Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73→Archive 75


New pages

Clicking 'newest articles' on the Main Page now brings me to Recent additions rather than to New pages. Clicking 'Archive' already has this function, so there's now two links doing the same, and none doing what I want it to. Why has this happened? Eixo 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is 'newest articles'? FellowWikipedian 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This first line in DYK, the one above the bulleted items. -- 199.71.174.100 03:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It was recently changed. Discussion for this is underway at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#What "recent additions" links to. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Pirate? Bay vs. [Earthquake]

I thought it was BORING!!!!!

People, the discussion of what [is put in the news] box? I flew there before! but putting the Pirate Bay raid above the Indonesian earthquake with 1000s of dead is not only systemic bias but decadent, taste- and heartless. PLEASE change at least the order. wtf! gbrandt 06:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's called putting things in chronological order. Calm down. --Golbez 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gbrandt, the earthquake is a terrible and ongoing event, however ITN is presented in date order. It's not a "news box" but a list of articles that have been recently updated with current events. The Java earthquke has been on top for around 4 days. I believe there is no systemic bias involved in this case. Current events --Monotonehell 09:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Pirate Bay shouldn't even be on ITN. It's only there due to Wikipedia's systemic bias. That is, there is a more than average number of technology-savvy editors (unsurprisingly). Not in itself a problem, but it does manifest itself in undue weight being given to stories that in the general sphere are only a minority interest.
I suggest this is removed and a more general news story added to correct this.
zoney ♣ talk 10:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because we always load down ITN with tech stories! --Golbez 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That could be argued. But it goes deeper than simply a techno savvy article. This is about a US company influencing the law makers and enforcers of another country. It speaks to copyright issues in law and in society, about the line between civil and public prosecution. In fact the article has very little to do with the actual technology behind their activities, it's more regarding law and society. --Monotonehell 12:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Big Woopty do. That may all be entirely correct, but it does not mean that the article is worthy of being in a section that only has around 5 world headlines. Go on, have a look at the major news stories at the moment. Pirate Bay is *way* down there on all but the tech news sites. zoney ♣ talk 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
And not one has been updated, save a death toll, for five days. I'd rather have new stuff than stagnate. --Golbez 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, its gone, thanks. This was the second most insensitive thing i saw on Wikipedia since the "live coverage" of Stanley Williams execution. gbrandt 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm putting it back, have at it. --Golbez 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What seems strange in this discussion is that no one is objecting to the opening of a train station in Germany among these headlines. Piet 13:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The german hauptbahnhof is a technological and architectural marvel of our time, which could be compared to the 1855 Glass Palace of the british world fair. It certainly deserves mention as largest in entire Europe and first in the world with true multiple-staired railway crossing. The fact that there is almost no train travel in USA is a shame rather than a viewpoint for wikipedia administration.
You're right, its systemic bias again (i for one look forward to using that station). in any case the amok run at the opening should be mentioned over the opening itself, but then this is not an article, and its not WikiNews here. gbrandt 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Pirate Bay should be there, but not as the top item. Just update the death toll, and the earthquake can move to the top. -- 64.229.224.72 17:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's going back up top because I'm peeved. Blame El C. --Golbez 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:POINT ? What's wrong ? --199.71.174.100 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really; just El C's attitude brought my attention back to ITN, when I had been prepared to let it slide for the day. --Golbez 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay. BTW, please consider updating the death toll and the hidden date, so that the earthquake can move to the top of the list at ITN. -- 199.71.174.100 22:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

pirate bays back up and running :)the mpaa must be very very upset lol

It's probably not in good taste to have a major earthquake anywhere but on the top, but apart from that, I say let's keep the systemic bias! Nobody will be affected by the architectural marvels of a train station, while the effects of insane copyright regulation and freedom-of-information issues might be felt for generations after we are gone. Also, I don't see how a guy running amok is "important". It's disgusting and obviously strangely fascinating to some people, but surely not of any consequence to me or 99,9% of the world's population... Now please flame me. Mstroeck 15:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On this day.

Very Anglo-Saxon centered today and not very interesting IMHO. Charles de Gaulle and the Three Gorges Dam could have given some balance. Piet 10:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon centered ? Charles de Gaulle is scheduled to appear later this week. Three Gorges Dam was on ITN for quite a while last month. See also Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries#USA bias in Selected Anniverary. -- 64.229.204.28 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid FP

I propose "races" be quotemarked. Without the quotations, it implies support for the concept of multiple races. In my opinion, as the sentence begins with "under apartheid", using quotes would convey that that was the term employed by the regime of South Africa. "Ethnic groups" would be preferable, though, as it arguably avoids any POV. SoLando (Talk) 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You are probably in favor of affirmative action though, which I find hilarious. I'm just playing the odds. Haizum 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Non sequitur much? — ceejayoz talk 04:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Ask the suppressed ethnic groups. -- 64.229.204.28 13:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The relevance of mentioning affirmative action is obscure. Though, hey, at least the two words instinctively prompts me to think of WP:BOLD. :-p SoLando (Talk) 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Author(s)?

Who writes the main page?

"They" do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evertype (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
To clarify at Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ ? --64.229.224.72 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The admins do. FellowWikipedian 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Earthquake

"An earthquake on the island of Java, Indonesia (location pictured) kills at least 6,200 people"

Last time I saw this it was at 5,800! May the people rest in peace. Now it's 6,400!!!

♥Je me souviens♥

Aw...i guess it's better to overestimate so that we don't have to cahnge it later ;) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
We should change it up to the minute. FellowWikipedian 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting apartheid advocacy

The front page write-up on the apartheid beach table is really disgusting, it conveys apartheid is borderline normal or something like that. In fact apartheid has been classified in mandatory UN resolutions as evil and inherently criminal under international jurisdiction, which even wikipedia cannot ignore, since UN general assembly resolutions are delivered in the name of the entire mankind. Therefore apartheid must not be portrayed as "petty" or insignificant. Especially in the light of South Africa's planned negrocide in the Angola invasion (which was stopped only by cuban soldiers landing) and its amassing of atomic bombs for the purpose (with no little help from Dimona), we must say apartheid was en par with the Hitler's Third Reich.

I understand how the west and zionists want to suppress and lessen criticism and condemnation of apartheid regime, since USA and Israel were the main open and clandestine military backers of South Africa during the period of international sanctions, claiming anti-communism supercedes racial opression. Yet, if wikipedia emulates that, than wikipedia is no more than a cold-war propaganda megaphone. 195.70.32.136 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? dposse 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, 195.70.32.136. I still say the caption needs some amendments, but meh :-) SoLando (Talk) 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
On a par with the Third Reich? Yes, obviously beind denied access to the same beach as white Boers is every bit as bad as having half of your race exterminated in gas chambers etc. siarach 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the word 'Petty' is being misread here. I the context of the caption it is not translating as 'insignificant' but more like 'minor', as in the segregation of a beach is merely an annoyance compared to the larger, more major life-affecting laws that were coming into place during this time. Not being able to bathe on a particular stretch of coastline would have been nothing compared to the 'non-petty' apartheid such as those affecting education or employment. Lady BlahDeBlah 17:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dismissing apartheid as whites not allowing blacks on their beaches is a gross demonstration of ignorance. Go read the article and come back. — ceejayoz talk 04:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Is that to me or to the original comment? If me, then I'm sorry if it came out like that; I studied apartheid and similar regimes for quite some time during my school years. Lady BlahDeBlah 13:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Petty apartheid was the term in use at the time for these non-life-threatening forms of the policy. The picture seemed to symbolise it perfectly. I think it is mentioned in the article too, it should be. --Guinnog 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-interesting DYK

