Talk:Main Page/Archive 112

Archive 105

←

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

Getting sued for writing stuff

Just a hypothetical question, has anybody on Wikipedia ever gotten in to legal troubles for editing stuff? Like libel or something else? What about image copyrights? Just curious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.233.165 (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Seigenthaler controversy.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 08:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit murder-suicide#Wikipedia controversy. See also: all of the recent WikiScanner stories that've been carried in a number of major newspapers. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguablly the most serious is the Fuzzy Zoeller case where the person is likely to be sued. In first above case, the person lost his job but is not likely to be sued, the second case it appears to be genuine vandalism and so although it has had some rather nasty consequences for the people involved, nothing much is likely to come from it... Nil Einne 11:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Going by memory; the Seigenthaler controversy vandal resigned his job but was rehired, the Chris Benoit murder-suicide#Wikipedia controversy vandal was interrogated by the police and had his computer confiscated as evidence (don't know if he got it back or not), and the Fuzzy Zoeller vandal has yet to be identified (last I heard, they knew what company owned the computer that the vandalism/libel came from but had not yet identified the individual responsible). WAS 4.250 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Skutt Catholic High School. --Maxamegalon2000 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Read and Google WikiScanner to find out about hundreds of people and organizations that have gotten into hot water for anon editing that was vandalism or conflict of interest editing; from royalty in Europe to CIA to Australian politicians to some guy in the South African Gov't who was relieved of his job. WAS 4.250 19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Skutt Catholic High School case seems pretty absurd to me. I revert vandalism like that to school articles daily. I can't imagine if the school decided to sue each time. In fact, the stuff the article quoted seems pretty mild to me.

"It's (sic) tuition is ridiculously high, too. Not to mention you get an awful education there. 
They put more emphasis on sports than they do education. No wonder almost all kids there are complete idiots."

"As many have found, kids have gone unpunished for such crimes as verbal assault, physical abuse and alcohol and substance abuse."

No profanity, no personal attack on a teacher/classmate. Vandalism to school articles is usually worse than the above. Of course, the school has a full legal right to sue, but I personally strongly disagree with their stand. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 22:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because it was a rational argument rather than an irrational, childish smear. Would you sue a 12 year old kid who cursed at you or a young adult who wrote a convincing piece about how you did something illegal? 128.227.146.247 23:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I still think the school overreacted, but perhaps this will scare away the vandals. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I got a good idea, if we put a BIG warning on the edit page that vandalizing Wikipedia could get your house raided by police and SUED I think vandalism will stop. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupid2 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

lol. Actually, adding it onto the warning template might be a good idea (I'm not joking). Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia languages" should be updated with the Hungarian version having more than 75.000 articles

Would you please fix it? Adam78 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone's updated it.-Wafulz 00:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Radical proposal

Lets add a Featured Quote of the day!Tourskin 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That could actually be pretty interesting, where could it go though?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it should go between the featured article section, and the Did you know... section. Lord Dreamy ^§ 01:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote says "Hi!" The Placebo Effect 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia is not wikiquote. PseudoEdit ^(yak) _(track) 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you put this between the featured article section, and the Did you know... section, how many items would you remove from In the news and On This Day to maintain some sort of balanced layout? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove? I would say add, to keep it equal. Like this:

Today's featured article	In the news
Did you know...	On this day...

EARL

Featured Quote
Did you know...	On this day...

You see? Lord Dreamy ^§ 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of the main page is to feature the encyclopedia's content. A quote is not encyclopedia content. Plus, how would they be seleted? "*Support very intelligent sounding" and "*Oppose doesn't sound good"? That's rather subjective, as can be expected, since there is really no objective way to pick a quote. In conclusion, this isn't happening. Picaroon (t) 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out how it might fit in. Lord Dreamy ^§ 02:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And, to be fair, that's essentially how featured pictures are chosen now :) -Elmer Clark 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't fit well, as wikipeida is not a repository of quotations. We have Wikiquote for that purpose. ffm 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets go ahead and get rid of ITN then, we have Wikinews for that
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Where would we get the quotes from? ITN is to highlight newsworthy information that led to an article update in Wikipedia - nothing to do with WikiNews. I don't think there are enough quotes that belong in Wikipedia articles to make something like this work. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured media of the day

If you want to put something new on the main page, I think it would be a much better idea to do a "featured media" of the day - a movie or sound file, like the Media-of-the-day I set up on Commons. Raul654 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For that one, I must agree. Lord Dreamy ^§ 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a better suggestion than the quote thing. But are there enough featured media files for one a day? Picaroon (t) 02:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a large enough pool of videos and sounds to feature a different one every day for several years. (I say this having upload a very large number myself) But they aren't "featured", because the "featured sounds" process is basically a ghost town, and there is no such "featured video" designation that I know of. Raul654 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We should just use Commons' list of featured media; having our own processes for those is redundant anyway. Might help promote Commons, too, which would be good – Gurch 14:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be cool to have a variable section. The first day a video, then a list, then a sound etc. Maybe a different type of a thing every day of the week. I think it would be cool, if technically possible.
Note: I didn't really think about it too much, so there's probably a major flaw. Oh well...Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know we had a Featured sounds process. Mr.Z-man 17:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across it about a week back, but forgot about it until now. Maybe raising awareness of the fact that Wikipedia contains videos, and sounds (let's face it, most of our readers don't know about that), would show people that Wikipedia is really different than the traditional encyclopedias, and display the website in a different light. It would also bring editors to featured nominations discussions which are currently little known (like featured sound). Of course, we would have to emphasise that encyclopedic value counts. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

unindent: I would suggest that since the Main Page belongs to all of the Wikipedia community, that this discussion will need much wider play than just here at Talk:Main Page. I would suggest posting a note at the Community Portal and the village Pump. For the record I ardently opppose the addition of anything to the Main Page, sounds, lists, doesn't matter. IvoShandor 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Videos are included in features picture (see Last Weeks Signpost) And I would be opposed to adding featured sounds to the main page before they start getting promoted at a constant rate (greater than 2 a week) Although Featured Lists are being promoted at a rate at about 1 per day. The Placebo Effect 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the above listed reasons I slightly oppose adding a Featured media. Reason why is because i thought a quote was more different than what we already have. A featured media is similar to a featured picture. A featured quote is informative because quotes are used by people all the time - like "I'll be back" for instance. Just my opinion. Tourskin 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

MOTD is unsustainable

Right now, movies come under my jurisdiction at featured picture candidates because movie is a contraction of moving picture. There are only two featured movies, Image:Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894.ogg (which I promoted today) and Image:Bombers of WW1.ogg. There are only 12 featured sounds, and featured sound candidates is a swampy backwater, complete with chirping crickets (now there's a good idea for a featured sound). In other words, we'll burn through the collection in 2 weeks.

