that they hold significant educational value. It's perfectly reasonable for you to disagree, but it isn't reasonable for you to distort others' motives by pretending that they share your opinion that the images are extraneous and want to use them anyway. —David Levy 19:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of people share my view that most of the images on Muhammad are superfluous. What WP:DUE information does this image add to the reader's understanding of Muhammad? (It's bedtime here.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You've disregarded my comments and responded with something that I'd describe as a "straw man" if it appeared remotely relevant to my argument. —David Levy 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I apologise. It's very late here and I'm not paying due attention. I'll make an effort now, and revisit this once I've had some sleep.

I'm asserting, and I have every right to assert because it is true, that this image adds nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad, and so is unnecessary to the article. Its presence in that article offends many Muslims. Ergo, it needlessly offends Muslims. I am not pretending this is the conclusion of the RfC. It is, however the view of many, though not the majority, of the editors engaged in this debate.

Given the number of times WP:NOTCENSORED is waved about in this debate, and Tarc's comments linked to in my opening comment, it is reasonable to assert that most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. And now you are repeating the same lies and slander from the past discussions, the Arbcom, and the RfC, that those who wished to retain the image did so out of spite or to make a point. That argument was categorically rejected by the hundred-odd participants of the rfC. That you refuse to acknowledge that, that you STILL seek to attack the character of those who feel different about the matter than you to speaks VOLUME of your character, or lack thereof. I wash my hands of this, and you, and am quite happy that this subject matter will not have to be re-opened again in the foreseeable future. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I did feel it was a little unfair singling you out, but your comments were such a clear expression of spite and WP:POINT that I couldn't help myself. Put it down to tiredness. Good night. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm asserting, and I have every right to assert because it is true, that this image adds nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad, and so is unnecessary to the article. Its presence in that article offends many Muslims. Ergo, it needlessly offends Muslims.

I've explicitly acknowledged that it's perfectly reasonable for you to hold and express such an opinion.

What's unreasonable is your claim that the other side believes the same things and is acting out of malice and spite.

I am not pretending this is the conclusion of the RfC.

Your exact words were "This RfC found that it is OK to needlessly offend Muslims."

It is, however the view of many, though not the majority, of the editors engaged in this debate.

...but not the ones supporting the images' inclusion.

Given the number of times WP:NOTCENSORED is waved about in this debate,

That's indicative of an acknowledgment that the images offend people, not that they do so "needlessly".

and Tarc's comments linked to in my opening comment, it is reasonable to assert that most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article.

That's a gross violation of WP:AGF. —David Levy 22:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's morning. I'm refreshed. On the first point, you were right to criticise my fairly vague hyperbole. The RfC found that using figurative images to illustrate important events in the subject’s life is necessary. This is, of course, nonsense. By declaring that images adding nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad are necessary, the RfC is declaring that black is white. Forgive me if I don't play along. The effect of the majority position is to endorse unnecessary offense by declaring unnecessary images necessary. The closing admins have accurately captured the mood of the RfC, and I congratulate them. I'm criticising the majority position, not their summary of it.

I stand by my assertion about the motivations of most of the keep !voters. As for Tarc's good faith, I am certain Tarc is motivated by good intentions, the truth is I have a lot of respect for him. However it is clear from his comments I referred to at the beginning of this thread that he is also motivated by resentment. No assumptions necessary there. It's quite explicit. I have to go out now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The RfC found that using figurative images to illustrate important events in the subject’s life is necessary. This is, of course, nonsense.

Your position on the issue is abundantly clear. There's no need to reiterate it in each and every reply, particularly given the fact that I'm neither criticising nor contradicting this opinion.

By declaring that images adding nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad are necessary, the RfC is declaring that black is white.

You're still begging the question.

The above statement contributes nothing to the proceedings beyond "I'm right and they're wrong." You're entitled to believe (and assert) that, but even if I assume it to be true, it doesn't address my concerns.

Forgive me if I don't play along.

No one is asking you to agree with the decision.

I stand by my assertion about the motivations of most of the keep !voters.

Do you routinely apply such logic? Is everyone who edits articles in a manner with which you disagree "wrong"? And not merely wrong, mind you, but so blatantly wrong that they can't possibly believe otherwise (and therefore are obviously sabotaging the encyclopedia)? —David Levy 05:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience. If I repeat myself, it is in an effort to outline my logic. Regarding begging the question

1. The example image (like others in the article) adds nothing WP:DUE to the reader's understanding of Muhammad. I base this on the fact that, so far, no one has managed to present anything due and relevant that it conveys. It has been said that the example image conveys something about Islamic depictions of Muhammad. This is true, but that is not the topic of the article in question, or the section in which it appears. Loading the article up with six or more such images gives undue weight to a minor aspect of the subject, art history, just as loading the article with campaign maps would be giving undue weight to the prophet's military strategy.
2. In the face of this inability of anyone to point to anything duly relevant the image adds to the reader's understanding of the topic, I conclude that it has little due relevance; that it is unimportant to the article. That conclusion seems inevitable to me.

I hope I have addressed the question: Do all the depictions of Muhammad in Muhammad add significant relevant value, in proportion to the prominence they enjoy? which I think is the question I left begging.

Regarding the motivations of others: I began my engagement with this topic assuming everybody was here to make the article as good and accessible as possible. My view has evolved over time. When an image conveys little relevant information, but is offensive to those for whom Muhammad is one of our most important articles, I simply fail to imagine any constructive motivation for including that image in that article. I understand this may upset some people, and I readily concede there are probably exceptions but, on the whole, it is my view, based on the statements of many hundreds of editors over the last six months, one that I don't expect you to share, that some combination of bigotry, ideological extremism and a failure of perspective-taking and empathy underlies the encyclopedia's puerile stance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So the people who disagreed with your take on it are bigoted ideologues with a failure of perspective and lacking in empathy. Hmmm, well now you've got that off your chest perhaps we can agree that a lot of the people in the debate got very polarized? Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

:) Not all of them will have each shortcoming, for sure, and there will be exceptions, but enough have demonstrated at least one trait for me to feel comfortable with that generalisation (only in this debate). And yes, that was cathartic. "Polarised" may imply bi-polarity; the debate was more complex than that with many persuasive rationales and many preferred outcomes. Sorry Jimbo. I'd still be interested if you have any thoughts on the issue but fully appreciate you may not want to touch this thing with a barge pole. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Your argument, which you've again reiterated, can be summarized as follows:

"Many editors have opined that the images enhance the article's educational value, but that's nonsense; they clearly don't, as anyone can plainly see. Surely, even they must realize that I'm obviously right, so they can't possibly believe what they're saying. Most of them must be lying about wanting to improve the encyclopedia. They're acting out of spite and malice. It's the only logical explanation for their supposed disagreement with my patently correct assessment."

And I fully expect you to respond to this message by restating the argument yet again. I hope that I'm wrong. (You're the arbiter of that, of course.) —David Levy 10:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly my position. I concede that I was imputing a view to the RfC that the closers of the RfC did not enunciate. I was referring to the effect of the RfC, rather than the closing statement. The effect is that it is OK to gratuitously offend Muslims.

These depictions of Muhammad are confections out of different cultures hundreds of years and thousands of miles away from the events they depict. They add no historical or cultural information regarding the man Muhammad. Their value lies in what they tell us about the later depiction of Muhammad, and as narrative images they aid in conceptualisation and memory.

Does their relative educational value and pertinence justify any negative effect these images will have on our readership?

When I arrived at the article, there wasn't even a mention of the depiction of Muhammad. There had been a section, but an editor had removed it a couple of years earlier. I added a section with an image. That tells you something about the relative value Tarc, Johnbod and others assigned to the topic, depictions of Muhammad, in Muhammad. Alongside his career, Islam, the succession and other topics, depiction of Muhammad is a relatively minor sub-topic of a biography of Muhammad.

The section Muhammad#Islamic depictions of Muhammad and the text dealing with Western reception may be best illustrated with figurative depictions of Muhammad, but the remainder of the article doesn't need to be illustrated with figurative depictions of Muhammad. And doing so disaffects, probably repels millions of readers for whom this is a most important article.

When I weigh up the benefit and cost of including more than a couple of figurative depictions of Muhammad in the current version, I conclude that doing so harms the foundation's mission more than it helps. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly my position.

Which parts are inaccurate?

I concede that I was imputing a view to the RfC that the closers of the RfC did not enunciate. I was referring to the effect of the RfC, rather than the closing statement.

You've done far more than that. You've asserted that "most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article."

The effect is that it is OK to gratuitously offend Muslims.

That's an inaccurate statement. It's reasonable for you to opine that Muslims are being offended gratuitously, but no one asserts that such a thing is "OK".