In contrast to DYK requirements, USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B in DYK has no hook, is longish and full of technicalities. As a result of its inclusion, the template is too long and looks disproportionate. Please consider removal. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Again, I had skipped over using that one for the reasons you list, but Cactus man decided to "be bold" and use it :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-06-01 17:32

Newest article

The link in the Did you know boxe should link to newest article and not recent additions. Something should be done. Moonray 20:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See above #New pages -- 199.71.174.100 21:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article Image

I know the image on the Main Page for Transhumanism looks really nice, but it's a fair-use image. Is there a free image that could replace it? joturner 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Anyone know why the image was actually deleted from the article also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.derosa (talk • contribs)
    • Featured articles should keep the number of fair use images to a minimum, and probably the image wasn't being fairly used (ie, the article didn't critically analyze the subject of the image). --BRIAN0918 01:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Echoing Brian, the article didn't discuss the magazine depicted in the image. According to fair-use policy/law, the image has to be used in an article about the magazine in question. joturner 01:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the main page and clicked the link to the featured atricle on Transhumanism but all that appears is a short stub on the subject. The article still appears in full as the latest version in the history but just not under the article tab. Has anyone else encountered this? Appears to have been corrected.

That image is horrible! please keep images like that off the unavoidable homepage137.205.17.12

Date on main page

See the discussion here: WP:VPR#Date on Main page.

What do you think of this for incorporating the date on the main page? —Mets501talk 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it. It throws off the balance, and users' caching would prevent it from being correct much of the time. —David Levy 05:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Caching is certainly a problem - it doesn't do us any good to proudly show inaccurate information on the Main Page. -Robmods 10:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
That's easily fixed. The version on my talk page has a link to purge the page built right into the time display. I like the idea; several other Wikipedias have already caught on. I doubt we'll ever get it, though, simply because we're so large and there is always some amount of opposition to any proposal anywhere. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-02 14:59
Time to be bold, brian. :-) -- 64.229.207.249 15:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"Be bold" doesn't mean "bypass an ongoing discussion by performing a controversial edit to a protected, high-profile page." —David Levy 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly why the "big" main page change consisted only of a couple superficial changes; people have become afraid of experimenting with anything on this site. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-02 20:14
While the latter statement may be true to some extent, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the recent main page redesign "consisted only of a couple superficial changes." I also dispute your implication that the retention of many of the previous interface's popular elements means that the project was a failure. Change for the sake of change is illogical and counterproductive. (If it ain't broke...)
Also note that I certainly don't advocate seeking advance approval for all edits. In this particular instance, the idea is under discussion (an advisable step) and known to be controversial. —David Levy 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"If it ain't broke" assumes that we definitely know what will or will not work; ie, that we know it isn't currently broke, which is a rather close-minded approach. Experimenting allows us to find better ideas that we wouldn't have thought of initially, or at least didn't think would prove better. Cowering before public opinion will get us a couple superficial changes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-02 21:47
You seem to believe that the redesign project was a failure because we didn't change enough. Aside from my aforementioned disagreement with your claim that we ended up with "a couple superficial changes," I contend that the amount of change is not a valid measure of the endeavor’s success. The purpose was to create the best possible main page, not to change as much as possible.
We spent months experimenting (with numerous drafts created), and we received a massive amount of input. Many of the radical alterations were rejected because people disliked them. I don't understand why you believe that we should have implemented elements that were deemed worse than the existing design. What you call "cowering before public opinion," I call "building consensus." —David Levy 22:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"Best" doesn't necessarily mean "that which isn't rejected by a majority". That's the problem. Also, how much input did you receive from the actual audience of people who use our site but don't edit (which is the actual majority on the site)? Radical new ideas, though harsh at first, can lead to better things; whereas compromise generally leads to the same thing. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 00:04
Given the fact that this is an entirely subjective matter, "best" means "preferred by the most people." The redesign project was advertised all over the site, and we received a great deal of input from non-editors. Some advocated discounting or disregarding this feedback as potential sock puppetry, but I objected for precisely the reason that you cited above. Eventually, it became clear that the outcome would be the same either way.
For every person arguing that we hadn't changed enough, another felt that we'd changed too much. Most, however, endorsed the new design (which was created by combining the most popular elements of numerous drafts and revisions, including those from new/anonymous editors). Many of the rejected changes would have reduced usability for certain users, which was the exact opposite of our goal.
But yes, some of the radical ideas did lead to better things. The header box, for example, originally contained a search field. This was deemed redundant and confusing, but someone had the idea of placing the portal links inside the box (which numerous people have praised). Another example is the featured picture box, which evolved from earlier attempts to fit the picture into one of the existing columns. In that instance, the more radical (but better) idea prevailed.
Every other element (the precise layout, the links, the color scheme, portal icons vs. bullets, etc.) was debated mercilessly and tweaked 'till the cows came home. In the end, we succeeded in our goal of improving—albeit not reinventing—the wheel. —David Levy 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that the purge link fixes the problem, as it requires that visitors know (and desire) to click on it. It also doesn't reduce the cluster's subjective ugliness and extraneousness. —David Levy 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, whenever I go to the page, it displays the correct time, not a cached time. —Mets501talk 17:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I get a cached time. —David Levy 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Once it's on the main page, it should almost always be up to date, or at worst, off by a minute. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-02 20:12
I'm not so sure. I frequently see the previous day's featured content several hours past 00:00 (UTC), and even purging my cache doesn't always solve the problem. —David Levy 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The caching problem makes this whole idea a non-starter - it would almost always display the wrong time, and could often be off by quite a bit (hours or days). Raul654 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the design of the proposed date box on WP:VPR#Date on Main page is quite good. it is big enough to see, but not big enough to disturb the balance. The date has to be known because of numerous reasons- one of them being that with the "On This Day" segment you need to know what day they are exactly talking about because we all live in different time zones and may be on different days. People won't get confused by the date because if it is different to them they will know it is because they live in another time zone. If they don't, well... someone needs to get a brain...Lil Miss Fail 08:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One reason I thought that the date and time (UTC) would be a good idea was because sometimes it's confusing to users to see an "On this day..." box for what would be the next day in their time zone. —Mets501talk 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That section already contains the applicable date. —David Levy 20:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

On this day: June 2

Isn't it Shavuot today? Might as well put that down seeing as there are no holidays or anything currently mentioned. Horses In The Sky talk contributions

Simple English

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to place a clear portal to the Simple English Wikipedia on the main page, allowing fast access to a simplified version of the encyclopedia? User:Micheal Dart/Signature

That is a good idea, and i agree. However, it's already been discussed and i think they turned down the idea. dposse 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Coronated or crowned?