The question of having a MOTD is irrelevant, because right now we cannot have one regardless of what the consensus is unless we up the promotion rate by three orders of magnitude. MER-C 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To slightly modify, I suggest

Today's featured article	In the news
Featured quote	Today's featured picture
Did you know...	On this day...

if you have to. If not... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest the following:

Today's featured article	In the news
Did you know...	On this day...
Featured quote	Today's featured picture

Since that way we'd be adding on the FQ (featured Quote) near the bottom as if its a new addition to the Main Page. A new quote in my opinion would be very informative - you know... what people in the past said. Tourskin 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not lose focus that this is the Wikimedia encyclopedia project

Let Wikiquote have its quote of the day and Commons have its media of the day. Picture of the Day is even tenuous and highly duplicative with Commons, but I'm not about to suggest that section be removed - yet. The four main sections at Main Page play a direct role in showcasing and encouraging improvement in the encyclopedia (TFA - > better content, ITN -> currency, DYN -> expansion, OTD -> history, which binds all human knowledge). That said, a portal at en.wikimedia.org fed by RSS feeds from all Wikimedia projects in English would be a wonderful idea. But let's not have that portal here. --mav 03:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could replace the featured picture with a featured list.... I'll get my coat. -- !! ?? 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mav makes an excellent point. I think featured pictures differ from featured pictures on Commons, because here, we focus on encyclopedic value in a way that Commons doesn't, but that's neither here nor there. A featured quote would also suffer from serious POV problems- are we endorsing what is said in the quote? Wikiquote is the place for quotes, not here. J Milburn 12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily just a suggestion of endorsement either. For example lot of Bush quotes may obviously not be an endorsement but will have serious BLP, POV and other issues so yeah for many reasons a quote is probably a bad idea Nil Einne 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hah, what an argument, considering how a picture of a whipped slave, a Jew being shot by Nazis and various other images attract such issues. Tourskin 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Um no? Those pictures are in no way POV and the objections have been to their being shocking. Atropos 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

{end indent} I agree with mav, I would like a site that showcased most Wikimedia sites: quote, picture, article, book, course, animal, etc., etc. As to content, each site already chooses their own, so the same one for that day would be on the showcase page. Simple. Shir-El too 23:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange how they are shocking but seemingly nuetral? You gotta be kidding me. They are shocking because they were offensive. Thats why its shocking. Ok well I see that the usual Atropos and Nil have come to counter my suggestion so I think I better withdraw before I "take it personally" Tourskin 02:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, according to most of the comments I have read they were shocking because people didn't like to see the brutality that humans are capable of or felt it was unsuitable for children. They didn't find the content offensive per se but just horrific. Perhaps if we'd had a hardcore porn picture then people would have found it offensive but we didn't (and besides that the issue of neutrality still doesn't come in to such a situation). On the other hand, "Wow! Brazil is big" or " Rarely is the question asked, is our childrens learning?" have a far different set of issues Nil Einne 10:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I just think its funny how a wikiquote would not be neutral and everything else neutral. What people say can be important or comical.Tourskin 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a fight with you, Tourskin, and I certainly don't want this to escalate into some month-long flamefest, but I'm not sure you quite understand what we mean by neutral. Quotable comments are frequently significant either because the position they advocate or how they reflect on the speaker. Quoting Gandhi or Hitler or Hobbes or Voltaire could easily be interpreted as Wikipedia endorsing the stance the quote is taking, which would be non-neutral of us. Quoting a "Bushism" or something similar could easily be interpreted as mocking the person being quoted, which would be non-neutral of us. Being "shocking" is far less of a problem than being "non-neutral." In fact, if the shocking information is educational, it isn't a problem at all. Atropos 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... now I see more clearly what you mean. I still think its a good idea, though I can imagine the long list of losers who have nothing better to do than complain - I still think its great to have certain quotes placed up there - whats the harm of having an Arnie quote of "I'll be back" or say Richard Dean Anderson of SG-1 saying "Stronger, faster, better!". We don't have to have Hitler screaming a quote about how pure his Aryan race is - we could have a Churchill quote instead - how many would you say know of the famous speech of Churchil after B of Britain? I would say in this day and age few in my younger generation. Therefore to counter your point regarding the endorsement of quotes, we can carefully select appropriate quotes that will be meaningful and yet neutral. Only a nazi-sympathizer can argue against a Churchill quote - and I say to hell with them!! By the way I appreciate your argument... Tourskin 07:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because those of us who are not Conservative are blatantly Nazi. (And yes, I know Churchill was once not Conservative, but I can CERTAINLY think of a quote of his that I despise- something like [off the top of my head] 'When you're young, it is evil to not be Liberal. When you have grown up, it is stupid not to be Conservative.') J Milburn 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but see wikiquote:Winston Churchill#Misattributions. Laïka 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh bollocks. Sorry. J Milburn 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't been clear on my point, so hear it is, with extra extra emphasis: "CAREFULLY SELECTED QUOTES". Gees. Tourskin 20:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

These "CAREFULLY SELECTED QUOTES" won't be biased because we can have someone like Raul choose them and people ask for them on certain days - like the way we select FA's. So like on Battle of Britain Day we can have Churchill's speech: "never in the field of conflict... so many to so few etc..."Tourskin 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

On what completely non-biased criteria would they be carefully selected?--APL 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This NPOV argument that people keep spouting, is it not similar to suggest that wikipedia is currently endorsing The Siege of Malakand on the front page? I mean, we're displaying a whole bunch of info on it, if we have a featured quote, couldn't the quote context also be included, therefore reducing this supposide bias? Its the same premise really.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Each of our sections, with the exception of Featured Content, serves to highlight a point of Wikipedia which we are proud of, but which may still require work: ITN highlights articles about recent events, which often need sourcing or copyediting, DYK highlights new articles which often need expanding, OTD highlights articles on important events - something Wikipedia is surprisingly bad at. Plus, there's an obvious copyright issue: Wikipedia's Main Page is currently only for free-content. Without reopening that old debate, I'd like to point out that many quotes are copyrighted: Wikiquote can only use most quotes under fair use (to take examples from above "I'll be back", "Stronger, faster, better!"). Another issue is that a combination of WP:ASR and WP:OR would forbid us from using quotes of Wikipedians, and hence all the quotes would be by other people with no connection to Wikipedia; how does that showcase the uniqueness of Wikipedia's user generated content? Laïka 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! Surely someone from the East India Company said something important, we could tie it in with this day for instance or something like that! That doesn't mean that wikipedia is trying to revive an extinct mercenary service or celebrate British rule over India. And yet if we included Richard Dean Anderson giving a humourous quote its somehow biased? Give me a break!!Tourskin 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Historical quotes, like "vae victus" and "veni vidi vici"? Surely these are not under Imperial Copyright law, lol? There's lots of quotes that pre-date copyright era that we can use no?Tourskin 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that all of the things currently on the front page are time-related. Featured articles, Featured photos and DYK entries are from recently promoted or recently created articles. The 'On this day' and 'In the News' sections relate to this specific day of the year. All very topical stuff. But quotes just "are". Getting a decent quote from something someone said today might be tough on a regular basis - getting a quote that relates specifically to this day of the year - also tough. Using a "Featured quote" would be the job of WikiQuote - not Wikipedia. I don't think this is a good idea. SteveBaker 05:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