The remainder of your reply again restates your argument as to why the images' inclusion is inappropriate. For convenience, I'll copy and paste an earlier response:

Your position on the issue is abundantly clear. There's no need to reiterate it in each and every reply, particularly given the fact that I'm neither criticising nor contradicting this opinion. —David Levy 15:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've fully grasped the meaning of the term, "begging the question" (assuming the conclusion as a given in one's argument), David. My conclusion is that "the RfC is an imprimatur for needlessly offending our Muslim readers." The proposition I had taken as a given was "narrative images are unnecessary." I have taken the trouble to elaborate the argument behind the latter, and I believe my argument for the conclusion is now fairly complete and sound. I'm sorry if you found it tedious but I've been struggling with your idiosyncratic use of "begging the question."

This is all obfuscation, though. My argument against the majority at the RfC has been clear from early in this discussion. You have been picking at the threads of it but not addressing the point. That's OK. No one does. Because there is no answer to the question, "What do narrative images add to the reader's understanding that is sufficiently necessary to the topic to justify alienating millions of our readers?"

I have nothing to add to what I've already said about the character of the a person who would argue in favour of including such images. --Anthonyhcole (talk)

"...alienating millions of our readers" [cite needed] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've fully grasped the meaning of the term, "begging the question" (assuming the conclusion as a given in one's argument), David.

You contend that images have been inappropriately included in the article. As evidence, you state as fact that the images don't belong in the article.

You deem editors' rationales invalid and cite this as proof that no one has provided a valid rationale.

Your argument boils down to "I'm right because I'm right and they're wrong because they're wrong."

I have taken the trouble to elaborate the argument behind the latter, and I believe my argument for the conclusion is now fairly complete and sound.

Indeed, you've stated it over and over and over, ignoring my continual explanations that I'm not challenging that position.

My argument against the majority at the RfC has been clear from early in this discussion.

...as I've noted several times. That's why there's no need for the continual reiteration.

You have been picking at the threads of it but not addressing the point.

I'm addressing different points. As I said, if I assume that you're right about the images' (in)appropriateness, it has no bearing on my concerns. —David Levy 04:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"You contend that images have been inappropriately included in the article. As evidence, you state as fact that the images don't belong in the article."

I do more than that. I assert that

1. figurative depictions of Muhammad functioning purely as narrative illustrations adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad don't belong in the article, because inclusion would needlessly disaffect millions of our readers; and that
2. most of the figurative depictions of Muhammad in Muhammad function purely as such narrative illustrations, adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad. But I support the latter assertion by
3. adducing as evidence the absence of any demonstration that images such as this add anything necessary to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad. I can't prove the absence of such value, it is up to my opponents to demonstrate its presence, and none has. But I can point to their consistent failure to demonstrate such value, as evidence for the absence of such value.

So, this is more than a "contention" or "statement of fact". It is an argument, supported by evidence (the failure of my opponents to establish relevant value); one with which none of my opponents, including yourself, is able to engage. You can destroy my argument simply by demonstrating what necessary information such an image adds to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad. Please do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I assert that
1. figurative depictions of Muhammad functioning purely as narrative illustrations adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad don't belong in the article, because inclusion would needlessly disaffect millions of our readers

Even if the images didn't offend people, there would be no valid reason to include one that doesn't improve the article (as with any subject).

This is reflected in the RfC's outcome. Some "free speech"-related comments have been made, but the closers didn't determine that that there's consensus to indiscriminately include every available image as a matter of principle. "Editors should remember that calligraphic representations are the most common, and should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so."

2. most of the figurative depictions of Muhammad in Muhammad function purely as such narrative illustrations, adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad.

Others assert that the images enhance the article's encyclopedic value. I'm not saying that you're wrong and they're right.

But I support the latter assertion by
3. adducing as evidence the absence of any demonstration that images such as this add anything necessary to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad.

Indeed, you cite your opponents' failure to present a rationale that you deem appropriate as evidence that "most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article."

I can't prove the absence of such value, it is up to my opponents to demonstrate its presence, and none has.

It's up to them to demonstrate that the community's standards — not yours — have been met.

This is not to say that your standards are less sensible than the community's are. Perhaps we'd be better off if we did things your way. Perhaps not. I'm not taking either position. I'm addressing your logic ("I assert that x harms the encyclopedia unless y. I assert that my opponents haven't demonstrated y. Therefore, my opponents clearly intend to harm the encyclopedia.").

So, this is more than a "contention" or "statement of fact". It is an argument, supported by evidence (the failure of my opponents to establish relevant value)

(the failure of your opponents, in your view, to establish value relevant in your view)

one with which none of my opponents, including yourself, is able to engage.

Again, I'm not asserting that the images improve the article. You keep replying to my comments with your argument that they don't, thereby ignoring (or not understanding) the fact that this isn't among my points of contention. —David Levy 15:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, you cite your opponents' failure to present a rationale that you deem appropriate as evidence that "most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article."

I'm going to point out where you are misrepresenting me. It's a minor point but I'd appreciate it if you'd concede you made an error there. I cite (1) the number of times WP:NOTCENSORED is waved about in this debate and (2) Tarc's comments linked to in my opening comment as evidence that "most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. Users have cited WP:NOTCENSORED (and explained why they believe that the images are relevant to the article's content, a requirement noted in the policy) instead of presenting a rationale that you deem appropriate. —David Levy 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been nice talking with you, David. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardly anyone shares your point of view, that is why the RfC closed when it did. I find it rather pathetic that first Veritycheck at Talk:Muhammad and now you both there and here see fit to piddle (figuratively) upon the outcome of the discussions because you disagree with it. Do you not see how shockingly immature that is? Tarc (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I came here, to another editor's talk page, in the hope of engaging him in a discussion about the outcome of a debate that I lost. He hasn't edited for a few days, so I may have to wait a bit for a response, if he chooses to respond at all. I'm happy to wait, and I'll fully understand if he doesn't want to discuss it. I don't see any harm in that. Calling me rather pathetic and immature is the kind of behaviour I was hoping you'd left behind. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Anthony, read this part of the RfC close; "With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support." It has been determined by the Wikipedia community that there is nothing "unnecessary" about the images in the article, that they are there for a good reason, and that the removal would diminish the encyclopedia. Let me make this crystal-clear; your argument to the contrary has lost. That is why I said earlier to please drop it, as it is a failed argument. I have nothing else to say on the matter. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Good. I just came here to get Jimbo's view on the outcome. And you're right, the majority disagreed with my view. You seem to think that means I'm wrong. I don't follow your logic there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The public voted. Your side didn't get enough votes. "I'm right!" doesn't carry much weight when it comes from so few people. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess kids who like to oppose religion like to think they're the Che guevara Sussimen ballenota (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 22:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This has dragged on for a long time, and actually I think that this RfC won't put an end to it. Udoubtedly Muslims will continue to protest and there will be a flare up from those that take the "no censorship doesn't mean right to offend" point of view. On the other side of the argument the "not censored" enthusiasts and the "we're not going to let muslims tell us what to do" brigade (together, the WP majority) will hold firm. Meanwhile, the real issues of relevance, encyclopedic benefit etc only get either a cursory look in or are only taken up in any depth to advance the aforementioned pre-existing POVs of either side. At least that's how the debate has gone in the last three years I've been following it. Pretty unedifying and no one involved on either side, IMHO, comes out of it with much credit. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm insulted by that comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make it inaccurate.DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no one's arguing against our asserted right to offend. I'm arguing that it is stupid, and inimical to the foundation's mission, to do so for no good reason. WP:NOTCENSORED does assert the right to offend. It does not endorse gratuitous offense, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an insult to everyone involved in the debate, DeCausa. Think about it. "No one involved ... comes out of it with much credit." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I know what I wrote and I've thought it fairly consistently true for about 18 months. ...actually, you're right: I'm talking about the main protagonists. I can't possibly make that judgement about every single contributor. DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

DeCausa appears to have been giving a summation of the discussion, and in this case he saw little of substance or eloquence which stood out, from either side. Perhaps Anthony you could offer a different summation of the discussion? -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

DeCausa is entitled to his view. I will think about your suggestion (a summary of the discussion) and if you'd like me to contrive something, ask me on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lots of people have strong feelings about he issue. No way has been found yet to satisfy an appreciable amount of the concerns of one side whilst also satisfying the concerns of the other. I don't think the business reflects either shame or credit or whatever, people who have stood up for the right of Muslims not to be offended need not feel ashamed. People who have stood up for freedom from censorship of the encyclopaedia need not feel ashamed. Sometimes things are difficult to resolve in a mutually amicable way.