Hmm. I thought Queen Elizabeth II was crowned. I have never seen the form coronated, which would imply the existence of a verb "to coronate". Sounds like a back formation from the event, coronation. Maurice Fox 15:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's already fixed. Empty your cache, please. -- 64.229.207.249 16:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, that sounds fucking rude. --JohnO 23:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
how is it rude? dposse 00:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Needlessly using the word fucking is fucking fucking rude. --Nelson Ricardo 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
That's JohnO being JohnO. Let's ignore him and his verbal abuse. Can unwanted comments of his like that be removed from this talk page and its edit history ? There's no point keeping them in the Archives, except to use them against him in future (e.g. at his RfA, etc.). -- 64.229.7.166 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Never mind. -- 64.229.7.39 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you bating me?? I would never want to join the ranks of the prigs who request adminship. Maurice Fox made a simple comment highlighting an error on the main page. Instead of receiving thanks, he was chastised like an infant. As for "fucking rude," "fucking" was there too emphasise my shock at the response Mr 64.229.207.249 gave. Now, if I were to say, "make a real fucking ID Mr IP address", then, yes, "fucking" would be unnecessary. But in no fucking way should you judge my command of the English language. I intended to shock with its use - to highlight the shocking first response. Strong? Yes. Unnecessary? No. RfA? Don't make me piss my fu... flipping pants. --JohnO 08:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The use of profanity with the intent to shock ? This is a deliberate violation of Wikipedia policy as per Wikipedia:Civility, probably a blockable offence, and should not be tolerated. 65.95.105.186 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My, what a childish firestorm over nothing! I'm not sure what the first commenter meant by "empty my cache." I just logged in and asked about content that appeared on the browser. Maurice Fox 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maurice Fox, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. -- 199.71.174.100 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That was what I wanted to point out. -- 64.229.230.17 15:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination against non-members? What a shock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.193.138 (talk • contribs)

2006 Super 14 Final

2006 Super 14 Final on the main page is linking to Missionary Position! Vladdraculdragon 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That act of vandalism by User:84.68.131.153 has just been reverted. -- 65.95.107.54 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if an article is well-written and constructed, I hardly believe the subject is worthy to be a "featured article." As it is, it's just shameless promotion, and allowing it opens the door for any politico, however obscure, to expect his or her turn in the Wiki spotlight after submitting a bio. It's an unfortunate choice (and biased, in my opinion), since his relevance to the large issues of the day is virtually nil beyond his simply being a "textbook Republican" conservative with higher political ambitions. -Pandelume

The subject or notability of an article has not been part of the Featured article criteria, so textbook Democrats can also be featured, if they pass the stringent examination at Featured article candidates. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Pandelume, you wouldn't be complaining if the politician had been a liberal democrat. Ricardo Lagos 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that to avoid any accusations of bias, politicians of local interest should be avoided regardless of party affiliations. I'm saying that the featured article should not be diminished by giving politicians seeking national office free publicity. It's really opening a Pandora's box which should be left shut. What if his local rival Jean Schmidt should demand equal time? Wiki reaches a national and worldwide audience; why would anyone in California, Florida, or Great Britain be remotely interested in the biography of a local politician of little note outside his home state? It's OK if the article is in Wiki, but to make it a featured article on my home page is both absurd and disappointing. -Pandelume

This is not the first time that Wikipedia has used the Featured Article section to promote obscure Republican candidates. The objectivity of Wikipedia is a joke. It's obvious that the Featured Article section is where one will find the LEAST important and LEAST informative articles. You can protest all you want about how this pointless article meets the "featured article criteria" but the fact is that it nothing more th an a political advertisement and it is completely unworthy of being a "featured article" in any encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.148.243 (talk • contribs)

The featured article does not promote the subject, just the article on the subject. That's an important difference. By your logic, are we to avoid featuring any political or potentially divisive articles? There have been numerous articles featuring subjects from all across the political spectrum. Would this same argument apply to the formerly featured Fred Phelps article? -- goatasaur 12:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A featured article is a featured article, guys. If it meets the criteria, it gets the nod. This one won consensus just like all other featured articles. Let's go find a Democrat's article, fix it up, and get it on the front page too. Bellyaching will get us nowhere, especially as it's already up. — ceejayoz talk 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. You're saying two wrongs make a right. -Pandelume
Wrong. I'm saying it isn't a wrong to feature a featured article. That's the whole point of featured article designation. — ceejayoz talk 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
That's the crux of our dispute. I believe it is very wrong, and an exceedingly dangerous road for Wiki to take. Wiki is a resource, not a tool. -Pandelume

If his rival or her supporters would like equal time, they can work to bring her article to featured status. If no one is interested in improving her article, it will not reach featured status. If there is a subject you'd rather see on the main page, please help bring its article to featured status. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. — ceejayoz talk 04:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's foolish to think this won't lead to problems by November. Wasn't there enough foreshadowing of that with the Congress scandal? --Grocer 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am foolish. What sort of problems do you anticipate? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me, what smells rancid is how some people are suggesting that some subjects should not be covered in featured articles. Besides, I find the suggestion that featured articles are the least important and least informative to be very offensive. If you can find a particular claim in an article that is wrong or biased, alright; but don't whine if politicians you do not support have featured articles about them. Phils 09:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is a poor one today. It does present a form of bias, which we should really try and avoid on the main page. Yes, I understand where that bias comes from and how it happens, but people will still view it as Wikipedia pushing a bias. That and the fact that it is one of the most boring topics you could come across. Some random British/Australian/... person (hell, even most Americans) comes along and they will hardly think "Wow, this place contains some really interesting information". I'm not saying the article shouldn't be of featured status, but I don't think that it is something we should have on the front page. violet/riga (t) 09:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Have we honestly come to a point in time where people believe Americans are going to vote someone into office just because they saw an article about them featured on a website? joturner 11:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that. violet/riga (t) 11:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Joturner. Just because Wikipedia puts a article on the front page and calls it a "featured article", does not mean that they endorse the subject of the article. If Wikipedia had a featured article on Adolf Hitler, would that make wikipedia anti semitic? dposse 13:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously! Any article we put up means we're anti-the-opposing-subject! We should just get rid of FPs altogether and put a big fat smiley face in that open spot. Of course, then we'd biased against big fat frowny faces. I guess you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 14:04
Adolf Hitler: A historical figure that is the subject of much study
Random current politician: A current figure that the majority of the people of the world couldn't give a crap about.
I'm not making the point that by putting this politician on the MP Wikipedia will be clearly endorsing that person, but it is very possible for us to be seen as furthering the systemic bias, and worse, to be pushing particular political parties. Yes, that's just the way FAs work, but if you have repeated appearances of one party on the front page then that looks to the casual reader as bias.
As I said before, I also think that it's a particularly dull choice that appeals to very few people and doesn't make us look like an interesting place to browse. violet/riga (t) 14:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Complaining about the biased nature of the choice misses the point. What bothers ME is the overall poor quality of the article. It is overlong, filled with extraneous detail, lacks an overall theme, and is filled with unattributed, non-neutral statements and implications. It even lacks the little info table that has become fairly standard for politician articles. If this meets the standard for a featured article, then we need to upgrade our standards. --67.160.74.124 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And, not to beat this into the ground, but I strongly encourage you to reread the Featured article criteria, then compare it to the Bob McEwen article. The article fails on almost every point. What happened here? How did this rambling mess end up as a featured article, really? --67.160.74.124 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even worse, how did Raul screw up and put this on the Main Page? The best I can say for this article is that it seems to have a lot of references. --maru (talk) contribs 17:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Raul is just the scheduler, a director of TFA like a director of traffic in that space on the Main Page. He doesn't decided what articles reach the "featured" status. -- 199.71.174.100 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It is true that he doesn't decide what becomes an FA or not (though he is fairly influential there, in my observations), but he does more or less decide whether or not an FA will go onto the Main Page, in addition to the when. --maru (talk) contribs 20:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I have commented on something in a discussion, but I have to say: easily the "dumbest"/least relevant/most US-centric/etc. featured article ever. I guess none of those things are relevant when choosing a feature article. However, the article itself is pretty lame. Why would an article about a man (presumably meant to discuss the things said man has done that are of any interest) have four paragraphs about the details of a particular district? Something should be done about featured article criteria.--Mark7714 20:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article in question was not something that interested me, but then I could say that about a lot of featured articles, including those that appear on the main page, so that is neither here nor there. What does worry me is the comments that this article shouldn't have reached Featured Article status. I've recently been reading the Featured Article Candidates pages, and I have been surprised at the number of people that say "Support" for articles that clearly are not up to scratch. It is normally fairly easy as well to pick a Featured Article and find something fairly simple to improve about it. That might be part of the process of getting more exposure for an article, so as to improve it, but the simple things should be done before FA and definitely before an FA goes on the Main Page. I don't particularly want to spend a lot of time critiquing FACs, but if more people are needed to scrutinise FACs, then I might just do that. Carcharoth 20:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the original poster... I would hope to see better picks as FA's. JohnM4402 03:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And after all that stuff about the choice not being topical, today's FA is the FIFA World Cup...--Mark7714 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

See also: § Gaming the Main Page feature article?
I know this was said a while ago, but Jean Schmidt was featured on September 6, 2005, just wanted to make that clear from a comment made towards the beginning. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 12:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

June 3: On this day...

Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. --15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of "Did You Know?" feature?

Someone has vandalized the link to the Super-14 matches to Masonary Position.

That act of vandalism by User:84.68.131.153 has just been reverted. -- 65.95.107.54 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that today at 11am the links got underlined. I prefer it the way it was as it is distracting all those lines. Please reply on my userpage. the southerner 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Emptying your cache and reloading should do the trick. BTW, this is not really related to the Main Page. Try the Village pump next time. -- 64.229.7.166 16:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Gaming the Main Page feature article?

See also: § Ohio politician promoted as featured article?
Oops, yes. See fourth entry up, and comment there. (I failed to scroll up past the "June 3: On this day..." entry--sorry.) Xojo 18:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can the Main Page be gamed if enough Republicans suggest a feature article? Can Democrats, Libertarians, Unities, and other political parties do it, too?

Bob McEwen did not die today. It's not his birthday, either. Is he or any other retired USAmerican politician of sufficient interest to the global community of English readers to rate a feature on the Main Page?

I'm of little or no international interest. How can I get featured? Just curious. Xojo 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of the Featured Article section. dposse 19:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Very subjective.
. . . as are the criteria "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable." And so they will be until each of these are given the fiction of a numerical score, and the argument over how to weigh them is resolved in the community.
To restate but one of the criticisms in the previous entry (above), "Republican" occurs four times; "Democrat" occurs once (BTW, I am neither). That is an objective measurement. —Xojo (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
How many of the articles at WP:FA would you say are "of sufficient interest to the global community"?
About one in ten. —Xojo (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
After tallying your total, ask 10 more people to do the same.
Ten of my best friends judge from one in twenty to one in one hundred. (Sorry it took so long.) —Xojo (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Then return here with your results.
We average about one in sixty-three. —Xojo (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, being of global interest is not a requirement for a featured article. They must only be well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced to reliable references.
You forgot "neutral" (which I am questioning), and "stable." —Xojo (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
We also don't generally list an article on a day of any importance to the article, although that's not always the case. Have you read any of the site's guidelines or FAQ?
Yes, carefully. —Xojo (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This is all very well known. Now, look back at your original question, and wonder if it might just be that it is your own personal biases that led you down this false path. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 19:20
No, it is your personal biases that led me down this path.
No political rhetoric of any stripe, no matter how well disguised as "fair and balanced," should be "featured." This does not address inclusion or exclusion in the 'pedia—anything that the reader could evaluate should be included—just not featured. —Xojo (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
"being of global interest is not a requirement for a featured article"
But it is for a relatively small news item - go figure! It really should be a requirement - we should think about the image we put forward. violet/riga (t) 20:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The image we are putting foward is that we want you to use this website to learn about all kinds of topics, even those that may not be of "global interest". dposse 20:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. Not everyone will care to read about a former U.S. congressman, an Australian footballer or a Nintendo video game, but it's important to convey the fact that Wikipedia covers a broad range of subjects, thereby inspiring people to search for (and maybe even write) articles on the topics that interest them. This is one of the key elements that set Wikipedia apart from a traditional encyclopedia, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. —David Levy 22:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Funny Brian should talk about guidelines. By his logic, I could write a great article about my grandmother with the reasonable expectation of it qualifying as a featured article even though few people beyond my family would find it interesting and useful. Decisions and judgments have to be made on the relevance and usefulness of the subject matter, not just on how well and thoroughly an article was written. To say otherwise attacks both common sense and the credibility of Wiki. Aside from that, an enclyclopedia that involves itself in partisan propaganda, be it Republican or Democrat or Hawaiian Independence, has lost all right to claim impartiality and neutrality as an information provider. The intrusion of Wiki into the political process at any level is most unwise. Wiki should be independent and no tool of any political group. Brian's defense of such an intrusion might also raise questions of personal biases. The McEwen article is intentionally one-sided, skillfully promoting a "cult of personality" around a politician still entertaining ambitions of higher office. Spotlighting him as a main page featured article when he's still active in politics is absurd beyond belief. -Pandelume
No. An article on your grandmother would not have reliable sources, and would likely not even assert its importance, so it would probably be deleted. Politics is a huge part of the world; we can not avoid having main page featured articles on politics or politicians. If you want to label it partisan propaganda, feel free, but nobody of sound mind would agree with you. We don't pick articles by their topics; we pick them by their comprehensiveness and use of sources. Whether or not the McEwan article is currently neutral, I don't know, and I don't really care. One person does not make the entire site happen, so your whining, without providing any productive work of your own, is going to go unnoticed. I'll respond to further replies from you after you've done something productive. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 20:56
And the McEwen piece does "assert its importance?" If you believe that, then you're speaking from bias. It's a fluffy as they come. I notice whenever a person's arguments are shown to be bankrupt, the usual web response is accusations of "whining."
No, your grandmother likely doesn't fulfill the notability standards of Wikipedia. If there is partisan material in that article, it should be removed or countered with opposing views. Articles on, say, Transhumanism have been featured without Wikipedia being seen as having taken sides in the moral and ethical debates they entail. I'm a liberal, but seeing a Republican featured doesn't bother me as long as the article is good. Go be bold and fix the article if you see so many things wrong with it. — ceejayoz talk 04:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's my point. For the world beyond the 2nd congressional district in Ohio, Bob McEwen has no "notability." You and I are in agreement about applying the "notability" requirement for FA subject selection, at the very least. Some of the article's supporters are saying there should be no subject selection requirements beyond being "well-written," which to me is abdication of responsibility. A well-written article with no meaningful content for most people is simply wasted bandwidth. Are you kidding? The whole article constitutes the best political campaign brochure imaginable. Political advocacy has no place in an encyclopedia. "I'm a liberal, but..." is totally irrelevant. It's like someone saying, "Some of my best friends are black" even as that person supports racially restrictive legislation. Debates on issues are fine and instructive and welcome. The problem is, there are no issues discussed, pro and con, in the McEwen piece. It's just a very slick "meet your candidate" tract.
"I'm a liberal" was to fend off any "you're just some Republican" response. Plenty of our Main Page articles aren't very notable to large groups of people - surely this congressman is more notable than the upcoming Keratoconus on June 5 and Krazy Kat on June 6, for example? A factual article is not political advocacy, nor is Wikipedia's putting them on the front page as a featured article. Again, if you object to one-sidedness in the article, fix it. Add issues he's been involved in. — ceejayoz talk 06:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, don't feed the trolls. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-04 15:01
The point which you (and some others) seem intent on ignoring is that posting such pre-emptive qualifiers would be unnecessary if Wiki simply steered clear of partisan politics. Do you really want Wiki to devolve to being a compendium of candidate biographies? Wiki can't have it both ways: encyclopedia or blog. Wiki is a unique resource, so it's sad to see people intent on compromising that its original mission. Perhaps you or others saw it as an opportunity to "put out the word" about one candidate or another; that is remarkably short-sighted and harmful to the Wiki project in the long run. I loved Wiki enough to make it my home page, so it pains me to see deliberate steps being taken in self-damaging directions. Maybe the "free encyclopedia" concept is fatally flawed even though I'd prefer to think not.
You focus on the "accuracy" of the details of the McEwen articles but fail to see that the article as a whole is inappropriate to an encyclopedia, being neither a discussion of issues or significant history. There is nothing to glean from it other than background info for the benefit of an active politician seeking supporters and votes.
FWIW, the transhumanism piece was great for its recitation of the movement's pros and cons (issue-based concept piece), keratoconus teaches a bit of science (knowledge of our world is always welcome), and even Krazy Kat illuminates the cultural milieu. All more than I can say about the McEwen piece. Any of those examples is of greater interest to me at least than the McEwen piece.
I don't know who is part of the management of Wiki; if you aren't one of management, then it's disingenuous to encourage me to make wholesale changes. If I nuked the piece and left a smiley face instead of a blank spot, I'd be accused of hacking Wiki. But I guess that wouldn't bother you, or you wouldn't keep repeating your challenge.
The article may have aged its way off the main page, but I guarantee you the issues it raises won't go away. Perhaps what Wiki needs most at this point is some idealism. -Pandelume
See Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ther subject is clearly notable. Zarniwoot 02:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Having just read the above, I must say I agree with Pandelume, especially this bit here: "the transhumanism piece was great for its recitation of the movement's pros and cons (issue-based concept piece), keratoconus teaches a bit of science (knowledge of our world is always welcome), and even Krazy Kat illuminates the cultural milieu. All more than I can say about the McEwen piece. Any of those examples is of greater interest to me at least than the McEwen piece." I know I would never bother reading the Bob McEwan article again, though I might bother editing it at some point to make it punchier and more relevant, just to demonstrate the difference. Carcharoth 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This just in . . .