By that logic shouldnt we ditch the Featured Pictures? That sounds more like a WikiCommons thing than a Wikipedia thing
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true for many FA articles which may have been created ages ago. Lol no one is listening to me. When feature a quote, will it not then be time relevant? Same thing for Featured Articles!!! people when we feature the quotes we can then have it posted. Just like we feature an article. Your argument is flawed by this manner for both an FA and an FQ would be relevant after they are promoted.Tourskin 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly would support replacing the featured picture box with a featured list box. --mav 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a standard featured quote in OTD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdiaob (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I LOVE WIKIPEDIA

I got lot of information from Wikipedia and it is my best Encyclopedia webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayani007 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice to know we can help someone. :-) ΚαροτΜαν 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I also have found a lot of valuable information from Wikipedia in just my first time of using this sight. It gave me some much needed information on just one issue. Thanks Wikipedia for being here for the one's that get what they are looking for. This is the best sight I've been introduced to and i'll use it for as long as it's here. Thank You!! (user CCradick) October 26, 2007.CCradick 02:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, nice to know we helped someone. Dreamy ^§ 02:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Be sure not to use Wikipedia as a reference for academic work. The academic community does not consider Wikipedia a reliable source for anything, ever. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Case in point, the woefully biased article on plug-in hybrids being championed on the main page as a beacon of hope for all mankind alongside a marxist world government. Don't you dare think for yourself or disagree, you will be called a neocon! --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What backwards university accepts any encyclopedia as a reliable source? IvoShandor 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. • Lawrence Cohen 16:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia is a large part of research of various subjects both for school and work. Of course I don't cite Wikipedia itself, but I do site some of the citation that Wikipedia uses. It's a great project and can only be a positive contribution in someones life. 68.143.88.2 13:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When I worked as an editor, this is what I always told my reporters, and in my opinion, what all academics should say about all encyclopedias. They are simply good starting points. IvoShandor 15:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A hypothetical question

Just wondering: What would we do if, for some reason, we ever wanted to create an encyclopaedia article named 'Main page'?? Not very likely, I know, but it's theoretically possible! (i.e. if something called 'Main page' became notable in its own right.) Let's just hope it never happens. :) Terraxos 01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation, I assume. -Killian

No, as the Main Page is not an article, it would be in the article namespace. Or if it was a book called "Main Page", the title would be Main Page (Book), and so on... Dreamy ^§ 03:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone asks this question again I'm gonna get a dirty 18th century flintlock and stick it to my mouth... I know this has been asked a brazillian times in the last few months. Tourskin 05:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What will we do if someone writes a book called Main Page about a guy called Flintlock who lives in 18th century Brazil? Nil Einne 09:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Note this doesn't actually says what we would do. Disambiguation or redirects here/see also would be exceptionally ugly solutions which is why many people believe it's a mistake for things to continue as they are now. Simply calling it Main Page (book) without disambiguation or 'redirects here'/'see also' would be bad, particularly if the item is very noteable. If we changes things soon then very likely by the time it occurs (if it occurs), most people will have updated bookmarks etc so it won't matter so much. However all this has been discussed before Nil Einne 09:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn I'm out of gunpowder... Tourskin 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It actually happened that an anon asked a Help Desk question asking if we had an article about Main Pages... I pointed them to homepage (which is, alas, only a stub), but the location of the Main Page does make it quite hard to help this particular search using a redirect. I've advocated moving this page to Portal:Main Page (or Portal:Main for quite a while); that request failed to reach consensus last time, but perhaps the time would be ripe to try again in the near future. --ais523 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How about moving to Portal:Wikipedia (currently redirects to Wikipedia:Community Portal)? feydey 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Wikipedia should be about Wikipedia. As for the Main Page, tell your favorite author/singer/movie director to create a book/song/movie called "Main Page" then we'll see what happens... --Howard the Duck 17:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Halloween II Featured Article

I'm guessing that the timing was not coincidentual :). The only problem is that there is no picture? Must be the stupid fair-use / copyright people at it again :(. Seriously, why not just put a free pictures of a jack-o-lantern or something there to represent the FA since the cover art for the movie is pretty much a jackolantern??

Generally the image is a free picture of something relevant to the article that is used in the article. Films and other topics that don't have freely licensed images available (e.g. video games), and if an article has nothing but fair use images in it, then I guess not much can be done but omit an image. ~ Sebi 06:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Donkey Kong recently lasted its entire front page tenure with an image of a Game & Watch console in use. Picture in question: Media:Gw_donkeykong.PNG. Somehow, the guy who took it can magically release a picture of a copyrighted design / game on the screen into the public domain, so I'll be sure to try it when my VG articles come up. Zeality 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• So by your logic, we should ban all car images because the car companies aren't profiting from the sales of some models that they stopped production on since whenever. And all images of new cars is also forbidden because they prevent the carmakers from making a profit. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We should use a fair use image from the movie. It is legally permissible, and it furthers our primary mission, which is to build a high quality, informative, encyclopedia. When we keep informative, legally-permissible images off the main page, we are allowing the free-use-culture tail to wag the dog. Johntex\^talk 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea. In my personal opinion, we should use free images whenever possible, but if it's impossible, it's impossible. We are using it to illustrate the subject, so it should be fine, as far a copyright law is concerned. We will have to change policy if we want this implemented though. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Jimbo has spoken from on high on this issue. No fair use on the main page. -Elmer Clark 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo does not and should not have the authority to make that decision, especially since he hasn't provided any reason why he feels that way. Atropos 00:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Actually he does, as the ?creator? of Wikipedia, his word is generally based on the MediaWiki Organization. Dreamy ^§ 00:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually he doesn't. Please read this essay. Also, I believe you are refering to the Wikimedia Foundation, which rarely involves itself in the day to day function of the English Wikipedia, and which Jimbo is not always acting for. Atropos 00:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has provided reasoning, and, as it happens, it is reasoning I agree with. Jimbo has authority, certainly, and I think it is important for him to do what he can to keep Wikipedia true to the principles on which it was founded. Would it be right for Jimbo to close a vote on whether publicity shots should become 'allowed' on Wikipedia, even though the majority of people taking part said that they should be? I saw this, a while ago (so maybe I am actually not saying what happened- don't quote me) and I agree completely. Yes, we work on a principle of consensus, but the consensus should never be to stop text be freely usable, to take up a specific point view, or to turn our back on any of our founding principles. This is a case whereby we should stand by our founding principles, and eschew the non-free media. Is Wikipedia's 'best work' really fair use? I think not. J Milburn 22:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of these principles, a lion's share of topics covered by this encyclopedia are copyrighted by someone or some organization. Removing this incentive disheartens the editors of these topics and appears essentially unfair since fair-use is allowed everywhere else but the main page. TFA blurbs look better with pictures. As one who has promoted four or five featured articles on copyrighted subjects, it is discouraging that my work will appear a peg below others' because of copyright paranoia. 75.25.69.216 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on main page