Now can we just put that behind us and work with the situation as it is. The core principle of no censorship has been affirmed but the problem of people taking offence for whatever reason remains and it can drive them away from using Wikipedia - and there's an awful lot of people out there of various ilk ready to be offended not just Muslims. The RfC on the images has outlined the boundaries for any method for dealing with the problem and they are fairly strict, but I do not believe they preclude a solution. So can we just go on and try and figure out a solution within those confines please rather than raking over things that have been well and truly decided. Perhaps some decisions will have changed appreciably in a couple of years but they most certainly will not have done so in any substantial way yet. Dmcq (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the 'core principle' that seems to have been affirmed is that Wikipedia is a badly-run amateur-bureaucratic cult more obsessed with its own policies than with producing a half-credible encyclopaedia. There are no images of Mohammed, any more than there are images of the Holy Ghost, or of the footprints of the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll. This whole debate was never about Islam, or the prophet Mohammed. Instead it has been about how far Wikipedia should go in portraying Islam as some sort of medieval throwback, because it suits the agendas of the majority of the contributors - far too many of whom would be seen as lacking in knowledge, even in the middle ages. Nobody knows what Mohammed looked like, and anyone who thinks it matters is an idiot. Still, if the idiots want to write their own encyclopaedia, why should we stop them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it's all over but the crying. And my god are some of the pro-censorship people ever crying. Resolute 04:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm arguing for intelligence not censorship. (*sniff*) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. Your aim may be noble, but how many times must your "intelligent" viewpoint be rejected by other "intelligent" viewpoints in RFCs before this ends? Seriously, there's been at least four or five since Ludwigs began this idiotic round of bickering, and the status quo was upheld every single time. A lot of productive editing time is being wasted by continuing to beat this dead horse. Except for Andy's time, of course. He quit Wikipedia in a huff a couple weeks ago, and yet, his ghost still here. Resolute 04:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I was half-way to the shops and came back to correct this but was too late, you'd already responded. I should have said "social intelligence". Most of the people involved in this dispute have no IQ problems that I can see. Umm. I just came here to have a chat with Jimbo, if he was up for it. That's all. Chewing the fat. A bit of meta-discussion. I'm frankly getting a bit annoyed with other editors telling me to shut up when I'm addressing a third party. It's, at the very least, rude. It's also a bit inconsistent, coming from a group that invokes free speech to justify disaffecting millions of our readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A meta-discussion, that sounds good. Is this a meta-meta discussion? Oh... isn't that recursive, would this then be an omega-meta discussion? Or does it never go up levels like that so there is no higher type of discussion than a meta discussion? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If all you want is a conversation with Jimbo then use the convenient "Email this user" link. You've been around way longer than long enough to know that this talk page is watched by many people and you couldn't have expected this conversation to have included only the two of you. The fact that you keep responding while claiming that you only wanted to talk with Jimbo is a bit contradictory. But if that's what you want, then just email him and stop responding. SÆdon^talk 11:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The hat says, Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. Please don't consider alerting him to any topic to be canvassing. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, in this case Wikipedia had the good fortune that the world's top Muhammad images scholar was prepared to provide background information and advice (which was ignored). I see no sign that contributors to the RfC generally understood these subtleties, or were even interested in them. The main preoccupation of many seems to have been free speech (or demonstrating the freedom to do something that it is known some people do not want us to do – regardless of the merits of doing it), and the debate, if one may call it that, was largely on an intellectual level south of South Park. Ignorant and proud of it. Yay! Still, at least there was a sufficient consensus to have calligraphy in the info box. It could have been worse. But I question the usefulness of a mass RfC on issues like that. An FAC drive might have been a better route to go. JN466 10:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep, you nailed us anti-intellectual mob-rule types good and exposed our master plan to everyone now. Jamming images into the Muhammad article was only Phase 1 of Operation IDGAF. Phase 2 will be to pants the Pope during his next homily, Phase 3 to open a hamburger cookout stand in downtown Delhi. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • IDGAF Phase 3, implimented. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Mcdonald's India doesn't serve hamburgers (or other beef products for that matter). They'll still have to wait for Tarc to implement phase 3. SÆdon^talk 04:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue is settled. Debating it now is not very useful. What could be useful would be a careful review of the existing article to check on neglected finer details. Are we being careful enough to make clear that we show no "depictions of Muhammad", but rather, visual artwork representing events in which he was involved? We should not think of a flame or a person with a blank face as a picture of Muhammad, but merely an artist's chosen way of dealing with what he does not wish to portray. We should consider very, very carefully about how we describe such images. And Christiane Gruber did provide good background and advice - do we make all these facts as clear in the article as she did in her e-mail? Does the reader really understand why Muslims object to the images, or whether they objected the same way a century or five ago that they do now, and if not, what has changed? You can accomplish a better thing for the sake of tolerance and understanding by adding the right text than you could by removing the pictures. I think it should be clear that many of us, especially here in America where the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" was actually opposed by a two-thirds of citizens in a poll, that Islamophobia is a real problem and very likely does taint some of our decision making on Wikipedia. (Though in the current Fae ArbCom case, merely suggesting such a thing is being presented as somehow improper, an "extraordinary claim" that, some say, puts the person making it at risk of administrative action) I won't claim not to be affected by some anti-Islamic sentiments myself. But if we stick to our purpose - providing all the relevant information, leaving nothing out, sticking to the sources and presenting all points of view - we can make it so our purpose of learning and our sense of fairness and freedom dominate over any bias we have, rather than the other way around. Wnt (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the RfC showed we should not be doing anything too specific about that article but trying to deal with the general problem of people being offended by various things. We should provide a way that allows them to filter easily but is not article or image specific as far as Wikipedia is concerned and where the filtering criteria are based on stuff we'd do anyway. Dmcq (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just in case anyone is coming new to this issue, it may be as well to make the points, which you would never guess from the above, that our biography of Muhammad is illustrated with six images including a depiction of Muhammad, five of which are historic Islamic miniatures, both Sunni and Shia, made to illustrate biographical accounts of his life, and also that the Farsi (Persian language) Wikipedia biography of Muhammad has also long had six images of Muhammad, without any controversy. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Modern Iran, 14th century Ilkhan miniatures and an Ottoman manuscript is sooo typical of global Islam over 1500 years. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, great thread, AHC. Good to know that POV Warrior blood is still pumping and that there are people willing to still squander tens of thousands of words and hundreds of hours of volunteer time squabbling over an issue which was decided by consensus long ago. And again. And again. And again. "I Didn't Hear That." Carrite (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• POV Warrier. How offensive you are. Well, I've been responding to others, mostly others addressing me directly. But it's terribly tedious so I think I'll stop at this point. I didn't come here to have an argument, I just wanted to hear Jimbo's view, if he felt like offering it. He's away. And I hope he's having a ball. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There are depictions of Jesus as a woman. But it would be stupid to add one of those to our Jesus article, because Jesus is not typically depicted that way. Adding an unusual depiction would be undue weight.

In the Muhammed case, adding any picture at all would be undue weight, for the same reason: Muhammed is rarely depicted, so adding one puts undue weight on something that isn't common.

I think what is happening here is that this is pushback against anything that smells of censorship, that goes too far in the other direction. We shouldn't remove the pictures solely because they cause offense, but normal undue weight considerations do require removing them. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing the greater point

Having silently read the debate about the issue of Mohammed pictures, I am struck by the absence of representation for a more strategic view about an encyclopaedic endeavour. The whole contemporary idea of concentrating knowledge in a central repository is linked to the Western Enlightenment which specifically rejected deference to any sensibility in preference to rationality and science.

Being sensitive to anyone's desire to stifle publication of anything was never part of the rational pursuit of knowledge, Wikipedia rules or not. In fact, the existence of Islamic depictions of Mohammed implies a contradiction: the change in attitudes inside Islam to depicting their prophet. Why is it now deemed offensive when in the past it was not? But I guess that question is too academic and non-bureaucratic for Wikipedia editors.

Another fundamental question that ought to be addressed is why it is that we in the West have become so ashamed of our culture and civilization that we lack the confidence to say that this is who we are, 'warts and all'? A technology spawned in the West, hosting an encyclopaedia in the Western mode, ought not to be subject to having to endlessly apologise for representing information the way it is discussed and presented inside our highest institutes of learning, petulant threats or not. If Wikipedia bows to sectarian pressure of any denomination, it ceases to be an encyclopaedia (there are also secular denominations, like the politically correct crowd who seek to garble language, ideologues from right and left, and fantasists who seek to give credibility to conspiracy theories and pseudo-sciences).

In that respect the comments by AndyTheGrump about the anally retentive, smart-arse, 'how many angels on the point of a needle' interpretation and manipulation of rules here by people clearly too beholden to their own self-importance undermines examination of the real issue at stake: if the Mohammed page were not about religion, would this debate exist at all, and if not, there was never any ground to engage in it. What if today the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster launched a campaign to protest against any 'graven image' of any pop or film star? Would we seriously debate that too? And yet, would the CFSM demand be any more or less rational than those of Islamist hardliners?