The top box on this (TMP) page says "This page is 88 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Xojo 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just moved quite a bit to Archive 70. Should be okay for now. -- 199.71.174.100 19:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism Arrests

Shouldn't it be noted in the news section that 17 people were arrested in the Toronto Area for terrorism charges, with three times the amount of fertilizer (bomb-making substance)as used in the Oklahoma City Bombing? It is alleged they were to blow up Toronto tourist highlights, like the CN Tower. This is probably the biggest news of the day. (I'll start an article on it too; any ideas for a name?) Theonlyedge 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Terrible Toronto Seventeen? --maru (talk) contribs 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty funny...I've temporarily created the article June 2006 GTA terrorism arrests. It really should be added. Theonlyedge 22:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Just added to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates & Current events. --199.71.174.100 02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pentecost

Can a link to Pentecost be added to On This Day, please ? -- 199.71.174.100 08:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


its pentacost today in the West... why is it not on the 'on this day'?

There was a jewish festival/religious holiday on there yesterday..

To be fair, I have to mention that Shavuot wasn't added to the Main Page till someone asked. See above #On this day: June 2. -- 199.71.174.100 09:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason it wasn't originally there is that, like Shavuot, its date changes every year. Next time remind us ahead of time, rather than complain later. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-04 14:11

I wasn't complaining, was I ? BTW, I've suggested adding a link to Whit Monday on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/June 5. No response yet. -- 199.71.174.100 21:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the other anon whose hate speech I deleted. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 00:05
Oh, right, the line with the 'signature' is gone. Good. And thanks for adding Whit Monday. -- 199.71.174.100 13:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Other areas of Wikipedia

That section of the main page seems not to have been redisigned and looks ugly along with everything else below the featured picture box, therefore I propose chaing it to this:

Other areas of Wikipedia

Help desk Reference desk Village pump Community portal Site news
Ask questions about using Wikipedia. Serving as virtual librarians, Wikipedia volunteers tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects. For discussions about Wikipedia itself, including areas for technical issues and policies. Bulletin board, projects, resources and activities covering a wide range of Wikipedia areas. Announcements, updates, articles and press releases on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Suggestions are appreciated. LC@RSDATA 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The section in question didn't exist prior to the redesign. In my opinion, the current layout looks much better than yours (irrespective of display resolution). —David Levy 12:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
There's no real change. How about improving the pages in those links instead? They are in much need of help. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-04 14:35
I seem to remember helping to prune down this section during the Main Page redesign. I wasn't entirely happy with the way it looked, especially the vertical arrangement of bullet points that looks different across different screen resolutions. If this horizontal arrangement helps solve that, this would be great. Carcharoth 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Error in ITN

Moved to Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors — ceejayoz talk 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I enjoyed reading those... :-) Carcharoth 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are there two introductions?

As far as I can see from the "Welcome to Wikipedia" intro, there are two introductions, one points to "Wikipedia:introduction" and one to "Welcome, newcomers". This seems redundant and confusing. Even if they are different in what they cover, most users will not make the distinction, and will ultimately click either, without any consideration to where it points to exactly. We, wikipedians might know the distinction, but we must keep in mind to look from the point of view of the people that might need the introduction. Msoos 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

They do crosslink, though. — ceejayoz talk 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be good to make the word encyclopedia in the main title "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." linked to the wikipedia article?--Exander 21:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If encyclopedia links to anything then it should be encyclopedia. Linking one word to a completely different concept would just confuse people. --Cherry blossom tree 21:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you mean the Wikipedia article on encyclopedia, don't you? Ignore that then. --Cherry blossom tree 21:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
There are enough links in that section of the main page already. Also, all the other links are to items about Wikipedia and how to edit or browse it. A link to an "ordinary" article would be out of place.-gadfium 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, there are already a great number of links. Most people know what an encyclopedia is before finding Wikipedia anyway. -- Mithent 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FA Image: Keratoconus

Isn't there a runner up featured article? Or can we at least get rid of the pic - it is disturbing. Chooserr 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I rather agree. But it does put things in perspective. If it were a drawn diagram, I'd be a bit more comfortable. But all the same, it's somewhat interesting, and I'll just stay away from the main page for the next 22 hours. ---- Cyrenaic
I agree the image is a little.. striking. I did wonder if someone would mention it. -- Mithent 01:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Striking? It's creepy! it's just....EWWWWWW. dposse 02:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You want to replace the featured article because you don't like a picture of an eyeball? Ugh... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 02:17

I don't want that, but the picture is grossing me out. dposse 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. That picture is way squickish. Eww. - Brian Kendig 02:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you people are so squeamish, I've switched the picture to something else. Raul654 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats better. thanks. dposse 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't care either way, but IMO this pic is waaaay scarier. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the picture. It was really disgusting and totally unacceptable for a mainpage picture. Imagine if a little kid logged on and saw that. It was seriously disturbing.
A picture of a slightly odd eye is disturbing? The former image was much more informative, and could tell you at just a glance what the article was most likely about. Please change it back Raul654. Also, a kid would probably think that picture was cool. Ziggur 03:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The other picture was much more informative, and more accurate. I'd say this one is creepier too, if anyone cares... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Argh, make up your minds! Ok, I've changed it back to the orginal, and that's final :) Raul654 03:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a picture of a messed-up eye. People are not going to be happy until you use something like this... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
...Eww... Is there any way to code in a tiny Javascript function that makes the image viewable only if you roll over it with your mouse or something? As it may put off a lot of people, just... sticking out like that. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously people, get over it. Its just an eye! skorpion 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture of a deformed eyeball is not suitable for the frontpage! Many peoplr of all ages and sensabilities visit Wikipedia. Such media imagery should not be used. I personally think it looks horrible and will have images blocked from now on. What a shame 62.3.70.68 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Next you'll be saying that deformed eyes are contributing to the moral decay of America. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 04:56
It's much worse than that. Apparently the rise of the internet has turned America's kids into a generation of porn slackers. But not to worry - "Congress is working on legislation that would make it more difficult for children to find porn on the internet. "We don't want our children to fall behind countries like China who make it more difficult for their kids to find porn," said Senate majority leader Trent Lott." [1]