Is it normal that my TFA has only been vandalised 2-3 times in four hours... has vandalism dropped off lately or something? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Too tired after Halloween parties? Too busy cleaning up after Halloween parties? Mid-terms coming up in North America? Who knows... --74.13.128.77 06:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that a request for more vandalism? Raul654 06:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry I was slacking... Tourskin 06:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

news

International Tennis player Martina Hingis failed a cocaine drugs test, and Wikipedia talks about The Red Sox winning a trophy. Americanipedia, great...... 217.65.158.13 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Had you nominated non-US news at In the news candidates this wouldn't have happened. Go ahead, go there and nominate a non-US news item. As long as it meets the criteria, it will be featured. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Martina Higgins case is already there. There is currently a discussion whether this is a notable enough topic. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't understand that an American baseball tournament is big enough to be internationally known. Most countries around the world don't even play baseball and not even heard of the Red Sox. 217.65.158.13 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Tell to that the Japanese. And maybe the Taiwanese too... --Howard the Duck 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm Czech and I have heard of the Red Sox, while I haven't heard of Martina Hingis. Of course, "I've heard of it" and "I haven't heard of it" are not very good arguments. All are welcome to take part in the discussion whether Hingis is to be on the main page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm detecting a theme

• On this day: All Souls' Day commemorates the faithful departed; Day of the Dead in Mexico.
• Today's featured article: Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm
• Today's featured picture: Dead Chinese soldier

I think it's a good idea to tie the sections of the main page together like this. — Zaui (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of creating an account just so I can add my two cents to the main page. I think, along with what you listed, it might be a good idea to add a section about Satan, massacres, and the French. 68.143.88.2 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to the other choices, but Diem was picked because it's the 44th anniversary and that was the date requested. Raul654 16:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The image was totally coincidental. I don't check what the featured article is or what's in "on this day" when I schedule the POTD. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, hmm. Maybe this might be something we want to consider in the future, a little bit of coordination might be cool. I certainly think that the coincidental set up today was pretty neat. Maybe this is something we want to aim for occasionally? IvoShandor 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok then heads up for Nov 11...Tourskin 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah what the... bobcat!Tourskin 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture at the donate page

I am speaking way out of turn here, and of course I realise who the person in the picture is, but at least three of us (two non-wikipedia users and I) thought the picture thought the picture currently being displayed, with the play icon on it, was an indication that WP had been compormised for the potential purpose of political propoganda. (Trying not to say terrorism, and Arab). Could someone consider a more appropriate photograph?! Ade1982 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So we should change the picture because Jimbo reminds you of an Arab terrorist (you tried not saying it but you blatantly said it)? 01:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)128.227.209.44

That's got to be one of the strangest criticisms of Jimbo I've ever heard... :/ Terraxos 01:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking the same thing but was too embarrassed to be The first to say it. It has to do with The way the "play" icon overlays the photo. It looks fine when I'm looking right at it but at a glance it reminds me a lot of a poor quality video of a man with a beard and turban addressing the camera, of the sort Bin Laden has become known for.

I don't think it needs to be changed or anything. I'm Just glad I'm not the only one who sees it! I thought I was crazy.--APL 21:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel the exact same way, no offense. Play button gives a turban effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luddz (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, how silly of us. A man appears to be wearing a turban and looks to be of Arabian descent... it must be a terrorist or some kind of hacker spreading their propaganda through the Wikimedia Foundation donate page! Won't someone think of the children/domo-kun? Please, pick up a book... better still start here and read, read, read! Fakelvis 09:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Very clever. But seriously, the reason it's worth mentioning is because Mr Wales does not actually look like that. 69.95.50.15 18:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that? Bazza 13:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Because what's being described here is an optical illusion caused by the overlay of the play icon. It's a silly thing, and probably not worth even this discussion, but the accusations of racism (founded or not) are pretty pointless. 69.95.50.15 14:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm staring at it pretty hard right now, and while it looks a bit like Jimbo could have a longer beard than he does, I cannot make out anything that looks like a turban. The idea that that could be confused with a video by Osama bin Laden seems a bit silly to me. Atropos 14:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You've gotta be freaking kidding me. Even if it was a turban and not a white circle play icon, how the hell does that make the wearer an Arab terrorist? Might they be a peaceful Sikh or one of the hundreds of millions (billions?) of non-terrorist turban wearers? (Trying not to say racist, and ignorant) — ceejayoz ^talk 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...I actually thought, when the donate icon was first added, that it was some kind of breaking news of another terrorist attack. God that sounds stupid! But I can't help it! Every time I see it, it remind me of an Arab addressing a camera. :( sorry if I'm dumb. 68.143.88.2 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think "Arab terrorist", but I did think, "Oh, Wikimedia is doing some kind of outreach in the Middle East or Central Asia." If that makes me ignorant and racist, so be it. — Brian (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-news In The News

yes Does the front page really need to mention where a sporting event will be held seven years from now? Let's try to make sure in the news is actually, you know, newsworthy. Looking at Portal:Current events, just about everything on it is more newsworthy than the location of a future sports event, and most of it is more relevant than the score of some recent sports event, also on in the news... Bushytails 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually ITN despite the name is not primarily intended to be about the news. However the selection of Brazil, even if it was more or less a done deal, is an extremely significant event. 12 stadiums or something are going to be built. The government of Brazil was also heavilg involved in the process. This is going to have a significant effect on the economy of Brazil. Indeed in many ways the selection of the host is more significant then who actually wins the world cup. Nil Einne 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the selection of items for ITN at WP:ITN/C, if possible before they appear on the main page. Discussion of ITN here rarely affects anything very much. Algebraist 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So when the NFL announces where a Super Bowl will be played, will that be on the main page? SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. It'll depend on whether it's suggested at WP:ITN/C, and consensus is reached there that it meets the criteria and ought to be included. Algebraist 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the soccer announcement was only listed there for an hour before being added, and not much of a discussion resulted. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 00:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

When is an announcement of the Super Bowl venue news? I haven't seen it on news channels; at least the men's soccer world cup is "news" right now. --Howard the Duck 03:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My problem isn't really with it being posted, just the speed at which it was posted. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 05:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been enqueued already several days at ITN/C so that explains it. --Howard the Duck 09:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps but from what I can tell nothing is expected for a while. Also based on a look at a few of the bid articles, I'm doubtful they will qualify. As I mentioned, successful world cup (and olympics) bids tend to have massive implications for the host country (and usually involve multiple countries). The government of most bidding countries are usually heavily involved often up to the very top (i.e. Prime Minister or President). For Super Bowl bids, it appears only the city government is involved not even the state government (for example in this case Super Bowl XLIV the state government killed the cities successful bid). Also as SuperBowl happens every year, it's likely a successful bid is much less of a major thing. And remember, the Super Bowl is one event and one game, the world cup and olympics are multiple games and/or multiple events requiring multiple stadia (as I mentioned). Indeed, there doesn't seem to be any article for the 2012 Super Bowl but the 2014 World Cup article existed since 2005 with verified information. You might also want to compare the detail in the 2014 FIFA World Cup bid from the bids for the Super Bowl XLV. Perhaps if a city outside the US is selected then there may be cause because of it being the first time but a normal US city bid seems a fairly minor thing to me Nil Einne 11:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the Super Bowl is almost always played at Miami LOL. --Howard the Duck 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The FIFA World Cup is the most widely watched sporting event in the world, with over 715m watching the 2006 final. The decision for it to be held in one country is notable because the event is so huge, and the huge amount of preparation involved (several stadiums are usually built or renovated, the event brings in a silly number of spectators). Over 10x as many people watch the World Cup than the Super Bowl, and it only happens once every 4 years. It is /extremely/ notable just due to the sheer size and popularity of the event. -Halo 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, but the announcement wasn't as big of a news as I expected it to be. Perhaps because everyone knows which country will win the "bid." --Howard the Duck 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the current events portal for the US is vastly underrepresented... a while ago I stuck {{watt}} (now deprecated) on the talk page (as an anon, FYI, because it was a school computer) because I had to get someone else there to try to improve it. Now, there are just 4 October stories, and before that only a few September stories... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC) edit 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