Perhaps it's good that this debate has been conducted, as an exercise in democracy if nothing else, but it does betray a narrowly fearful and provincial North American conception of the world, the West, and of what an encylopaedia should be. Perhaps this is who we really are now: fearful and bureaucratic. All the best. Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that I've missed a great game of "smear the queer" My76Strat (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Count

9999. Nice! --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

looking at that, I couldn't help but think, "There is no way he would pass an RfA today... I mean over 40% of his edits are on his own talk page." ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Humble indie bundle V - remove all links in articles

[This looks like an ad to me, and it's the first edit by User:99_mercosul_mythghoster. I vote to turn off the money spigot and remove it. Anyone oppose? Wnt (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)]

Luka Magnotta

Does sensational speculation and lurid tabloid journalism - however widely covered - really trump WP:BLPCRIME? At best this should be an article about a murder, noting that Magnotta is the prime suspect. GwenChan 19:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to state your opinion at Talk:Luka_Magnotta#Renaming_the_article:_Murder_of_Lin_Jun. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. There are plenty of examples where a fugitive's own notoriety completely trumps the crime(s) they are accused of committing. In this case, we are talking about an individual who may be one of the most wanted men in the world. It is appropriate to then use common sense rather than mindlessly misapplying aspects of a policy. Which, in this case, may be unfortunate as it seems to me that publicity is exactly what all of this is about. Resolute 01:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• A separate bio-page is an NPOV view of a person: It is difficult to pretend that person is described in a wp:NPOV manner when the article is titled "Murder of Lin Jun". We have had this situation before, and there should be a separate article for the suspect; otherwise, the remainder of a person's NPOV details about their life typically become wp:UNDUE details in a murder article. It would be like a college professor of 30 years who was charged with a crime, but details about the professor's career often would be viewed as an off-topic tangent (with wp:UNDUE weight) in describing the crime, whereas "30 years" is a major part of having an NPOV view about a person's life. Fortunately, Wikipedia is large enough to allow 2 articles in this case: 1 for the crime, and 1 for the professor. If a person is notable enough to name in a major crime, then they are notable enough for NPOV treatment in an article named for them, as a person, rather than as a crime which happens to name them. A person's entire life should not be viewed as the few hours related to a crime, as that is not an NPOV-neutral view of a person's life. Even the court cases are titled with people's names ("A versus B") rather than names of crimes, as if the court case were "Prosecution of suspect in Murder of Jane Doe". Suspects should have separate articles filed by person's name, if they are to be named in a crime. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• According to press reports, Magnotta edited Wikipedia and Stormfront, where he was hailed as a hero of free speech. --JN466 11:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Karla Homolka was semi-protected in July 2008 after an IP kept inserting Magnotta's name. Like many of the claims being made about Magnotta at the moment, it is far from clear whether 67.83.201.240 actually was Magnotta.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&page=Karla_Homolka – Actually, there was at least one earlier incident. In August 2007, there were repeated attempts to insert a rumor about Luka Magnotta and Karla Homolka being a couple into the article without citations: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. In addition, the first revision (29 July 2007) of the "Luka R Magnotta" article included the rumor. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brad_Renfro&diff=150346512&oldid=143510189 – Someone also tried to insert a Magnotta-related rumor into the "Brad Renfro" article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Bernardo&diff=151939064&oldid=151660433 – And the "Paul Bernardo" article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

All of this is true, but it was simply a rehash of material that was appearing in the media at the time. The claim that Magnotta personally edited Wikipedia remains questionable speculation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Imastarok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("I'm a star, ok?") --JN466 21:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits by Imastarok are more interesting, and it is not outside the realms of possibility that these were added by Magnotta. The media is speculating on this, as are all of us. Magnotta claimed that some people were adding things online while pretending to be him, while others say that he did this sort of thing for self-promotion. Very strange.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Holiday

I'm taking a few days off for the Jubilee weekend. On vacation with friends and the only internet available is very slow satellite internet. Therefore, I'm spending most of my limited personal and digital bandwidth on some important board discussions. Will be back reading this page and responding to whatever I can after the holiday.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Error Corection ability

I tried to fix the listing for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ray that showed 25GB per layer. A single layer disk 25GB, 2 layer 50GB, 3 layer 100GB (BD-XL), 4 layer 128GB(DB-XL). For those of you that can divide 100GB / 3 layers you would know 100/3=33.3G, NOT 25GB ! For a 4 layer disc 128GB / 4 = 32GB per layer, NOT 25GB per layer.

At first it took my edit then I noticed I wrote DB-XL instead of BD-XL so I backed up a page, edited it and saved it again. Then I got a message saying that Wiki doesn't accept original research. I could refer you to the division section on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_%28mathematics%29. Showing that division isn't new but I think you would take that wrong. I don't know if I needed a reference to show 100/3=33.3 or what it actually wanted. Telling WHAT it wanted to accept it and why it gave the error would be a big help. Saying "original research" is a little vague. I can assure you that 100/3 is 33.3 not 25. I don't have a reference for it !

You need a way to show / report obvious errors like 100/3=25. If you don't believe me then take 3 quarters to a cashier for a dollar and see what happens !

I am very knowledgeable this subject with 25 years Electronics Engineering experience but I think anyone could see a simple math error !

Beginning paragraph needs fixed where it says 3 layer BDXL disk is the same at 25GB per LAYER. 100GB /3 layers = 33.3G NOT 25G 128GB /4 layers = 32GB NOT 25G

I don't know if the message I was sent was automatic somehow but there should be a way to reply / fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.200.175 (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The citations indicate to me the article is right and you are wrong. Wikipedia is based far more on citations than peoples calculations. The layers hold different amounts. The article's talk page is where to really discuss this. Dmcq (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If the sources really both say that a 3 layer disk is 100, and that it's 25 per layer, and give numbers for 1 and 2 layer disks that imply that the 25 per layer is without overhead, that falls under one of the misuses of "verifiability, not truth" that Jimbo complains about. We shouldn't just blatantly use contradictory sources. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No the sources say 25Gb for layers 1 and 2, 50Gb for layer 3 and 28Gb for layer 4. You could have looked at the citations yourself and checked them just as easily as I did when the original poster started this. Dmcq (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If the sources say that, then it's not 25 per layer, so the page is still wrong. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Blu-ray Disc#Capacity versus Layers.

The problem was that you were discussing what the content of the article should be, not adding or changing information based on reliable sources. This is what the article's talk page is for. To edit the talk page, click on the tab labelled "Talk" at the top of the article page. It might be helpful if you created an account. This would mean that you would have your own talk page where people could talk to you personally (though not privately). People could then tell you more about Wikipedia policies and methods in a more personal setting. This is also possible with an IP address (i.e. no account) but many IP addresses are dynamic, meaning that you may have a different address the next time you log on. If you create your own account, you can also set your preferences to allow others to contact you by E-mail without you having to publicly reveal your E-Mail address.--Boson (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

So, in short, everyone has both the ability and responsibility to correct errors - however, they must appropriately referenced. Always make sure the reference does support your statements. As such, all's well in Wikipedialand (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I glanced at the page, and while of course the anon is apparently wrong on the facts, the article is weak in that it doesn't explain the discrepancy. It will seem odd to the newbie to the topic that "A single layer disk 25GB, 2 layer 50GB, 3 layer 100GB (BD-XL), 4 layer 128GB(DB-XL).". That should be explained more clearly, as it is baffling on a naive reading.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Can Jimbo (or anyone) do this?

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He does not consider alerting him to any topic to be canvassing.