Raul654 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I even forgot what I was going to look for, awful

I don't usually resort to name-calling, but what a bunch of morons! Next thing you know, we won't be featuring "Evolution" because it might disturb the "religious sensibilities" of 2,5 percent of Wikipedia's readers. A picture of an eye is a picture of an eye. An encyclopedia's scope is not limited to fluffy bunnies. Get over it. Mstroeck 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't politics, it's aesthetics. I'm sick of looking at that thing. It's not just a normal eye, it is a deformed eye, it has the lids pulled back, and it is quite disturbing. Have some taste, please? Joel Michael 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


The image of today's featured article 'Keratoconus' is too grotesque

Can you please change the image of today's featured article, Keratoconus? It's extremely grotesque, I lost my appitite (I happen to like eating and surfing Wiki), and generally not the sort of thing one wants to see logging onto the mainpage of Wikipedia.

You insensitive clod, are you saying my eyeball soup is disgusting?!? I happen to like eyeballs! Mmmm... eyeballs. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It was changed to a more "suitable" image, but some people complained that this would be a violation of NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is not censored; I know this isn't pornography or anything, but still, it is a picture of a medical condition; technically, nothing wrong with it. And don't worry, I don't like it, I just made a small macro to pop a window in the place of the image every time I happen to go near it. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 04:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiclous. This image should not be up on the frontpage. It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE for the frontpage. If no consensus can be reached on the image, no image should appear at all. Remove the image entirely. Seems like the easiest solution to me.--Blakis 04:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
For every person who has complained, tens of thousands have not. For something this subjective, pure numbers are all that matter; and I say that the numbers are not on your side. I would say you'll just have to grow the ability to look at someone from a side profile, because that's all you're seeing in this picture. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 05:00
Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. Not saying that we should change the image, but "tens of thousands don't complain" is not a valid criterion for keeping it. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
People usually only reply if they're going to complain. Few people, besides editors, will reply saying they're fine with something; only those who have a problem with it will reply. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 05:35
I guess very few people would say "great image!", a handfull say "no way!" and the large majority does not care enough to make their opinion known either way. Still, that argument makes little sense because I could just as likely argue that all these people we don't hear about died of spontaneous heart attacks upon seeing the horrible, horrible image. Arguing for it on terms of encyclopedic value is perfectly okay, though, and I tend to favor this direction. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did complain when it was changed to something else, because the replacement was worse, and the image isn't bad to start with. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how many people will complain when this featured picture shows up on the mainpage on June 25. Shawnc 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I'm afraid he's right. For every complaint you recieve there is probably a thousand people who feel the same way but can't be bothered letting you know about. As for praise, well, you shouldn't expect that unless an article is sensationally spectacular. People are hard to please but complaints are usually the tip of an iceberg. Personally I don't find the image very sexy either. Richard Branson 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aww, whose a little cutey fly? You are! Yes you are! Come 'ere, little guy! Anyway, unless a lot more people request a change, it likely won't happen (the coordinator for FA, Raul, stated that there won't be any more changes). Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 05:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thats a great pic, I think I will make that my desktop background. skorpion 06:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I like the flies! I'm impressed at the photography too. People do tend to be squeamish about eyes though. I just regret that there isn't a better picture we could use; Wikipedia is not censored, but some sensitivity as to the main page would be sensible. If you actively go looking for medical conditions then you would expect to find images, but if it's on the main page then it's just given to you. Still, not sure what I'd have recommended. -- Mithent 11:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the front page shouldn't be censored,but I too have found the picture a bit disturbing everytime I open the home page. Guess it has made me realise how often I am wasting time, and that eye does get me back on task again. 220.240.57.146 05:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. I do not think we should compromise the encyclopedia to satisfy what people do and do not like. We should use the most informative image and that should be non-negotiable. An encyclopedia is a encyclopedia and that is what people should expect when they visit the site. --Clawed 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Removing a picture from the front page because it makes the page look ugly is not censorship. The picture it available in the article. What if a book encyclopedia had a picture of open heart surgery on the cover? Do you think it would improve sales? This is not censorship, just common sence. Andersa 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We SHOULD change the picture. Not remove it from the article, that would be censorship. But the front page is the most visible part of the site and when people come to it they don't know what to expect, not like when they are opening an article and expecting it to contain pictures. This is not a censorship issue. I don't remember we ever posting hard-core pornography on the Main Page. Everybody understands that we shouldn't disturb readers without giving them a chance to suspect that they may be disturbed. I'm not disturbed easily by images, but even I was revolted by this image. Let's not bring the non-issue of censorship into this, nobody is demanding you censor the article. Just eithe rremove or linkimage it from the Main Page to save some vomits and lost readers. Loom91 06:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Revolted? The side profile of a person, zoomed in on his eye, is revolting? Repulsion is in the mind's eye. Look inward to solve your problems. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 06:06
It's certainly very informative, and that's all that matters. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 06:14

How about a bit of perpective? Its a medical condition, it illustrates the article in question, it is an eyeball: nearly everyone has two and as medical conditions go, it is quite tame. Just thank your lucky stars that the article on the front page isn't small pox and the picture isnt of a small pox victim. Or worse. skorpion 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This picture is too nasty. What kind of picture would you put up if the featured article was "goatse.cx"? Everyone I've spoken too personally agrees with me that this picture is just too repulsive. Onsmelly 06:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an eye! Haven't you ever seen an eye before? Perhaps you're too busy looking out of them :P. I have no problem with the current image, and prefer it to the alternative Image:Corneal-hydrops.jpg. The only other image in that article that could work would be Image:Corneal topography right ax.jpg, though it isn't terribly interesting. — TheKMantalk 06:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I'm not an advocate of censorship in any way, shape or form, but I find that pic by far the grossest I've ever seen on WP, goatse included, and it's so squicky that I'm making a point of avoiding the WP front page until after the changeover tomorrow. I don't think the pic *should* be changed, but I also don't think we need to be positional about using a squicky picture when a less-squicky one will do the trick. This isn't the same as censoring a pic in an article; I think there *always* should be photos to illustrate topics, whenever quality pics can be legally obtained. But I don't think we need to depict physical deformities on the front page in order to make a point about censorship, or even to make a point about illustrating a featured article. And BTW, I think the bug pic is great! If this bug's rockin', don't come knockin'!--Anchoress 06:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the image wasn't chosen "to make a point about censorship." — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 06:58
I don't believe that it was, and if I gave that impression, I apologise. My comment was in response to the many people who have answered complaints about the picture with the comment, 'Wikipedia is not censored'. I just don't think that having a less squicky pic on the front page is striking a blow for censorship, any more than I think keeping the pic is championing free speech. Pics are included when they add something to the article. That pic, just like (IMO), the Prince Albert Piercing pic, the clitoris pics, the penis pics etc DEFINITELY add something to their articles; something precious and worth fighting for. But I don't think the pic of the protruding eyeball adds anything to the front page.--Anchoress 07:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, is it the very sight of an eye that is grossing people out, or the sight of an eye exposed to potential danger (from needles or other sharp objects), and our minds are filling in those possibilities of danger, leading us to be repulsed. Anyone? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 07:01