shocking

As one person mentioned; "Children read this page" Well, in my opinion, children should read pages such as this in the presence of an adult. Perhaps when the child asks the adult why this is, the adult will be moved to do something to prevent it, instead of being shocked by it. Images in the real world are shocking. And they are also real. How shocked would you say a child in Bagdad would be on a daily basis? Or perhaps one in Mogadishu, or any number of places were war is the daily fare? They would be happy to see images on this page. Just so long as they were spared the sent of death, the tightness of dried blood on their skin, and the anguish of loss at the hands of people who would be "shocked" at seeing this on a web page. Life is hell, made so by people who are "Shocked" at the reality of it. Teach your children, don't shelter them from the world, or the pain of reality will be far more "Shocking" for them. NAeuroMUT 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting argument, and to some extent I agree. However, before you make any further edits, I should warn you of WP:SOAP and WP:POINT. That said, welcome to Wikipedia! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Next time someone gets all icky on the talk page, be there!!Tourskin 18:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

NAeuroMUT, it looks like you support WP:CENSOR. Nothing more to say here! Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for the reaction to tomorrow's featured pic... Carcharoth 13:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A dead soldier. Tomorrow will be interesting... I wanted to study, but I think I might stick around. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument doesn't hold water. Using a photo as old as 55 years for reality education? We certainly have better alternatives, don't we? I call for the person who posted this photo to be suspended as a main page administrator, and I reiterate my remmendation for him to be more aware of the dark side of his inner being (see heading "Featured picture too contraversial" below). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

High hopes we have here. Whats next, we get to see penis or vagina on the main page? I know, let's have Strippers!!--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that you have a particularly good picture and feel it is pertinent enough, you're free to list it on featured picture candidates. However, with regard to the current picture, the overwhelming consensus was to support featured picture status. You are always free to nominate it for delisting. --slakr^\ talk / 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Dark side of [my] inner being" ... yes, I'm definitely feeling the Darth Vader in me. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[/me whacks everyone with a wet noodle] ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan

Shouldn't there be something about Musharraf declaring emergency rule in Pakistan? It's breaking news, and the BBC and CNN are currently showing it as the main news story on their web sites. Nanten 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:ITN/C to suggest and reat criteria for ITN items. --Howard the Duck 14:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Merkin POTD

A somewhat controversial image, Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, was promoted to Featured Picture status some time ago, and now it's time for its day in the sun as POTD. User:Pharos suggested that we might talk up the benefits of this being a professional quality free-license image, even if such discussion were a bit self-referential. I've made an initial stab at it at User:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD. Comments are welcome at User talk:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD. Thanks. (cross-posted to WP:AN). howcheng {chat} 01:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

100% Support. Something like this is exactly what would prompt me to finally register an account -- just so I could vote support! (I'm serious). It is so, so rare to get a professionally shot photo of a model released of copyright for public use. I bet there are only a dozen or so in this entire encyclopedia, and even fewer of this quality (texture, composition, and lighting are perfect; note her head blocking just enough sun light for the chromatics of the photo to still come through but also place an aurora around the top portion of the body. 68.143.88.2 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

BBC 1936 was not HDTV

Please fix this. BBC 1936 may have benn the first puplic Television service. It was not the first HDTV service. HDTV was invented a half-century later. -Arch dude 03:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please click high-definition television and read, and see if you agree. It's not the same as HDTV. (maybe the word 'video' should be included?) If you insist, please re-post at WP:ERRORS. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the link and wording on the Main Page is misleading. IvoShandor 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I laughed MAO when I saw that...very misleading it was, my young padawan. Ben 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Main Page Portal

I was wondering if anyone can point me to the discussion that was had on whether the Main Page should be moved to Portal namespace. 60.229.9.172 09:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See the archive links from Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why is Main Page in the main namespace? - BanyanTree 11:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Gamefaqs?

No wonder no one takes wikipedia seriously. I know only FA status is needed to be Potd, but there should be some bias to offset the systemic bias wikipedia has. How many video games have been page of a day now, and now video game sites?--58.111.134.238 11:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe no one wants to write about boring articles. --Howard the Duck 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Twenty video games have been featured article of the day in the three and a half years this feature has existed (from WP:FA and WP:FFA. Algebraist 11:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

20 video games out of 1280 articles???? BIAS!!!! lol Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, video games don't represent ~2% of all (anglophone) human knowledge.81.174.226.229 16:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that the purpose of PotD was to represent "all (anglophone) human knowledge". The purpose of PotD is to show off our featured articles. If you'd like more non-game articles to be featured, I suggest you work on a few. --Oldak Quill 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was merely commenting that 20 in 1280 is not such a ridiculously low number, but the point of TFA is to show off the best of wikipedia, which (I hope) is trying to cover "all (anglophone) human knowledge" (If we're insisting on putting my jokey phrasing in scare-quotes).81.174.226.229 09:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of about 2,000,000 articles, just over 20,000 of these have been flagged with {{cvgproj}}, the template of WikiProject Computer and Video Games. This amounts to about 1% of Wikipedia being about computer games. Given that many articles are probably unfeatureable for whatever reason (too few sources exist (eg Nectandra truxillensis), too few editors are interested (eg Imre Csiszár) or the page is not an article (eg List of Cluedo characters)), I'd guess that there are well fewer than 1,000,000 articles which can realistically expect to be featured, so having 2% of FAs being about computer games actually seems roughly on target, especially for an encyclopedia written largely by young, tech-savvy males in developed countries! Laïka 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of bitching about systemic bias, please help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. 67.182.140.86 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember, the development of Wikipedia is dependant on user contributions, which means Wikipedia is as much a reflection and repository of the contributors' knowledge and interests as a neutral encyclopaedia, however more desirable the latter is than the former. This is not necessarily a bad thing though. Wikipedia will always contain more information on what people are looking for than lack of information on what people can't find by the same principle. Therefore, if it bothers you, try to type articles to what is needed rather than to what you like.