I am skeptical about this statement. Surely canvassing doesn't cease to be canvassing because the person being canvassed denies that it is? Otherwise I could go to Wikipedia Review, say "hey I need some votes", but add "if you vote, be sure to send me a disclaimer that says that you don't consider this to be canvassing", and be immune to accusations of canvassing. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo considers himself to be a special case, I think. Looie496 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The critical phrase is "alerting him to any topic." It means he's interested in participating in discussions on ANY subject whatsoever. It doesn't mean he's going to come down on your side, and it doesn't mean it's impossible to canvass him. If you say "Hey, Jimbo, there's a discussion about WP:FOONOTABILITY going on at Talk:Notability/Foo," he's interested and will throw in his dollar (he has more than 2 cents). If you say "Hey, Jimbo, come help me win this RfC at Talk:Notability/Foo," that's still canvassing, and battleground, and whatever else you might have said. What he's saying is that asking Jimbo to look in is not canvassing just because it's Jimbo; it's still canvassing if asking someone else that would be canvassing. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken, I think Jimbo's right on this one. He's asserting that he maintains an open door policy, which is primarily for boosting morale. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think what Jimbo is basically saying is that he would like to be treated like an adult who can make his own decisions, and not have people worry that just because someone says "Jimbo please look at this", he is automatically going to agree with their position. (He's not, necessarily. Sometimes he agrees, and sometimes he disagrees, which is what one would expect.) To a degree, the anti-canvassing policy does not really treat Wikipedia users like adults with free will. And actually it's not a policy, it's a guideline, which supports the idea that potential "victims" of it should be allowed to "opt out". Neutron (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the real point the bit in the parentheses: "(or anyone)"? I suspect that the dislclaimer wouldn't cut much ice for canvassing accusations on the talk pages of mere mortals. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say yes and no. You can SAY this. If your behavior supports it - if everyone who canvasses you gets an insightful response but no guarantee of support - then people might even believe it. It's on Jimbo's page because his name has so much power that even a neutral alert might be considered canvassing by some. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

He can claim it, and we can (and should) ignore it. He is not above policies and guidelines. Many of his powers have been restricted (voluntarily or otherwise) here and elsewhere (Commons) because his judgment and actions didn't always correspond with normal procedures. He has known points of views on some issues, and some people try to get his support because they believe that a) he will agree with them and b) his opinion carries more weight. That neither a) nor b) always work out as wanted by the canbasser doesn't mean that the canvassing isn't attempted, and the disclaimer at the top of this talk page doesn't indicate that people are free to attempt this. As for the canvassing policy treating people as children: many people seem to ignore that the problematic editor in a canvassing situation is not the receiver of the message, but the sender. Although experienced editors could be expected to remove cnavassing posts and to ask the cnavasser to stop, not to encourage them and declare their talk page a policy-free zone... Fram (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I demur. This page has historically been used as a noticeboard - if the post is off-base, Jimbo can and will hat the topic - and I daresay we have seen some lively colloquy which would susceptible to someone shouting "CANVASS" as though they were shouting "Fire" in a theatre. By saying "do not shout 'CANVASS'" here, Jimbo has opened the door to many fruitful discussions. Because so many people follow this page (more than follow most of the regular noticeboards) there is no "net CANVASS" for any "side" of any issue. As a result, CANVASS would seem inapplicable both historically, and pragmatically. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, "canvass" doesn't depend on the result, but on the intention. That canvassing at WP:ANI would be rather stupid doesn't mean that it is suddenly allowed, and we have no such disclaimer at that page or other similar ones. "By saying "do not shout 'CANVASS'" here," he has mainly given a "get out of jail" card to people intent on forumshopping and seeking his support in things like porn images or BLP issues, where he has a tendency to jump in before really checking the facts. Fram (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

IOW, it is not "CANVASS" you are concerned with - it is a belief that Jimbo does not actually concern himself with facts. For that charge, I suggest you file an RFC/U on Jimbo -- as it is just an attack when made on this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"when made on this page"? So it would be better if I made my comments behind his back? Strange ethics you have. And of course I didn't say that he doesn't concern himself with facts, just that he sometimes takes what is presented to him as fact before really checking it first. Fram (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) (@Fram) Let's say that's 100% correct, then the description of a get out of jail free card is apt. You won't get consensus for sanctioning someone for posting here. You won't be able to close and remove posts here. The only theoretical action you could hope for would be in an individual thread suggesting the closer weight !votes that were a result of a thread here.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather a sweeping statement for something that needs to be seen on a case-by-case basis. Fram (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that in addition to me being a special case, another reason I have set this policy for this page is that I think that WP:CANVASS is overused. In many (but not all) cases where I see it cited, it's cited in an effort to suppress discussion of a point of view that someone doesn't like.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Which part of

  An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:

  The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion.

  A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.

  On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).

  On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

  Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages.

   ---wp:CANVASSING

  --seems not to have been read here (or possibly was read but not fully understood)?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm the only one, but I can't tell if you've posted that quote because you think posting here does or does not violate that guideline.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks, Cube lurker. IAC, I don't think anybody truly thinks that Jimbo would/could be unduly swayed by over-the-top rhetoric (non-neutrally worded advocacies blah blah). I wasn't referring to that so much. What I'm referencing is that CANVASSING clearly allows notification of concerned editors on their talkpages....... And the longstanding policy of Dr. (honorary, Stevenson; Knox; et al) Wales is to allow all comers free rein (reign?) W only occasional recourse to hats for scrolling up under a banner stuff reallly off the charts, I spose. --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hiya Jimbo

There's a strong possiblity I'm going to be restricted further on English Wikipedia, but whatever that restriction will be? I'll accept it. It's just become unbearible, putting up with the ever growing usage of diacritics on article titles, intro etc etc. As a layman editor & english-only reader, I weep for my fellow english-only readers, as they have to put up with the continued PoV pushing of multi-lingual editors. Multi-lingual editors who appear to be driven by 'mother tongue' pride. Gnoming seems the safest way to go, on this ever increasing Multiple language Wikipedia. I'm just so discouraged with the direction the project has taken. PS: I hope you don't mind me crying on your shoulder. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Now you know how the ancient Romans felt: Every few decades, the Romans would notice the Germanic runes kept creeping back into the written language, and they would have to again "force" use of the Latin alphabet, until finally it settled out as Fraktur font (Alt-deutsch). I think the Soviet Union just standardized as having "11 official languages" (or such) for all documents. Maybe that is why they went bankrupt, trying to document "larger mega-death thermonuclears" in every language. Perhaps keep reminding troublesome editors that the other-language Wikipedias are available for endless use of accented-letters and other diacritical marks in text. -Wikid77 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, way to go Get rid of all foreign nonsense like Conservapedia did. They have fallen back in a dreadful way, they now allow silly spellings like 'colour' in articles specifically about England. We can do better though. Move London to London, England. Also remove CE/BCE and replace it with AD/BC. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Medal for you!

		The Wiki Gold Medal
		For thinking for such an insane idea and sharing the freedom of wisdom and knowledge to all seekers. --GoShow (...............) 04:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Request Jimbo weigh in on controversial BLP issue

Jimbo, I know this has already been brought up, but when you get back from your holiday, could you please weigh in on the question of whether Luka Magnotta needs to be renamed per WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E? The discussion is primarily centered at Talk:Luka_Magnotta#Renaming_the_article:_Murder_of_Lin_Jun. Thanks. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 07:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty standard practice in such cases to rename to the event, not the person. The event is notable, not the person. I don't know anything about this particular case yet (other than seeing some lurid headlines on television) but unless Luka Magnotta would have qualified for an article before this event, then I can see no rationale for naming one after him now. A lot of the arguments that I just glanced at are typical in BLP1E cases, but longstanding tradition is that BLP1E trumps "common name" (and "common name" is not as strict a policy as some people like to believe!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hosting hate speech on Wikiquote

