Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not aniconistic

Motivation

I noticed this same debate being held in multiple place: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Bahá'u'lláh, Muhammad, Depictions of Muhammad. In all the discussion, it seems like a few things kept getting agreed upon:

• The existence of a religious objection to an image is not, by itself, a reason to automatically delete an image that would otherwise be beneficial.
• It's not okay to adding images solely for the sake of doing so, just to prove you can, or just to prove a point.
• It's not okay to create new images that are censored versions of uncensored images. e.g. Image:Muhammadimage.jpg

Anyway, there will still be debates about how many images to use, how prominent the should be, what images are best, and how best to represent aniconicstic artistic traditions. All the same-- it seems reasons to be codify the parts of the debate that people do tend to agree on, so we don't just go through the same debate over and over. --Alecmconroy 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. There's no need to hedge so much, though. For example, your statement above, "...is not, by itself, a reason to automatically delete..." can be rephrased as "...it not a reason to delete..." I'll be editting this a bit more, if that's alright.

On second thought, I think I'll wait to see where you're going with this. Feel free to restore what I'd deleted.Proabivouac 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proab-- I think you and I see eye to eye on the subject, so feel free to play around with this work in progress--- same thing for HighinBC or whoever. If the caveats (like "automatically") aren't necessary in order to get it passed, then I won't personally miss them. When I originally wrote this, I put in a lot of cautions and caveats to make it clear that the policy had limited reach, because I don't want anyone to think it's an attempt to do an end-run around the discussions on the talk pages. A policy like can only reflect a consensus-- it won't be able to impose a solution. Questions of due weight, for example, would be unaffected by a policy like this.

So, we should just be careful the keep the policy limited in reach, saying only what consensus would actually support. For example, I don't think we can go so far as to encourage the use of images. Similarly, if I were just writing an essay, I would aruge that articles should be written completely independent of aniconistic concerns, without being affraid of offending nor trying to offend. But I don't know that honestly a good statement of the consensus: many editors would agree with that, but many other good editors seem to feel concerns about offending aniconistic culture have some part to play when thinking about image use. So, let's just keep it tightly focused on what does seem like a genuine consensus.

Namely-- I see a genuine consensus that there are some cases where such images are appropriate. There's been a near-total rejection of the argument that says "this image is objectionable to some religions, so it automatically can't be used in any articles". Even the few editors who initially made that argument have now shied away from it and have disavowed it in favor of other arguments-- so it seems like there is a really solid consensus for that specific point. So we might as well codify it while we're all looking at it, so that future editors won't have to go through it all again.

Aside from that, edit away, and when we happy with it, we can advertise it for discussion. --Alecmconroy 03:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What I've seen is that the broader the involvement from the community, the clearer and more overwhelming the stand against religiously-motivated censorship. Policy discussions are likely to be more reflective of the community as a whole then are discussions about any particular Islam-related article (and I'd guess the same to be true of Bahá'u'lláh.)Proabivouac 04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a small suggestion - instead of discouraging people from creating bowdlerized images, how about just discouraging them from uploading them to WP? Risker 03:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Most wise. I've made the change. Even that is a little inaccurate-- it's fine for people to create and upload such images-- they just shouldn't be used in articles. The complication, of course, is that an image that was bowdlerized in the 15th century is fair game-- we just shouldn't be the ones doing it. I'm sure there's an elegant way to say that, but my brain hasn't found it. --Alecmconroy 03:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed guideline

For the avoidance of doubt, I oppose this being a proposed guideline, which I guess is somewhat obvious, in the context of contributing to the MfD discussion. I would prefer this to be given an {{essay}} tag instead. Addhoc 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, may I ask? Do you actually disagree with the content? or do you just think having such a specific official guideline might be problematic. I have hard time imagining that this isn't a correct guideline-- it follows logically from Not Censored and multiple articles have all reached the same consensus.

It has occured to me that there might be hesitancy about having a guideline that's this specific, even if everyone agrees with its content. For example, consider a fictional article Wikipedia is not written from a Republican POV-- it's true. Wikipedia is NPOV. So, no one disagrees with the content of that guideline-- but I expect people would disagree with having such a guideline.

