On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:

Even though you repeat your "disruption" accusation five times in your EMail, I'm still not convinced of being disruptive. By contrast I consider the blocking of editors for having a different POV very disruptive.

Listen, Raphael. I don't really know anything about you. To my knowledge, I have never edited the cartoon controversy page. I have however followed it a tiny bit. All I know is that there is a strong community consensus to include the images in the article. Not behind a link, not "below the fold", so to speak.

I think that this article is a controversial one makes it all the more important to treat vandalism as disruption. Vandalism in this case meaning removing the images. I know you probably won't listen to me, and I imagine you have been told this before, but I feel the need to speak *my* mind about it.

Removing the image is considered vandalism. On a high-edit article like this, vandalism is considered by many more disruptive than on other articles. If you would like to try and sway the community, you should be using the talk page to try and gain consensus. Removing the image without discussion leads nowhere. Continued removal amounts to disruption. Editors may be blocked for disruption.

It is not a matter of blocking someone for their POV. It is a matter of blocking them for their actions. We have many great Muslim editors who disagree with the inclusion of the images, yet don't remove them. Why? Because they know doing so is vandalism and repeated removal is disruption. They understand that until consensus shows that they should be removed, that they should stay.

I know I am repeating myself here, but I think it needs to be repeated. I encourage you, Raphael, to keep working to change the community's consensus. However, do so without being a vandal or a disruption. Remain civil. Compromise. Thank you for your time, my friend. --LV

On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:

Yes, there have been polls in early February in which a strong supermajority made that decision.

Yes, I am listening to you, but you fail to explain, why you consider the removal of a religious insult vandalism. I've already explained many times, why the (re)moval of the cartoons is *not* a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Instead, altering the display characteristics of the cartoons would indeed increase the quality of the article, because it would invite editors who feel insulted by the cartoons to add valuable information regarding their side on this controversy.

I'd like to add beforehand, that changes even if they'd be opposed by *everyone else*, do not constitute vandalism according to [[WP:VANDAL]].

<snip>

Okay, I'll do my best at explaining how I see the situation. The WP community has the goal of creating an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, it is our job to accurately describe and explain certain issues. In order to determine the best way to explain or describe an issue, we use consensus (i.e. supermajority... not democracy). In this particular instance, the community decided that the best way to explain or describe the issue is to show the actual images being discussed. Images are an essential part of WP, as they say, a picture says a thousand words (probably more). Therefore for a particular topic, images can be very useful, no? So since the community has decided that the images improve our ability to explain or describe the topic, the removal of the images reduces our ability to explain or describe the topic, thus being detrimental to the encyclopedia.

We understand people may be offended. We would be heartless to not "get it" on this point. But should we remove every image anyone finds offensive? This is a serious question, not just a hypothetical. <Modified Godwin's alert> If an image of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is offensive to Jews, should we remove it?

Including the image does not "disinvite" editors who may feel offended to voice their opinion on the matter (You seem to be doing a great job). There is always the talk page (which I thank you for using), mailing list (Again, thanks), etc.

And I get that you weren't blocked for disruption. But that is what was being discussed at the time, so I thought I'd speak up. Thanks, my friend. --LV

On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:

In theory you are right, but experience shows, that most editors who feel offended by it, will get blocked sooner or later, because no policy tells them, that the results of 3 month old poll is a binding decision and ignoring it will as likely as not result in a block.

From the page in question:

<!--

NOTE ABOUT THE IMAGE: For many days, discussions occurred and polls were conducted on the talk pages of this article and in February 2006 the super majority (over 80% of contributing editors) decision was to keep the image displayed as it currently is without a "linkimage" and with no added warning template or text. Thus based upon this, unilateral (without general consensus) removal, hiding, relocation or resizing of this image (particularly in a repetitive fashion) will be considered disruptive editing, detrimental to Wikipedia, and may result in a block of your account and/or IP address. Additionally, polls were taken regarding adding image warnings to this article with the polls deciding that like the rest of Wikipedia's articles, no warning shall be added to this one. If you wish to discuss aspects of the display of the image of the cartoons, please do so in a civil manner by posting in the image discussion area of this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controve...

Do not unilaterally remove images or add image warnings. Thanks!