I do think Wikiquote should of course include quotes from Bobby Fischer which demonstrate his racism against Jewish people. I also think that it is valid to consider, within the context of broader Wikiquote policies, questions about WP:UNDUE weight of including a lot of them, when we include, it is claimed, fewer from him on the subject of Chess. But that's a wikiquote issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I couldn't find a better place to ask this question so I guess this may be the default. Recently I came across some Bobby Fischer quotes on Wikiquote, example: Bobby_Fischer#On_Jews: They are subhuman. They are the scum of the Earth. When you talk about Jews, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel of humanity. I know about WP:NOTCENSORED etc. but is this the kind of stuff Wikiquote should be hosting on WMF servers? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Depressing stuff, but he did actually say this. WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. Other classics from Mr. Fischer include "Yeah, there are too many Jews in chess. They seem to have taken away the class of the game. They don't seem to dress so nicely, you know. That's what I don't like." and "What is going on is I am being persecuted night and day by the Jews, for telling it like it is. They want to put me in jail, they're robbing me of everything I have, they're continuously lying about me. I've had enough of this shit. The latest thing they've done is I had some stuff in storage back in Pasadena for 12 years, spent a fortune on storage fees, a fortune on safes... and these God-damn Jews in America have just gone and grabbed it all."[6]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you Ian. I knew about WP:NOTCENSORED and also that hate speech is legal in the US. But for countries where hate speech is illegal this could be a problem. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington supposedly said "Publish and be damned."[7]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Recording and reporting the hate speech of others is not in itself hate speech, though. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I agree. I modified the section title accordingly. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure whether I understand your original question. If you decided that this kind of stuff isn't good to have on Wikiquote, would you leave off the quotes from this man you disagree with and only leave the 'nice' ones? If it were on Wikipedia, I could just suggest it be rewritten to explain how the guy feels without all the excessive detail, but on Wikiquote, since the intent is quotes, you don't have the ability to do that. So would you have wanted him to be entirely excluded, or have a misrepresentative picture of him via the quotes that are presented about him? -- Avanu (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC) This seems like a rhetorical question. As such I think there is no need for an answer. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Avanu, Dr.K. was worried about liability for the hate speech. That question was answered to their satisfaction. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Indeed. Thank you very much Jorgath. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Oh ok. Good to be aware of such things. -- Avanu (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Your altered title is getting further off the mark now. If the NY Times uses a quote from a racist speech as a part of a story on racism, are then then a purveyor of hate speech? Tarc (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC) If you don't like it you are free to alter it. However a NYT article would present these phrases in the context of a wider concept and criticism which could make clear that they are unacceptable. Just parading them on a website without criticism or other context may be mistaken by some as approving them or at least helping them spread. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC) The objections here seem to have been sparked by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bobby Fischer did actually say these things, removing them could be seen as airbrushing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC) IDONTLIKEIT is a cliché. But really who likes this vile garbage? It is also very offensive to many people. As far as airbrushing there is no context so airbrushing doesn't apply. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I'm depressed that Bobby Fischer said this, but he did.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Wikiquote is not the Wikipedia, it is not a place in which to delve into context and critical analysis. That is what Bobby Fischer#Antisemitic statements here is for. I really don't see a shred of a rational basis for your concern; just because wikiquote reports what a person has said does not mean that that is de facto advocacy. Do you wish to gut wikiquote:Adolph Hitler of all the anti-Jew quotes too? Tarc (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Wellington was supposed to have said that when he was asked about a proposed news report about he and his mistress. Not really comparable to hate speech. Think the article goes too far. Does it have to "directly" quote Fischer? Couldn't it just be said that Fischer was vehmently anti-semitic and cite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugginsx (talk • contribs) No. What does that mean "vehmently anti-semitic?" Says who? What is their agenda? There is a reason why direct quotes have value/meaning, it helps to define who/what a person/character is. Bobby Fischer was at one time the most prominent chess player in the world and for years in America. He has a huge legacy in the States---Searching for Bobby Fischer may have been a movie, but it is also a concept that American's are looking for the next great American Chess player. Yet despite his fame and persona, he held very hateful views. Reporting and recording those hateful views is in no way advocacy of said views. But whitewashing those views would be censorship. Now if Fischer wasn't known as an anti-semite and had a handful of anti-Jewish quotes, the appropriateness of the quotes might be questioned on that ground. But Fischer was an outspoken bigot and later outspoke anti-american. Preserving sourced materials is not a violation of the laws which govern Wikipedia and have instructive/educational value. Saying somebody is something is different from letting their own words say something.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC) It is too bad that you don't see ..a shred of a rational basis... for my concern but this is not my problem. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC) A UK citizen would probably be charged under the Public Order Act 1986 if they said these things about Jewish people, while they would have First Amendment protection in the USA.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Does Wikiquote operate under Florida law (the way en.wikipedia does)? Or is it in some other jurisdiction? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I would prefer to walk The Road Not Taken on Wikipedia. The very mention of hate speech is still hurtful to many people alive today that survived the Holocaust. Mugginsx (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC) WP:NOLEGAL covers this area. UK citizen Liam Stacey was sent to prison for 56 days after launching into a spectacular attack on black people on Twitter.[8] This was considered to be an offence under the Public Order Act 1986.[9]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC): Certainly if you live in a jurisdiction with such laws you would be at your own risk in adding such content. However just because some editors may face oppressive legal action does not mean we should remove historical realities from wikipedia or related projects to hide the fact that bad people have done and said bad things.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC) It also does not mean we should feel compelled to quote these people. Mugginsx (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC) The things that Liam Stacey said about black people would easily have met WP:CRD#2 on Wikipedia. Some jurisdictions, including the UK, regard this type of material as hate speech, which can lead to a jail term.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC) In the US repeating someone's hate speech is not in and of itself hate speech but I agree it should not be tolerated on enWikipedia. Mugginsx (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Case by case basis. If consensus holds that the hate speech quote increases the quality of the article - providing an example of Bobby Fischer's antisemitism, for example - then it should be included. But it should also not be given undue weight. Perhaps something like "Fischer made numerous antisemetic remarks over the years, such as (short quote) on (date) in (context), and other remarks alleging nefarious Jewish behavior and conspiracies against him." Don't have to list every incident, but do have to include a quote if it improves the article. WP:NOTCENSORED. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC) In Australia, Brendon O'Connell was jailed for three years in January 2011 after posting this video on YouTube, which was considered to defame Jewish people.[10] The problem is that people edit Wikipedia from different jurisdictions, which is why WP:NOLEGAL applies.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC) (EC) We shouldn't tolerate it as conversation between editors, but we can't remove it as a historical fact. The holocaust itself was beyond abhorrent. Should we remove that information too because we don't tolerate genocide?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC) The sheer length of the quotes themselve attributed to Bobby Fischer's feelings about Jews outweighs any of the other subject sections. That, to me, screams WP:UNDUE. He was a chess player afterall, not a famous Nazi, though he may have been sympathetic to their ideas. Mugginsx (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC) So now you're agreeing we should tolerate, just not tolerate as many?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC) No, but if we are to be bound by Wiki Guidelines, which it seems we are, then let us go about it and use WP:UNDUE because it is obvious that considering who the man was, and was not, it fits the criteria. I don't even see a section that long with his quotes on "Chess" for heaven's sake! Mugginsx (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Then feel free to argue on wikiquote that there are too many. That is a defensible arguement, and totally different from the one that we should remove historical examples of anti-semitism.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC) WP:UNDUE would be one way of handling this. But the reason I opened this thread was the sheer vileness of some of his comments. I wasn't aware of these comments until a recent incident where an IP wanted to add Fischer's wikiquote insults into the Kasparov article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Done! Mugginsx (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC) A good solution all around, in my opinion. Hate speech shouldn't be censored if it is encylopaedic, but it definitely shouldn't be given undue weight either. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Coda

Since nobody who actually edits Wikiquote participated in the foregoing discussion of Wikiquote, I thought I might offer my 2¢ as a Wikiquotian.

First cent: To the original poster, who opened with "I couldn't find a better place to ask this question...", one might begin at Wikiquote. It is a small community, and its Village Pump is open to all.

Second cent: Speaking only for myself, WP:UNDUE rarely becomes a problem when people pay attention to Wikiquote:Quotability. When people add quotations in order to document a point, such as whether someone is a demon or a saint, we end up with garbage articles that lack quotability. This is not to say that invective or hagiography are never quotable, there are some brilliantly said examples to be found in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, but "recording and reporting" mass quantities of garden variety expressions of such sentiments to document a point has no place in a dictionary of quotations.

Third cent: There are some at Wikiquote who do not share my perspective on the importance of how Quotability relates to the very purpose of the project. If I may be forgiven an ad hominem observation, some seem to be displaced POV pushers from Wikipedia.

(That was 3¢. Keep the change.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Almost any viewpoint can be made to look valid if one looks for enough quotes to support it. It is in the equally enthusiastic search for the opposing viewpoint that the truth becomes self-evident. Perhaps only those who lived through a particular time period, have an additional advantage in the knowing the truth. No charge for the truth. Mugginsx (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to publish quotations of hateful statements, without giving them undue weight.

(Genesis 3:4, 5; Job 1:9, 10, 11; 2:4, 5; Matthew 4:3, 6, 9)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC) and 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything hateful in those verses. --Dweller (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• - Are we able to affect Wikiquote from here or is it like commons - independent and separate from this section of the foundation project ? - as I understand it, there seems to be no interdependent responsible relationship - basically - Commons is nothing to do with En Wikipedpia and WP:Wikiquote is nothing to do with commons or en wikipedia - all the individual creations of the foundation are only responsible for themselves - and the foundation claims to have no responsibility for any of them ? Which is why imo we have a totally irresponsible project, no one is taking any responsibility for anything - The Wikipedia ethos/ethic is based in faceless irresponsibility and we have a duty of care to explain and publicize that to readers.Youreallycan 21:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Placing all articles of living people under stabilization

Dear Sir,

There is an intense (but fully polite) discussion currently on Russian Wikipedia policies forum (Стабилизация статей о современниках). One participant suggesting to put all articles of living people under stabilization. That means than no edits will shown to visitors until they are checked and confirmed by one of patrollers. Some other participants (including myself) are strictly opposing this idea. From my personal point of view, that breaks the core idea of a «encyclopedia that anyone can edit» by introducing some mid-term stage of «encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but not everyone can see». And that would be not particular oftenly vandalized articles, but a large set of articles of a specific thematic. Secondly, if I understand the US law properly, the fact of a technical possibility to place a libel at a Internet resource doesn't constitute a crime charges for the resources. The libel's author holds the responsibility. The recent Florida case (the student is charged but not the Facebook) suggests that I am right and that here the US law is the same as in Russia. Still the participant proposing this policy change insist that this is «a J. Wales direct recomendation». Is it really what you recommend and support?