If that concen is prevalent enough here, this should probably be an essay. On the other hand, a lot of words have been expended on this debate, so perhaps there would be some profit to making it a guideline so it could help out in future debates. --Alecmconroy 22:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alecmconroy, more or less per the MfD nom, "this page is unecessarily antagonistic toward editors who hold aniconistic beliefs (like Muslims)", which is essentially what you are saying in your third paragraph. Addhoc 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I read that MfD, it was a minority opinion that this was antagonistic. This essay seems simple to explain policy in the area. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I support making this a policy because Wikipedia is not censored.--Sefringle 03:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Feedback to the MfD nom, has been overwhelmingly supportive: this is one thing, it seems, about which most of the community agrees. Perhaps the answer is for this page to be a guideline, and a sentence added to WP:NOT with a link.Proabivouac 03:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Voting is evil. We don't make guidelines by voting upon them. Really, we don't. At any rate, this is redundant with existing policy (WP:NOT censored) and does not appear to be something that comes up a lot. We don't legislate preemptively. >Radiant< 10:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is based in policy, it would make a fine guideline. Radiant, we are having a discussion with this poll. We are not going to vote count to find a result, rather we are using a poll to help observe consensus. Voting is evil, but voting looks like this: "'''Support''' ~~~~", whereas what we have here is "'''Support''' <reasoning> ~~~~", big difference. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Semantics. By formatting the statements like this, you are encouraging invalid conclusions like "it has X % support therefore it is now policy". >Radiant< 13:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Straw polls are a long standing method of measuring consensus. People are not just voting, they are giving reasoning, this is normal and good. Should we get rid of WP:AfD because it is a vote? No, because it is not a vote, people give opinions and the value is based on the rational, just like always. I am the first to say that voting is not how we do things here, but this is not voting. You say there is a danger of "it has X % support therefore it is now policy", well that would be a bad way to judge a poll as consensus takes into account both the number of people, and the validity/strength of their arguments. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Frequency

It does come up enough to cause plenty of disruption. This is not a preemptive action, but a response to ongoing issues. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be easier to add a line to an existing policy that more-or-less covers this? >Radiant< 14:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• A la WP:NOT Radiant!? that sounds logical... (→Netscott) 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think the subject it too complex for a simple mention. This is a corollary of the not censored policy, it goes into detail that would be out of place on the WP:NOT page. I think this is better suited as a guideline, than inserted into core policy, as the idea has much developing to do. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just add a note to WP:NOT

After saying that it isn't censored just add "An important corollary of this is that Wikipedia is not aniconistic"? JoshuaZ 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the statement covers the delicate situation described on this page? That statement is one way, whereas this page is attempting to show a balance by stating we should not use images for the purpose of offending. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, actually, I do think the statement covers the delicate situation, in the same way that WP:NOT works quite well whenever anyone (again) suggests that we remove all images of nekkid chixorz. Complex policy encourages wikilawyering. >Radiant< 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Which specific part of this page do you find complex? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Surely you agree that a whole new policy page is more complex than adding a line to WP:NOT? >Radiant< 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sure I agree to that, but I don't see what that has to do with this pages merit. Simply being less complex than an alternative is a little relevance, what is more important is if it is too complex when viewed for what it is now. I don't see it as being overly complex. Rather I find it to present a complex situation in simple terms. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we definitely need to do one or the other-- either expand NOT Censored or we need to make a guideline showing people how Not Censored applies to this situation. Even though there is a consensus that Not Censored applies, we still meet lots of people who have trouble making that connection and who intermittently show up requesting deletions. If you point them to "Not Censored", they'll say something like "I don't want it to be censored by a government or someone outside, I want us to delete it ourselves which wouldn't be censorship, so WP:Not doesn't apply". There are lots of people who, pardon the pun, won't seem to take NOT for an answer. <grin>

I so far tend to think a separate guideline is the way to go, although that could change based on what people say. I tend to think WP:NOT is formatted in such a way that mentioning this specific case there might be sort of giving it "too much weight" or might come across as being overly antagonistic towars Muslims. One of the challenges we have is trying to write something that doesn't seem like we're singling out or being harsh towards certain religious groups. Having lots of space to work can (hopefully) let us "soften the blow" by explaining more and being a little less harsh-- perhaps there's still room for improvement on that, but that would be the plus of a guideline. --Alecmconroy 22:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think adding this to WP:NOT is probably the best plan, but equally it's correct to discuss it here separately first. The proposal is refreshingly short and concise, and so would sit well as a section of WP:NOT. Waggers 10:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Dr. Frankensteina"

I'm going to try to bring this discussion back to life, to figure out what to do with it after all.

Please join us at the village pump for discussion [1]

--ProtectWomen 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Somebody suggested merging this into WP:NOT#CENSORED. I am against this merge, as this warrents its own section at a minimum. It would be better to just add it somewhere else on WP:NOT, or to not move it at all.--Sefringle 02:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, Sefringle. I am inclined to agree. --ProtectWomen 06:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Specific examples do not belong in WP:NOT, we are not a lot of things, but they are covered by the general topics at WP:NOT. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this discussion to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposed merge. We can continue it there.--Sefringle 21:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Is "aniconistic" a real word? --MZMcBride 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

More of a philosophical question, really. What does a word have to have in order to qualify as "real"?  :) . Googling shows that it's not exactly a popular word, but it has been used in reliable sources. My standard is "Do people know what I'm talking about when I use the word?", and by that standard, it is a real word. --Alecmconroy 01:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My definition of a real word involves the word being found in a legitimate dictionary. I looked in Oxford, dictionary.com, and tried a define: Google search, all of which turned up nothing. Googling the term gave 476 results, certainly not that impressive given that even typos like becuase have many, many more search results. Also, it should be noted that some of the Google results are Wikipedia mirror sites, and the aniconism article doesn't seem to have any references for this word's use. The reason I put this comment here is that if this page is merged with WP:NOT, we probably want to ensure that this is a real word. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)