If you wish to hide the image of the cartoons on this article, follow these steps: * Create an account * Edit the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YOURUSERNAME/monobook.css * Add #mi{display: none;}

Aferwards the image will not show. Following these steps does not edit the article itself, just how it is presented to you personally. However there is a slight risk of disrupting your browser's presentation of other articles which contain similar code. Further details available on the above Image-Display Talk Page.-->

Is this not ample enough warning? Seems fairly clearly laid out to me. --LV

On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:

Lord Voldemort wrote:

...

On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:

...

In theory you are right, but experience shows, that most editors who feel offended by it, will get blocked sooner or later, because no policy tells them, that the results of 3 month old poll is a binding decision and ignoring it will as likely as not result in a block.

...

From the page in question:

<!--

NOTE ABOUT THE IMAGE: For many days, discussions occurred and polls were conducted on the talk pages of this article and in February 2006 the super majority (over 80% of contributing editors) decision was to keep the image displayed as it currently is without a "linkimage" and with no added warning template or text. Thus based upon this, unilateral (without general consensus) removal, hiding, relocation or resizing of this image (particularly in a repetitive fashion) will be considered disruptive editing, detrimental to Wikipedia, and may result in a block of your account and/or IP address.

<snip/> > --> > > Is this not ample enough warning? Seems fairly clearly laid out to me.

Yes, it's a clearly laid out warning, but it's not a policy, instead it actually contradicts [[WP:NBD]], which states:

Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method.

Except you snipped the key part: "If you wish to discuss aspects of the display of the image of the cartoons, please do so in a civil manner by posting in the image discussion area of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controve... Do not unilaterally remove images or add image warnings. Thanks!"

If consensus changes, by all means, remove the image. But until consensus shows differently, it should probably stay. And frankly, I'm not sure this is even the right place to be discussing this. On that note, I am done. I'll give you the last word if you want it. Cheers. --LV

Scott Stevenson wrote:

Raphael1, Seeing as you are the only editor who truly is pushing for a change regarding the display of the cartoons, the lines you are citing in WP:NBD do not apply. Where is this supposed change in consensus? I realize now how hypocritical you are and how much of an equivocator you are. You have yourself in these threads said that you'd be fine if the cartoons were on display in the "Islamophobia" article. Your equivocation is utterly illogical and borderline asinine. If you can not see this then there truly is no hope for you and it will not be long before you truly will have "exhausted the community's patience". How can you reconcile this difference? I can only imagine that you'd agree with displaying the cartoons on that articel for informational purposes. Why can you not get it through your mind that the same logic applies on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, that they are displayed there as they are for informational purposes? The display of the cartoons there is not a moral affront by Wikipedia.

Well, if it's not meant as a moral affront, but readers still get offended by the way Wikipedia displays the cartoons, wouldn't it be reasonable to think about how to inform without offending people? I'd reckon the cartoons displayed on the Islamophobia article not to be an affront, because it would be clear, that "Wikipedia" considers the cartoons to be a sign for hatred towards Muslims.

Here's a quick lesson in logic about why Wikipedia doesn't insult muslims by displaying the cartoons:

Let's say that I were to tell Vkasdg that you were a complete idiot who wasted his time (and others) by constantly droning on about the display of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons on Wikpedia. So then Vkasdg goes and tells Rgulerdem that I said you were an idiot (even mimicing exactly the way that I said it). Rgulerdem subsequently comes to you and mimics what I said when explaining that he'd heard that I called you an idiot. Has Rgulerdem insulted you? Clearly not. This same logic applies to Wikipedia does it not?

No, Rgulerdem wouldn't have insulted me, but he would have denounced you. I know, that you particularly enjoy in relaying messages in order to divide people and to create discord, but I consider this a bad habit of yours.

Back to the cartoons: I guess you don't mind looking at the MC in the lower right corner: "A nervous caricaturist, shakily drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder". If the cartoon is funny, it is because of an exaggeration. Nobody really believes, that anyone would be afraid of drawing a Mohammed picture at home. The publication of the cartoons has been the offense and the 3rd sentence of our article "As the controversy grew, some or all of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries, which led to violent protests, particularly in the Muslim world." implies, that republications insulted even more.

Matt Brown wrote:

On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:

...

I'd reckon the cartoons displayed on the Islamophobia article not to be an affront, because it would be clear, that "Wikipedia" considers the cartoons to be a sign for hatred towards Muslims.

And there, concisely, is how you're arguing that Wikipedia abandon its core principles.

Which one? Do you think, that the UN is biased towards Muslims?