Respectfully, --NeoLexx (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I am not Jimbo, but I think it is a fantastic idea. I don't think people realize the harm that a negative or poorly-sourced/written article can do to a living person, and it would be far, far better to put such articles into a holding pen until they have been reviewed by established editors. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

By established editors you presumably mean registered-only established editors? --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting BLPs under a "pending changes" rule was discussed at length in multiple places. As only about 2/3 of the editors backed it, it was not implemented. Collect (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Jimbo either, but I agree with reservations - it's a good idea, but it's got potential for abuse. My personal reccomendation is to give it a trial period. It's not about the law, it's about not hurting people. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Also not Jimbo... In my opinion Level-1 pending changes protection would be a fantastic idea for many of our BLP articles, but I don't think I'd be entirely comfortable with a wiki-wide policy saying that BLP's should automatically be protected). It seems too much like the hatchet approach I suppose. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It already had a trial period. It failed. Edit: We're also each talking about different polls. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As for me, I love Collect's comment. We don't agree on everything, not even close. But "as only about 2/3 of the editors backed it, it was not implemented" is quite insightful in terms of identifying where our real problems are as a community. As the closest thing we have to a "constitutional monarch" I remain deeply concerned about how our traditions of accomodation (which are awesome, don't get me wrong) have left us in some ways captive to minority viewpoints. This is a complex and really interesting governance issue - how to respect minority viewpoints while at the same time allowing majority viewpoints to generally prevail. We are at our healthiest when we do both.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo highlights a very important aspect of the problem. 2/3 is enough to override a filibuster in the US Senate, yet, somehow, on Wikipedia it's a "only". I do disagree with the view that this is "complex and interesting" however - it's quite simple actually. Since when did Wikipedia adopt the Liberum veto as its model of governance? Or to put it another way, why are we letting a disruptive vocal minority derail good ideas and hold us hostage to some ill conceived immature agenda?VolunteerMarek 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, re-read Jimbo's post, above, at the part "how to respect minority viewpoints" (emphasis on "respect"). What we ultimately want is "consensus" as a buy-in from everyone (acting in good faith), rather than the majority railroading the "vocal minority"; plus another "complex and interesting" issue is to get "due process" in debating the topics. I favor the famous Delphi Technique, which everyone knows, to vote multiple times, with debates at each iteration, until reaching a specific iteration or supermajority vote. It is important that people prepare, planning multiple votes in advance, until the debate has answered all opposing issues, and then the group re-votes, but we need a "quorum" of how many people constitute a "representative sample" of Wikipedians to make a decision. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel the "all or nothing" misnomer is the largest factor derailing trust. PC ought to be an available tool! It should never be forced upon an entire category or class of article. Imagine this sites demise if every page was fully protected. Also imagine if full protection didn't exist because the weeds of collective fear had choked all of the flowers. Yes sir, veto powers exist for good reason and you estrange logic for sheathing your own. IMO My76Strat (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to VolunteerMarek, vocal minorities on the Wikimedia projects can get their way through a mixture of knowing the right arguments and out-and-out filibustering (particularly the old strategem of wikilawyering on every single opposing viewpoint, generating the appearance of non-consensus). It's to the point where a some editors expect to get their own way all the time. For example, the democratic decision to hold that SOPA blackout was virulently condemned by many who opposed it, despite the fact that the vast majority were in favour - apparently some animals consider themselves more equal than others. Your liberum veto analogy is an excellent one. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Neolexx raises a point which concerns me. Wikipedia enjoys safe harbor protection because it acts as a "mere conduit". If all BLP changes are to be vetted, what does that do to the protection? Also, what does that mean for the editor who approved the change? Right now, if I see a controversial fact that has a cite to a book or other source that I don't have access to, I'm going to aasume good faith and let the edit stand (i.e., not revert). However, if I have to perform an action to make the edit live, I'm probably not going to stick my neck out if I can't access the source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Neil. It seems likewise you would act upon the same reservations prior to appending a protected edit request? Yet I presume you agree with their need; and can observe their functionality amidst these identical concerns. Additionally, when you append an edit request, the entire attribution is recorded as your credit. Under PC, the original editor retains attribution while you are shown as the reviewer. If anything, this provides a buffer that exceeds the current practice. My76Strat (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Pending-Changes approved edits quickly but safely: During the trial period(s?), there were so many people running to allow pending changes that I had trouble finding changes to approve. The vast majority of changes have been harmless, and easy to allow. However, the great benefit is to stop the whoppers which some pranksters submit, such as "BREAKING NEWS: WP has an exclusive source that So-n-So, depressed by the scandal, has committed suicide this past hour, but news agencies are not allowed to report until police leave the scene". Yes, you heard it here first, pranksters often murder the Truth, using Wikipedia as their WP:SOAPBOX, and it has upset many people with close ties to those subjects. Of course, if we had more content-filters on edits, then words such as "breaking news" or "suicide" could trigger a "Pending alarms" interface, so that the most-alarming phrases would require special authorization. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Was there ever actually a decision on the recent RFC? That page indicates that the discussion is closed but that the coordinating admins are working on the "close" (meaning the decision), and that note is dated May 24. I looked on the talk page but didn't see an answer. Was a decision announced somewhere else? Or am I missing something? On the unresolved "constitutional" issue, I agree with Jimbo. This subject has been debated and discussed from all sides, and all viewpoints have been listened to, for a period of years. Now the majority should prevail. Neutron (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestion that it can or should take two weeks or over to close a wikipedia RFC, is a bit amusing imo.- Youreallycan 22:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's review, shall we?

There was a consensus for a two-month trial with a fixed ending date. Those who supported the trial trusted those who were to run the trial to do what they said they would do and end it on that date. The ending date was ignored.

In response to this, there was a new discussion and a new consensus for a "we really mean it this time" drop-dead date. This consensus was also completely ignored.

Then Yet Another RfC was closed with an overwhelming consensus for a firm two week deadline for removal from all articles -- which was ignored.

Then an admin get blocked for following the clear consensus and removing pending changes from articles. As far as I can tell this block had no negative repercussions for the blocker.

Finally, after the villagers stormed the castle with pitchforks and torches trying to Kill the Undead Thing, Pending Changes was, at long last, removed from all articles with a call for a future RfC on the issue.

Since then, calls for a firm and clear published policy that promising to try something for a limited amount of time and then breaking that promise is not allowed on Wikipedia have resulted in ... no policy.

And now we are two weeks in to closing the new RfC despite a clear 178 to 308 to 17 (35.4% to 61.2% to 3.4%) result. The odd thing is that the 35.4% was "Never!", the 3.3% was "Not Now" and the 61.2% was "Turn it back on and keep it on." --Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys I couldnt agree more...

Hey guys I couldnt agree more with this guys. I really don't get why more people just dont get it.

Great post, keep it up.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.3.141.223 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked as a spambot, but the abuse filter forbids deletion of any part of this? Robot solidarity! 71.212.251.217 (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Plea

I’m being asked if the draft available for edit here: Talk:NXIVM#Forbes_coverage describes #3 at Talk:Keith_Raniere#Press well enough for it to appear in the mainspace of the article NXIVM . However, I live just a few miles from him and it and have read so much of this material that I don’t feel comfortable editing the article. Also, you have asked me not to edit the mainspace. Nevertheless, I am as you know alarmed by the coverage and feel the matter to be of great importance. Thank you for all you have done with regard to this serious and difficult matter. What should I do next? PLEASE help me find someone who would work with them on this. I will be available as a reference librarian or some such but I can’t edit stuff for the mainspace. Chrisrus (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I will confess to having reviewed the information linked by you. My stomach is week for articles like these, though I understand their story is notably told. I annotated some redundant text on the talk page and commend the reasonable efforts at neutrality, though I did not verify the sourcing. My76Strat (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Consensus of Thoughtful Editors

I am having trouble with

"But there are cases where the consensus of thoughtful editors is that the reliable sources are in fact wrong - this is not uncommon - and in such cases what we generally do is go with the truth - certainly that's what we should do."[11]

This assumes that the judgement of a group of random editors is superior to the judgement of a group of reliable sources. At one time it was widely believed that a primary cause of peptic ulcers was psychological stress (not to be confused with chronic stress). Yet there never was and never will be a clinical study that links the two, because we now know that most peptic ulcers are caused by Helicobacter Pylori infection.[12] (Barry Marshal won a Nobel Prize in 2005 for discovering this.[13])