It's the whole clinical thing. People see it as losing control over theirselves and being vulnerable. Potential for pain plus inability to run away = scarey. Same as going to the dentist. --Monotonehell 07:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Some of you people need to gain a bit of a perspective on the world. As some above have pointed out; this is an eye, most people have two and if you turn away from your monitor and interact with some real people you may see some more. OH NOES! PUT A PATCH OVER THEM! lol sorry for my flipancy, but seriously, if you can't stand illustrative pictures of encyclopedic subjects you have no business reading them. There are far more disturbing things in the real world, this project is about documenting them. --Monotonehell 07:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep: it's not like that image is one of a massive penis or anything :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove: Seeing medical imagery should be by choice not just because you visit the homepage of an mass market encyclopedia. 199.4.27.1 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only directed at 199.4; - it's a picture of an eye. There's no cutting or any kind of medical proceedure going on. It's not open heart surgery. There's no blood, no gore, just a slight structural change within the cornea, just a little conical bump. How bad do you think such repulsion on your behalf makes sufferers of this disease feel? Now they feel like freaks who can't show their face in public. --Monotonehell 10:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a deformed eye. We shouldn't put pictures of Joseph Merrick on the front page either.Metamatic 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but it isn't the fact that it is an eye. I have two, and quite like them, but I think it is the size, reality and un-avoidablility maybe. looking at the homepage, there it is, in all its glory. I do consider myself sqeemish, but if it were a diagram, as opposed to an image, I wouldn't think twice about it. 220.240.57.146 08:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit it put me off my breakfast a bit, and I've seen the image before. I don't have a problem with it being in the article (even at the top) but putting it on the main page is a bit much. Our first concern should be for our readers, many of whom are going to see this image with no choice. I would expect many of them won't know how to complain either, or just won't bother to find out. I would swap it with something else, but unfortunately there aren't really any other images in the article that are suitable. the wub "?!" 09:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sakes, the image will be replaced in a matter of hours once the next article is chosen. I doubt 24 hours of this image being shown is going to that much harm. ---- Cyrenaic

Conversely, I doubt that a few hours of there not being a picture up on the home page for the Featured Article will hurt anything. The picture is squickish, and we don't need to treat every visitor to en.wikipedia.org to a photo of a protruding eye with the surrounding skin pulled back. I am going to remove the image from the home page. - Brian Kendig 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, brian. is this going to be the end of it? dposse 12:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it. ;) I acknowledge that removing the photo isn't the best solution - I'd prefer to have a less squicky photo there in its place, instead; perhaps a photo of the face of a person with this condition going about a normal day? - and the home page does look a bit naked without an image up there for the FA. But I believe the image there was doing more harm than good to Wikipedia; we don't want people to think they should avoid WP because they might encounter a squicky image in the course of looking up something unrelated. And I haven't seen any argument for keeping the eye picture on the home page other than "oh, come on, be tough, *I* don't mind it, and there are worse images out there." I don't feel that's good enough justification for keeping it. - Brian Kendig 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I hardly ever comment on Wiki - but this image just got to me. I use Wiki a lot and today I find myself avoiding it. The gross images should be kept for the article page - they shouldn't be there on the homepage. Glad to know I'm not the only one that feels this way!~~Tina S~~

I, too, am one of the once-silent majority. That image was disgusting. Whoever removed it has my sincerest thanks. Frankly, if it was a good image, it would have more defenders. This idea that 'only complainers complain' is nonsense. And all you self-righteous jerks who think that ticking off a large minority is somehow a good thing... please, don't work on the main page. We don't want you to. 128.135.108.86 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (Edit: changed majority to minority. 128.135.108.86 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

Ladies and gentlemen, please make up your mind! Either the picture goes or it stays. We can't have a edit war all day long over this! dposse 13:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a reduction of the picture size is a reasonable compromise, it greatly reduces the impact of the image. otocan

I'd say swap it with this one, as it's harmless and shows the EFFECT of the disease, rather than just what it looks like. More informative in my opinion. MightyMoose22 13:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone undid my removal and put the squicky picture back up there. I just changed it to Image:Corneal topography right ax.jpg instead; while it doesn't illustrate the condition quite as clearly, that's the point. I thought about using the Kc simulation picture instead, but when made small enough to fit on the FA section of the home page, I felt it was too vague. - Brian Kendig 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. There was no consensus here to remove the picture. Please put it back. It's disgraceful for Wikipedia to allow a picture of a naked lady on the main page whilst censoring an image depicting a disability. — SteveRwanda 13:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? The image of Venus Anadyomene is a tasteful nude; nothing disgraceful about it. The image of keratoconus was a closeup of an eye with someone using his fingers to pull the skin back from it. Removing that image isn't a judgment of people suffering with keratoconus; it's merely acknowledging that lots of people are squicky about eyes. (Consider how often eyes, and doing nasty things thereto, are a staple of horror films.) I don't think people would even want to see an image on the home page of a normal eye with the skin pulled back. - Brian Kendig 13:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, maybe my words were too harsh - and I certainly wouldn't criticise the Venus image - but it remains the case that very many people wanted this image to remain, including Raul, who put it there in the first place. — SteveRwanda 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
May want to change the ALT text as the image has been changed. -- 199.71.174.100 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Fixed - thanks for the heads-up. - Brian Kendig 14:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The new image is much poorer than the old one for illustrating the subject matter. Wikipedia is supposed to have NPOV and be an encyclopaedia. Replacing an image with one that does not illustrate the topic as well as the replaced image makes no sense for an encyclopaedia and peoples' personal views on whether they find an image grotesque should not lead to an inferior image being used instead. While I personally do not find the image the most pleasant to look at, it is at least an accurate reflection of the article. Martin Hinks 13:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Good style is an important part of an encyclopedia--nobody can dispute that. It is not good style to make people lose their breakfast. 128.135.108.86 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
But the image is on topic in the article in question, and anyone who opens the full article will see it at the top of the page. It's pretty pointless to keep replacing the front-page image if that means more people will be surprised when they open the article. 168.12.253.82 14:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point (both of the above); however, you have to correctly represent the issue being presented. While the article on cannibalism won't have pictures of... you know what, articles about medical conditions and such should have images such as the old one to represent what they really look like. And don't worry, I too am fairly grossed out by it; perhaps we can implement a system where you can turn off images that are designated "gruesome"? Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe you may just have stumbled across WP:TOBY. <ducks> -Splash - tk 14:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
By clicking a link to a medical condition, you're accepting the risk of gross images. It is silly that a medical condition article not include images that are appropriate to the article. But it is equally silly that a user-friendly default main page include images that are not "user-friendly". We're trying to welcome users to Wikipedia, not drive them away. This is a main page, not an article about eyeballs, and having a big ugly eyeball on it is not going to help it serve its function as a main page. 128.135.108.86 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What the question boils down to is this: Should a visitor to the Wikipedia home page be presented with an image which he is likely to find repulsive? (I feel it's safe to assume that a lot of people may find this image repulsive; if you disagree and think most people won't bat an eye at it, please speak up.) Does Wikipedia have a responsibility to acquaint homepage visitors with the details of today's Featured Article even if the details might be repulsive? My answer to this would be no; I see no obligation to put the repulsive image on the home page. As long as it's still in the article, that's not censorship. - Brian Kendig 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I never comment on Wiki either, but that popped eyeball was utterly disgusting. Consider me the "silent majority" as well --Broux 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The state of affairs involving this image helps to highlight how strange Wikipedia's policies on censorship is. The policy is odd in the sense that without logical censorship of pointlessly "grotesque" images, a large proportion of learners and people striving for information (i.e. Children and people who might be sensitive to such images), cannot take advantage of Wikipedia. It's a policy which doesn't make Wikipedia accessible to all, but only accessible to people over 18 or 21, who happen to not get squeamish over such graphic images.