It's not WP:OR:

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060319&hn=3107...

http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?m=92 Symbol: E/CN.4/2006/17

Jesse W wrote:

On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:

...

Matt Brown wrote:

...

On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:

...

I'd reckon the cartoons displayed on the Islamophobia article not to be an affront, because it would be clear, that "Wikipedia" considers the cartoons to be a sign for hatred towards Muslims.

And there, concisely, is how you're arguing that Wikipedia abandon its core principles.

...

Which one?

WP:NPOV. Specifically, (paraphrase) "Wikipedia does not *consider* anything to be anything. Wikipedia reports that other people consider things to be other things, and tries to take as few positions as possible."

That's a noble goal, but experience shows, that sometimes "Wikipedia" *has to* take a position. IMHO both to publicate as well as to refrain from publication of information sometimes means to define one's position. If it's not obvious on the JP article, think about AfDs on [[Religion of Peace]], [[Israeli apartheid]], [[Movement to impeach George W. Bush]], ...

Jesse W wrote:

On Jun 1, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:

...

Jesse W wrote:

...

On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:

...

Matt Brown wrote:

...

On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:

...

I'd reckon the cartoons displayed on the Islamophobia article not to be an affront, because it would be clear, that "Wikipedia" considers the cartoons to be a sign for hatred towards Muslims.

And there, concisely, is how you're arguing that Wikipedia abandon its core principles.

Which one?

WP:NPOV. Specifically, (paraphrase) "Wikipedia does not *consider* anything to be anything. Wikipedia reports that other people consider things to be other things, and tries to take as few positions as possible."

That's a noble goal, but experience shows, that sometimes "Wikipedia" *has to* take a position.

OK. That was why I said "as few positions as possible." No argument here.

Nevertheless, I continue to fail to see how displaying an image *on the article about it*(i.e. J-P cartoons controversy) is taking *more* of a position than displaying the image on an article about a general topic of which the image is an (arguable) example. (i.e. Islamophobia)

But we've been over this before. You have said nothing new. This is my last comment (or even reading) of this thread. Have a nice day.

Just in case you're still interested in my view:

IMHO it's not a question of more or less position taking, instead it's a question of which position Wikipedia takes. Either we support stereotyped hostility towards a religious group by imitating that Danish newspaper, or we reject any advocaction of religious hatred?

As you might know already, I prefer the latter. :-)

Rob wrote:

On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:

...

Nobody really believes, that anyone would be afraid of drawing a Mohammed picture at home.

I would be afraid of doing *anything* at home were I targeted by a mob of violent religious fanatics. (A cartoonist would of course have nothing to fear from the sternly worded letters of non-violent reasonable religious folks.)

Surely, but why would you be targeted by a mob of violent religious fanatics?

Matt Brown wrote:

On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:

...

Yes, it's a clearly laid out warning, but it's not a policy, instead it actually contradicts [[WP:NBD]], which states:

Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method.

It doesn't contradict WP:NBD; in fact, it tells you exactly where to go if you feel consensus may have changed. It simply says: get your consensus first, change the page second.

The practice of blocking editors for unilaterally changing the cartoon display is a violation to [[WP:NBD]], which goes on saying:

WP:NBD In order to reach the best possible decisions, we hold it important to listen carefully to each other's arguments, and to try to find mutually acceptable solutions in conflicts. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are *not binding*. </WP:NBD>

Blocking editors a minute after they removed the cartoons without any warning won't ever make that possible.

Rob wrote:

On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:

...

The practice of blocking editors for unilaterally changing the cartoon display is a violation to [[WP:NBD]], which goes on saying:

WP:NBD In order to reach the best possible decisions, we hold it important to listen carefully to each other's arguments, and to try to find mutually acceptable solutions in conflicts. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are *not binding*. </WP:NBD>

Blocking editors a minute after they removed the cartoons without any warning won't ever make that possible.

Removing the image against consensus is not "listen[ing] carefully to each other's arguments" or "try[ing] to find mutually acceptable solutions". NBD does not allow you to ignore consensus and directly says that: "That does not mean you should ignore a consensual decision". It's just saying consensus may change over time.

Please show me the policy which states, that a change against a 3 month old poll result should result in an immediate block.

Besides removing the image against consensus won't hinder you to listen carefully to the other's arguments. Even a block won't hinder you to read other people comments, but a block definitely will hinder other people to listen to your arguments.