Notes/Refrences Thought

Has anyone ever given any thought to making a separate tab (to go along with Discussion, edit this page, +, History and watch) for the Notes and References? I've noticed that they can take up a large chunk of an article at the bottom. Just my two cents. Txredcoat 13:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have that, wouldn't you need a section tab for every section in an article? That's why there is a table of contents. Dreamy ^§ 13:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No..he's talking about the references at the bottom of the page. Why not tuck it onto a subpage, or a tab, so that the entire article is anarticle, not an article and a bibliography. I agree.-^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but doesn't the current layout make composing/editing easier? Shir-El too 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shir-El too. Having it on one page makes editting the references so much easier, especially if theres a mistake or if wikifying needs to be done. As a tab requires too much waiting time Tourskin 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I was trying to get at. Dreamy ^§ 02:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Main Page, which lists no references at the bottom. Please continue at WP:VP or elsewhere. --74.13.131.144 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious question about Donation

What determines how full the green donation bar is? Is it the number of people or the amount of money? Tourskin 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

People. Well numbers of donations technically, since a person could be counted multiple times if they made multiple donations. Dragons flight 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ok thanksTourskin 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Money is an intresting thing. Some people have alot of it, others don't. Some people use to much of it, while others clean up the mess they make. Money is actually important as more and more things are being given prices. Things like getting braces, some may argue that it should be free for your child to have braces and i happen to be one of those people. Teeth are very important and with be with you for the rest of your life so the National Health people should pay for children to have braces no matter what. Some children havent been brought up with loads of money and have appauling teeth which need braces, but as they can not afford it, they have to live there lives with teeth that may cause alot of problems in the future. Others argue that the National Health is being sensible by not paying for everyone to have braces if needed, because if the children looked after there teeth, less of these issues would happen! User [PoppyH] Parent of two girls] If you argree with what i have said then please comment below! (PoppyHitchen 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

I really don't want to make you feel unwelcome, but it might be a good idea to review WP:SOAP. Thanks! Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't be feeding the trolls and we shouldn't be commenting. Oh wait that includes me huhTourskin 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI: but if you really cared that much, and you knew that either you, or your significant other had a family history that displayed genetic tendencies of developing bad teeth, wouldn't it be better to just not have children since that is, indeed, still free? 68.143.88.2 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. (funny as in laughing funny) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Alot is not a word, and "there" is used when you're talking about a place, "their" refers to something belonging to something. Aaadddaaammm 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To is also used incorrectly. BTW, my parents both have great teeth, as do I and one of my sisters, yet my other one has a 2 centimeter overbite, which is costing us $10,000 and 2 years to fix, though there has been no "genetic tendencies" of developing bad teeth. And also, you're saying that people shouldn't have kids, the joy of many people's lives and the hope of the human race, because they can't pay for braces? Sickening and pathetic, dude...Ben 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs their sarcasm detector adjusted.... 157.127.124.15 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the best hope for the human race is probably if people on the whole have less kids not more Nil Einne 13:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Racist

moved from WP:ERRORS

I cannot believe that some ?? put such a picture as a "featured one" It is a shame to the so called free encyclopedia became a such racist place!! To be a balanced report why don't you also put a picture with a dead US white soldier? For that war, both sides lost a lot of young ones. none can be proud of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.164.81 (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Racist? No. We feature a picture if:

• • It is high quality (this is sometimes not required for historical images)
  • It has high encyclopedic value
  • It is a free image
    

If you can find a picture of a dead US soldier that fulfills the above criteria, nominate it for featured picture, and it will become featured. Also it was not "some ?? put such a picture as a featured one". This was selected through a community discussion, that you could have participated in. There were twelve votes supporting, but only two votes opposing. I would also recommend reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it racist, but it IS in poor taste, as have been several other Featured Pictures lately. We've had flagelated slaves, a child soldier, even pits of Holocaust victims. C'mon, folks, is it that hard to see how bad this makes Wikipedia look? It's one thing to find such images if you look for them, another to log in the site and have them trusted in our faces. - Wilfredo Martinez 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this topic recently. I raised the question on Featured picture criteria, and the consensus was that the pictures have been through a lengthy selection process and have been chosen for their merits. I am not unhappy with the images, though I am concerned that people are sometimes disturbed by strong images and there is no acceptance of this in the guidelines - indeed the criteria includes the phrase "it might be shocking" without a qualifying phrase to encourage awareness of the impact of the image. The BBC has a policy on the use of images: here and here for example - and, as we know, the BBC is not censored, and is widely respected for its strong, factual reporting. I understand the point of view of the picture editors involved in creating the featured picture criteria, and I do not wish to hinder the use of stunning images. However, I would like some sensible, non-censoring guidelines along the lines of the BBC, though less severe: "Images should not normally feature the following:

* Graphic violence, torture, or any extreme violent behaviour.

* Gratuitous nudity or graphic/extreme sexual acts.

* Images depicting children (under the age of sixteen) in a sexual context.

* Explicit drug use.

* Self-harm, suicide, or attempted suicide.

* Hangings or other forms of execution."

SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. However, we should not be having this discussion in Errors. Good places to speak about this would be The Village Pump, Main Page General Discussion, FA criteria where you had already raised this, and Picture of the day. However, in my opinion we should keep this on one page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the above comment and wasn't aware of the procedures for this particular page. My bad - I thought I had come upon the talk page for the Main Page because I had clicked on the discussion tag on the main page and saw the comment on the featured picture. Ah, I see the problem - the top of the page is for reporting errors, while the lower part is for more general discusion of the main page. Should this entire section be moved down to the discussion section? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I responded here too, earlier. My mistake as well. However, this is getting lengthy, so we probably shouldn't continue here. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved. --199.71.174.100 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So a picture of a nude 15-year-old drug user hanging themselves is out of the question? – Gurch 06:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol I thought the featured pictured of an Iraqi man was racist, cos I am Iraqi by birth and blood and I don't look anything like that guy. lolTourskin 06:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion to follow the BBC guidelines is a good one, and should be raised at a variety of locations. This would not prevent pictures on such topics being featured - it would merely keep them off the front page. Before people get upset about that, they need to consider that most of Wikipedia's featured content will never appear on the main page. We long ago passed the point where featured content is being produced faster than it can be featured on the main page. Rather, we have to trust that readers will find their way from the main page to the various featured content locations. Carcharoth 08:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see any picture on the main page that you would not see either on cable news, a Discovery Networks channel, or a History Channel documentary. Mr.Z-man 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the uproar from having Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg as today's FP.-Wafulz 15:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, it will picture of the day eventually. I can imagine it quite well, it will clog up half of the main page discussion, several "concerned parents" will threaten to sue Wikipedia for not protecting "my babies" from pornography, others will demand the banning of howcheng. But honestly, let them whine, and pretend they know best. We don't have to come here, and defend our policies if we don't want to (while it is fun to read some of the comments). Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC) ::::I don't think this attitude is acceptable (finding readers' anger over the main page content funny, and describing them as whining). I've taken this to your talk page. Carcharoth 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. My comment was unclear, and I wrote it when I was quite angry and frustrated. I apoligise to all I have offended. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed my comment as well, so that should bring this to a close. Carcharoth 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So, does anyone agree with the BBC guidelines? Carcharoth 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't. At all. Atropos 01:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree, for all the same reasons that Wikipedia is not censored. J Milburn 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This conversation largely duplicates the one above: Talk:Main_Page#Featured_picture_too_controversial. Might be better to keep them together. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Donations Dead?!