It would not be difficult to gather a consensus of thoughtful editors that believe that peptic ulcers are primarily caused by psychological stress, and indeed the Wikipedia page on peptic ulcers (which tends to attract editors who have peptic ulcers) disagrees with the Helicobacter Pylori and Barry Marshall pages (which tend to attract editors who are scientists or doctors). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Correcting sources is typically for minor factoids: The example above, with the cause of peptic ulcers, is a rare case. Most of the time, the clever editors have been correcting "factoids" in reliable sources, such as when the National Hurricane Service updates a windspeed in a hurricane report with mph, but copies the prior speed as an unchanged km/h (and then news agencies post the same incorrect speed), where it seems obvious that the windspeed changed drastically (when reading related text), and the repeated windspeed in km/h was copied in error, and should be *omitted* or estimated from the mph number, more likely to be accurate. Another example is like, "Columbus sailed in 1792" where the "7" (in a bogus Optical Character Recognition) should be "4" to become "1492" or consider, "Queen Elizabeth first ascended the throne at age 62" incorrect flipping age "26" to be 62, perhaps repeated in many sources, thinking age 26 seemed too young to be Queen of the whole thing, anyway. There are also problems with birth years, etc. Again, most of the errors in reliable sources tend to be incorrect "factoids" which are often easily corrected by comparing related text about the same events, and logically adjusting to coherent facts. However, the danger of inventing medical facts is a good warning. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, a source might say that Columbus sailed in 1493, and an editor corrects it to 1492 ... problem is, it's talking about the Christopher Columbus#Second voyage and now the article is fouled up. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

To expand on your analogy, imagine that all the sources for an article say 1493, and they specify the 1st voyage. You, I, and several other "Thoughtful Editors" all agree that 1493 is complete bollocks. And we are right. Should we abandon Verifiability in favor of Truth? I say no. The fact that we cannot find sources for something we know to be true through original research should set off alarm bells in our minds, and we should seek the advice of other editors through an RfC or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Our imaginary Columbus example seems silly, but when editing engineering-related articles this sort of thing happens all the time. There are a huge number of technical details that we all learned in school, but cannot find in any reliable source. Sometimes all we can find are a couple of sources that are outdated or wrong. The problem is that it sometimes happens that our professors were all wrong in the same way. Unlike science, engineering is full of rules-of-thumb that give you good results when you design things, yet are wrong on a theoretical basis. Doctors have the same problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, if several editors know the truth about something off hand, it should be easy to find a source that says what they think. Wnt (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That was my thought as well. Rather than do what is described in the quote at the start of this section, I ask myself why I can't find a citation? There is an old saying; it isn't what you don't know that hurts you -- its what you know for sure that isn't true. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fox news

Fox news on porn, Wikipedia:[14] Albacore (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The culture of Wiki is such that a brouhaha would ensue to actually effect the change. Would require an iron clad policy backed up by penalties for its abrogation. Cmt - I.e., it's called "institutional wp:BIAS." For example, I cast a !vote for the deletion of "Mooseknuckle" and this, along with the eventual deletion of this partucular wp:DICDEF article, was deemed completely non-controversial. But, dare say, when I immed. thereafter thought to nom "Camel toe" for deletion, all hell broke loose, the vast majority of !voters making an insecure child's tantrum at the prospect of being deprived of a favorite teddy bear seem mild (accusing me of every type of nefarious motives imaginable: disrupting WP to make a point, ad infinitum, with but one or two commenters limiting their arguments to any actual point at hand. But, whatever.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, one thing that we could do might not bee too hard. I got this idea from the NOINDEX debate. How hard would it be to apply a similar tag, which NOINDEXES a page from search with SafeSearch (or similar) on, but is accessible to a search engine with SafeSearch off? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus to permit "tagging" of images. I suspect that Wikipedia will have to "force consensus" to meet up with all the new statutes being enacted, however. Collect (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this might have to be a "directive from the Foundation to meet Florida law" or somesuch. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no neutral way to mark content as "safe". It is extremely viewpoint dependent and in the worst case our personal view of the world or what the audience might expect. While "safe" sounds nice as word, it actually divides the content in "safe" and the opposite of safe (try to imagine suitable words for yourself). This second part feels like and is some kind of discrimination, since it imposes the personal view of the "tagger" onto the audience, which applies to both directions. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems fairly implausible to me that a child could "stumble" upon a "vast repository of pornographic images"... I've managed to rack up 12,000-odd edits and viewed countless articles yet have very rarely come across images that are sexual in nature or depict nudity. Of course, if a child types in "penis" or "sex" then they're going to find some frank, illustrative material. I wonder what Fox News' definition of "pornographic" is? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the day a kid looking for free pics of, say, Skittles candy at the Commons hits the 4th image down, that will sure be one interesting student-teacher conversation. Tarc (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There's all these references to Commons, but how many of our readers actually go to Commons? I find it unlikely that very many do that haven't been sent there from some sort of news article discussing this very "controversy". Now, can you stop mentioning Commons, a separate Wikimedia site, and actually discuss Wikipedia? Silverseren^C 00:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, Tarc has a point about File:Skittles SoftCore.jpg. It isn't helping us build an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of Commons is to provide a repository of educational resources in general, not just to help Wikipedia. Dcoetzee 01:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What is educational about a young lady pouring skittles on her tattooed groin? I can see the image being used for artistic purposes, which is really entertainiment, not education, in this context. So, it's an entertaining image, but educational? I don't think so. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't look at the image until now. I would vote to delete this particular image as out-of-scope, it's a non-notable work of art and I struggle to imagine an educational purpose. Dcoetzee 01:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It isn't educational in the slightest, but the Commons regulars bloc-vote to keep such things citing it being "different" or "unique", because uptil now the universe has been deprived of seeing sugar-coated candy on a woman's vagoo. The same reason why there are 50+ different pictures of penises, because each represents a unique and varied view of the World of Cock. And Seren, kindly stick a cork in it. Don't presume to instruct others on what they can and cannot discuss. Tarc (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I was asking you to discuss Wikipedia, as that's what Suriel was talking about in terms of searching for sex-related articles, which has nothing to do with Commons. (And, yes, that image should be deleted unless there's actually an article it's relevant to and used in.) Silverseren^C 05:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fox News here makes a vague reference to Children's Internet Protection Act, a law in the U.S. requiring libraries receiving "E-Rate" funds to use censorware to block random internet porn unless adults or people doing research request otherwise. Note that according to that article, within four years 1/3 of libraries chose to reject this significant subsidy, rather than suffer this affront to principles of freedom of press and inquiry. It's not like libraries have a huge pool of funds, either. Note also that using such censorware means that porn from whatever source, including Wikipedia, would be blocked to these children, so what exactly would a Wikipedia block be supposed to accomplish? Doing parents' job for them, because only Fox News knows how to raise their children? Their reporter also failed to understand that the proposed image filter would not block anyone who wanted the images, of any age, from obtaining them, as Wikipedia still fails to require a photo ID from editors when they click the Create A New Account button. Imagine that... an encyclopedia that believes that your right to knowledge shouldn't flow from having your national ID card in good standing. Truly subversive, that is. Wnt (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Folks, you are all being trolled silly. Robert Greenwald exposed this nonsense in Fox Attacks: Decency and "Fox News Porn" in 2007.[15][16] Fox "News" is in no position to criticize Wikipedia for hosting sexual content when, according to Greenwald, Fox "News" has a long and sordid history of distributing it on their own network channel 24/7.[17] Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fox News has its issues, but I myself support the idea of some kind of filter on WMF projects' adult content. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's how repressive regimes begin. First you start with the sexual content that offends people, then you move on to the religious content, and finally, the political content. Funny how it's always the people screaming "freedom" and "liberty" the loudest who are always trying to curtail it. The facts show that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers some topics and subjects that might concern sexual content. As good people who only want the best for this site, we hope such content is conveyed with a respectful and reasoned approach, in an educational manner and with an eye on informing readers and improving access to knowledge. Nothing about this statement says that we must cover all subjects, just that it should be relevant and informative to human knowledge. Can Fox "News" say the same? No, they cannot, and more importantly, will not, because their primary impetus is not to inform and educate but to disinform and promote ignorance. More to the point, they sexualize the content they report in a demeaning and gratuitous manner, so much so, that many people would call Fox "news porn". Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of what happens when Wikipedia censors:

File:Scunthorpe problem.png

Scunthorpe problem

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks, now I learned something today AND was highly amused! - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A Wikipedia Badge for you!

	Wikipedia Badge
	Thanks for founding Wikipedia. As a reward, have this official Wikipedia award, only for the best of Wikipedians. ThePeriodicTable123 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)