The donation count has just messed up. 0 people have donated? It was a lot just five minutes ago. Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.15.35 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Their is a discrepancy based upon whether it is open or closed. When the banner is open, it says "0 have donated". When closed, the number is over 14,000. It has been a while since I took statistics, but I think this is statistically significant. :-) I am running Firefox, if that makes a difference. Johntex\^talk 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone please fix this immediately. I have no idea where else to post this.--Pharos 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't anyone please fix the donations error quickly? Harland1 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The donations tracking server appears to have gone offline. I have no idea why. Depending on the cause it may take a while to resolve. Dragons flight 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You may have seen either the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture too controversial

Please remove the picture of a dead Chinese soldier from the main page. It's common decency not to display a dead body in such a ghastly manner. Featuring this picture so prominently on the main page of Wikipedia offends the Chinese people and every fair-minded individual of any nationality. Being able to edit the main page of Wikipedia is a great responsibility, and I highly recommend anyone who has been entrusted with it to examine himself for any trace of vulgarity, insensitivity and prejudice as often as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See heading "Shocking" above. 128.227.55.145 07:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And the content disclaimer. MER-C 07:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And the Frequently Asked Question about whether Wikipedia is safe for young people. --slakr^\ talk / 07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both, but as long as a selected few are allowed to editorialize on the main page, I don't think I need to bother too much about the technicalities when lodging my protest. No offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The content of the Main Page is selected on the quality of the articles and images themselves. If you do not feel that a particular article or image is of high quality, please voice your concerns at featured picture nominations for delisting and featured article review. I assure you there is no main page cabal, and if there is, I wasn't invited into it :(. Hopefully this helps. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 09:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, this guy really doesn't like this pic [1] 128.227.55.145 08:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Who likes to see the dead body of a fellow man?

Yea its so much better to pretend people don't die in wars. 128.227.55.145 08:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The reality argument again? See heading "Shocking" above, or just go on with this type of reality education for your children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.153.21 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and that includes for children. That's one of the main policies policies of Wikipedia. If parents wish to censor their children's access to internet content, they are free to do so, but Wikipedia does not do that job for them. --slakr^\ talk / 08:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Certainly a very admirable policy. What I am concerned about is if Wikipedia has an effective enough policy to ensure the selected few are not to editorialize in one way or another on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 November 2007

You might have a point. Check out our project for countering systemic bias. Though, please be sure to refer to my post directly above about how to nominate articles and pictures for delisting. Keep in mind, featuring pictures, articles, and other content is based on consensus that can change, so it's totally within your power to raise your concerns. --slakr^\ talk / 09:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree - this featured picture does not belong on the front page. Someone is showing exceptionally poor taste and insensitivity by using this gruesome image here. 08:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs)

Why can't we get nudes of chicks on the main page?! WHY?! --Howard the Duck 09:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have. See Image:Orlando Furioso 20.jpg. --slakr^\ talk / 09:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we more for the future? --Howard the Duck 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There's the more saucy one: Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg. Of course, it's quite possible people would get more worked up over censoring someone living than someone dead. :) --slakr^\ talk / 09:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be more of these! :p --Howard the Duck 09:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe that some ?? put such a picture as a "featured one" It is a shame to the so called free encyclopedia became a such racist place!! To be a balanced report why don't you also put a picture with a dead US white soldier? For that war, both sides lost a lot of young ones. none can be proud of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.164.81 (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2007

Again, images are selected for Main Page inclusion based on quality and relation to good content. I assure you we also have pictures of other dead people from monumental wars that are in the rotation, as well, so that we avoid being racist. Check out featured historical pictures for more examples. --slakr^\ talk / 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Errr - this is not about racism for everybody, so rotating a picture of a different corpse tomorrow will not fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

All of you could have participated in the community discussion Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Korean War causality which decided whether the picture was suitable. Wikipedia does not exclude images based on controversiality, or "common decency". The sum of all human knowledge (which is our goal), includes such images. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just came here to make sure this thread was here. ;) IvoShandor 12:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen worse on Law and Order at 3:30 in the afternoon on a Thursday, on the news, and in textbooks. These complaints, as usual, are pointless and without any real validity. IvoShandor 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Except for the sytemic bias stuff, which I am pretty sure everyone affiliated with the Main Page does their best to combat.IvoShandor 12:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I remember that after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake some newspapers had images of dead bodies (even of children) on their front pages'. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Today's All Souls' Day. It makes perfect sense. --Howard the Duck 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what shall we say in about a month or so? I'm sure that picture will generate a lot of discussion. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what, there have been lots of war-related FPics lately. Now I'm not sure how they're selected to appear for each day, but if they're by basis of promotion time - perhaps they're batched nominated - then that'll explain it.

Also, if we want WP to be shocking, why can't we get photos of naked women (as I've said earlier) on the Main Page? That'll be nicer. Young people must know the reality that is sex. --Howard the Duck 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe people are really this shocked by an image of a dead body. Puchiko: I think they are front paged in the order they are promoted, except when they are mixed up a bit to avoid topic stacking. I think Howcheng is the de facto FP director. As for the November 27 FP, that's racist against white people of European descent, and in poor taste, as all of reality is. ;)IvoShandor 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, IvoShandor has it exactly in regards to scheduling. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this topic recently. I raised the question on Featured picture criteria, and the consensus was that the pictures have been through a lengthy selection process and have been chosen for their merits. I am not unhappy with the images, though I am concerned that people are sometimes disturbed by strong images and there is no acceptance of this in the guidelines - indeed the criteria includes the phrase "it might be shocking" without a qualifying phrase to encourage awareness of the impact of the image. The BBC has a policy on the use of images: here and here for example - and, as we know, the BBC is not censored, and is widely respected for its strong, factual reporting. I understand the point of view of the picture editors involved in creating the featured picture criteria, and I do not wish to hinder the use of stunning images. However, I would like some sensible, non-censoring guidelines along the lines of the BBC, though less severe: "Images should not normally feature the following:

* Graphic violence, torture, or any extreme violent behaviour.

* Gratuitous nudity or graphic/extreme sexual acts.

* Images depicting children (under the age of sixteen) in a sexual context.

* Explicit drug use.

* Self-harm, suicide, or attempted suicide.

* Hangings or other forms of execution."

SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a form of censorship. However, to calm your worries, "Images depicting children (under the age of sixteen) in a sexual context" are illegal, and are therefore not in the encyclopedia at all. However I feel that no picture should be excluded from being featured based solely on the controversy of what it depicts. That would be a form of censorship, which is something I strongly oppose. Furthermore, doing this would decrease the encyclopedic value of the main page, and I see no reason to do that. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Puchiko here. What you call "non-censoring" guidelines, I call censorship. Semantics won't change an apple into an orange. IvoShandor 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with censorship is to who's ideals it should be met. If it's my ideals, we oughta see more naked women and more naked women on the Main Page. --Howard the Duck 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is why censorship should not be engaged in. Who gets to play Thought police on Wikipedia? Who decides what is offensive, shocking or vulgar? The community has expressed its will that Wikipedia not be censored for anyone. If folks feel differently I would suggest bringing it up at WT:NOT, but would suggest so with the caveat: don't expect it to go anywhere. IvoShandor 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not censorship as no-one is asking for the page to be removed from the Encyclopedia. Those people wishing to find out about acts of war, should fully expect to see pictures of this nature in the context of articles on that topic. However to pull one of these pictures out of that context, without the story, and without sensitivity to the broader audience of the Encyclopedia, and put it on the front page where people do not expect to see gore of this nature, is wrong. What some folks are missing is that everyone's reaction to a photo of this nature is subjective. Someone who has just returned from a tour of Iraq might not blink at a high resolution image or video of a decapitation, because they've been desensitized to it; however others might have trouble keeping their meal down. So please stop viewing this from your own subjective points of view, and consider what other people may or may not have seen. In this light, the BBC guidelines described above are perfectly reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is a form of censorship. This isn't intrinsicly wrong but the problem is, how do you know what people don't expect to see? Indeed, the problem is the whole thing is subjective. For example, a fundamentalist Christian is probably going to be offended by FP October 18th. Other people may be offended by one or more of September 3rd, 8th and 10th. Note that even if we were to adopt the BBC criteria as worded, there is likely to be a very large variance in interpretation between editors Nil Einne 12:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope - no-one would have had issue if the article from which this photo was taken had been featured instead. In that case, there would not have been only a single gratuitous war photo, but an article putting it in context. Guidelines would mean less variation in interpretation between editors, not more (e.g. "Don't show a potentially controversial photo out of context of an article" would seem like a pretty clear guideline). There is a balance to be struck here between the desire of individuals to see any photo they want (e.g. gore, child porn, extreme violence, executions etc) and those of society as a whole. To say that this is about censorship is an extremely selfish point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, we've had dead white people, dead Jews, and dead Filipinos in recent months, so I think we can say that Wikipedia is racially/ethnically blind when it comes to showing pictures of corpses. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To IvoShandor's comment, I think you are right in your stance of who is to decide who plays Thought Police, and I feel it should be the community as a consensus. Therefore, I have expressed my opinion on WT:NOT, given it seems the consensus is to put nude female pictures (preferably attractive ones) on the main page! Justice for all! 68.143.88.2 17:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha. I am sincerely laughing, now that is justice. IvoShandor 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally my naked women crusade is bearing fruit! Justice to all!!! --Howard the Duck 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this all mean that if I had created an article for this movie now instead of eighteen months ago, it could make it into Did You Know? Back then I was told that while "...Wikipedia is not censored, it also should not intentionally try to offend." Cigarette 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[/me whacks everyone with a wet noodle (again)] ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why people think the image is racist against the Chinese soldier. Whenever I personaly see a war photograph that includes a corpse my first emotional response to to think negatively of whoever killed them. Why would anyone think negatively of the corpse? There's no shame in having died in a war. I would have expected far more accusations of racism if the photograph was of a white man killed by a Chinese solder. APL 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The photo should not have been posted. The argument of those defending it is rubish. I don't think this has to do with censorship. You wouldn't want photos taken from shocksites, even if they were free and of high quality´, would you now? Or what about photos of tortured people, raped women, slaughtered babies? They address an important topic in our society and if they are of high quality, you will accept them, right? I say bull. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on the encyclopedic value (and that is often very little for images from shock sites). However, I disagree with your statement "I don't think this has to do with censorship". If we look at the censorship article the first sentence is
Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. .
In a way, refusing to put the picture in a prominent place based, solely on the fact that it depicts a controversial topic, is "withholding information". Of course, the sentence has a citation needed tag, and so should be treated with caution. In my opinion, we should feature photos of tortured people, raped women, and slaughtered babies, should they be high encyclopedic quality, high quality, free, legal (and this might not be the case, identifiable images of rape or torture victims might be illegal due to privacy issues), and satisfy other criteria.
In my opinion, refusing to feature images because they display corpses is moral censorship. I have once again decided to quote the censorship article:
Moral censorship is the means by which any material that contains what the censor deems to be of questionable morality is removed. The censoring body disapproves of what it deems to be the values behind the material and limits access to it. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale.
In conclusion, I will include a brief passage from Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria
A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide.
I would encourage all who participate in this discussion to carefully read through Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, as well as Wikipedia is not censored. Thank you. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So it doesn't have to do with censorship, just limiting the use of content that offends you and others like you? --APL 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors cite Wikipedia is not censored as though it means there is no control on Wikipedia - yet there is. Quote from that policy: "obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed". Also, intro from Wikipedia:Profanity: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." So we already have an awareness and an acceptance that there is material we don't want on Wiki. What is being suggested here is not that content is censored, but that content is used appropriately. What is being suggested is that an awareness that some images may shock be included in the Featured picture criteria, and care taken when selecting those images. The front page is the landing platform for the encyclopedia, as such it has a political purpose and impact which is somewhat different to the main encyclopedia and as such there are different criteria - for example, one our main founding principles is that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, immediately; yet most long standing editors cannot edit the main page. It's a different animal to the rest of the herd, and slightly different guuidelines are needed. I agree that information should not be withheld in the main encyclopedia, but care applied when selecting images for the landing platform. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

undent

The Featured Picture criteria are

1. Is of a high technical standard.
2. Is of high resolution.
3. Is among Wikipedia's best work.
4. Has a free license.
5. Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
6. Is accurate. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page.
7. Has a good caption.
8. Is neutral. It illustrates the subject objectively.
9. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.

There is nothing there about how unshocking, inoffensive or tasteful a picture should be. And the comments about the content of the main page being different from the rest of the encyclopedia is pertinent — the main page's content is decided by a nomination and approval process. Other pages are not. Bazza 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The criteria are exclusive in the sense that images of a low technical standard, low resolution, etc are excluded - so the notion of adding a criteria such as "Is unlikely to shock" or "Is not unnecessarily provocative" is already present, as is the notion of using a judgement with the criteria of "best work" (by whose standards?) and "neutral". As for the nomination process - that is what we are discussing. We are discussing adding into that process an awareness that some images may be too shocking for a landing platform, rather than the encouragement that the image "might be shocking", which is the wording in the current criteria. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the exclusivity bit - the criteria are about what properties a picture should have to be included, not what it should not. And I read the bit about being "shocking, impressive, or just highly informative" as saying those qualities are as much of a qualification as being aesthetically pleasing. That's not an encouragement to be any of those, just a statement that it doesn't have to look good to be good. In any case, I'll go back to a statement I made earlier in the month when this was being discussed: come up with a definition of "shocking" which most people will accept, and then you can determine what criteria to apply to content you think should or should not be displayed. Bazza 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)