It's often said pictures can be a thousand words. In this case 33 words: the initial first sentence. Perhaps that shows how pointless it is to have such an image on the front page. 172.209.131.104 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the photo fascinating and in perfectly good taste. It excellently visualises instantly the mechanism behind an important medical condition. In contrast, the computer-generated image that replaced it is extremely obscure, boring, and meaningless unless one has read first a detailed technical explanation of what it shows. The replacement image is a textbook example of an image that is not a good choice for the front page. Please put the fascinating and very illustrative original eye photograph back! There is no harm in Wikipedia presenting a gently stimulating and exciting photo every know and then. The front page should signal that Wikipedia is about science and knowledge, and not about political correctness and bland lowest-common denominator esthetics. 128.232.100.206 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It is an interesting photo, but it is also an image that provokes a visceral reaction against it - I have a strong stomach, and even I thought "ugh". I think it's not a matter of censorship, since that image should certainly be available on the article's page, but it can't be denied that the image, due to its subject, may be found by a significant number of people to be unpleasant. I would vote for it to be changed back to the previous image that wasn't so graphic, although admittedly, not as informative.

Wikipedia does have a history of where it would censor images. For instance, when the swastika was the featured article, the image was of a Nazi swastika was originally used and it was changed to the Hindu image to be less offensive. Behun 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite true (I should know, considering I'm the one who writes these things). I originally used the curvy hindu swastika, someone (Brian0918, I think) changed it to a Nazi one, and I changed it back stating that I intentionally avoided using a Nazi one. Raul654 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll add a few words here as one of the principal authors of the article and the one who nominated it for the front page. There was never any intention whatsoever to cause people repulsion and it is regrettable that this turned out to be the case. I actually have keratoconus: it's not even a rare condition. --BillC 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't worry about overly squeamish Wikipedians; and thank you for writing the article. When I look at a picture like this one, I can't help but find it interesting, but I realize I'm priviledged to look at it from a purely academic standpoint without actually suffering from the condition. People should not have to worry about possibly being repulsive to others. Repulsion to other humans is superficially understandable in some cases, but in effect, what it comes down to is a lack of respect and compassion. I don't see any reason to support that. Mstroeck 17:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I choose education over censorship anyday. Ignorance leads to trouble. Read history --Monotonehell 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep it. All arguments have been stated, just wanted to chime in in support.--Zambaccian 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A huge number of users that saw this image had a problem with it. That is a fact. Maybe when an image is offensive, there SHOULD BE NO IMAGE. Just remove the image for the day entirely. I do not see why there has to be an image everyday anyway. Little kids visit wikipedia to get information, it is just un-tasteful to put such an image up on the mainpage. I am not one for political correctness, but that image was beyond ridiclous. What is next, an image of a surgery with blood and guts all over, just cause it is "informative"? Better judgement should be used before just blatnly placing un-tasteful images on the mainpage. And to argue that more users don't visit the mainpage than anything else is just stupid. It is a fact that on the internet, people bookmark mainpages. How can anyone even attempt to argue they do not. --Blakis 02:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The way that some people cannot tell the difference between sensitivity based on good taste and real censorship is very sad. This picture should not have been shown out of respect for the squeamish, but it is all to clear that people with gross out tastes do not have any respect for those who feel differently. Chicheley 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Define what squeamish is and I'll agree with your argument; otherwise it is definitely not all to[o] clear that I and others have no respect. There was nothing wrong with that picture - in my opinion (and I know I'm not alone from the amazing discussion above) it wasn't gross, tasteless, pornographic or oozing bodily fluids: just a good photograph from a respected source illustrating, in true Wikipedia style, the condition being described in the excellent article. Bazza 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I came across this arguement by chance, because I never expected anyone would be anything other than facinated by that picture... I think the arguement that mostly people who don't like it will go to the discussion and complain... everyone I know who saw that picture thought it was interesting and not "disgusting" ... I know I'm a few days late but I wanted to add my support anyway Misterniceguy7 14:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Image for Featured Article

The current image for the featured article (the diagram) is ridiculously dull, uninformative, and confusing to the average reader. You can't read the axes, or the words, or anything. Even at "full size", it's only 173px wide. Whereas the original image made it clear exactly what the disorder was, this image tells you nothing. What's the point?

Also Raul654 said further up that the eyeball image is final. Please respect his decision. We don't need to revert war over the side profile of a person about to put in a contact lens, who happens to have a disorder.

The only thing that is making people squeamish is seeing an eye exposed to whatever possible dangers their brains can and do imagine, an eye that they can't close. We should censor an image for the mental pictures that people create?

This is NOT a picture of medical imagery. If you walked by someone with this disorder as he was putting in his contact lenses, you'd see this exact same image. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 15:29

Hi Brian; you're right about the edit war, but I have to disagree with your generalisation about why people find the pic squicky. Personally, it is NOT the vulnerability of the eye, it's the pointiness of it. It just really squicks me. If it were just a regular eye with the lids stretched it wouldn't bother me in the least.--Anchoress 15:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Of the images that have been used so far, would you agree that this one is the most informative, though? It tells you immediately what the disorder is, while the other images tell you exactly nil. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 16:04
Oh I think it's an awesome illustration of the disorder, and I think I made that clear in my posts above; that's why I think it's a key element of the article.--Anchoress 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's an excellent illustration of the article, but as with most people in the conversation above, I have a strong stomach, and I still get squeamish when I see it. Whether it's a real disorder or not, is it what we want visitors (maybe first-time visitors) to see when they visit the site? I don't mind if it stays or not, I'm just trying to bring up a point to think about the visitors. -- DakPowers (Talk) 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"Strong" compared to what? I was initially repulsed until I realized that it's just a disorder, not some sort of surgery. If you're stomach is so strong, please take a look at rotten.com. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 16:37
Strong as in, I've viewed many a rotten and Ogrish, and very few of them fazed me. Dead people, etc., in my opinion, is much less displeasing than say, that video where the lady gets the 5" zit drained. It's just unnatural (or rather, uncommon) stuff that gets me. It'll only be up for a couple more hours, though, so I can live with it. As I said, it was only the visitors I was worried about. :) – DakPowers (Talk) 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"Repulsive", "qrotesque", "squicky" - these are totally subjective assessments of the image that, ultimately, are in the eye of the beholder (pun intended). The diagram was useless as a main page thumbnail for the article, and the eyeball photgraph is totally inoccuous, it's just a photograph for goodness sake. I really can't believe how much kerfuffle has been going on over it, and how the objections of a few managed to have it removed for such a period of time. Long live the eyeball I say ... :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 16:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Objections of the few? Are you mad? How about the insistence of the few? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.108.86 (talk • contribs) -- No, I'm not mad (yet), but thankfully this ridiculous furore will be over soon. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried looking at the diagram full size? It's useless whether thumbnailed or not, as it's just a thumbnail itself. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 16:05
Just tried looking at the diagram "full-sized". I see what you mean, which is even more reason not to use it. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

edit break

See my comment above. --BillC 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare you force our eyes to look at your eyes ;) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 17:21

PLEASE get rid of that photo --or crop it to the part of the eyeball that's relevant. The whole "popping eyeball" thing on the mainpage is excessive and gross. Why not just do a feature on the asshole and use that photo that's running around. It really turned me off when I went to the mainpage, and I know it must be disturbing to most people visiting --and it isn't apparently necessary, if I'm reading the summary right. I love all the "OMG, you must not be serious about wikipedia if you don't like the photo on the mainpage" comments...seriously, what is up with that attitude? --Bobak 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Popping eyeball"??? It's not sticking out any further, it's just shaped differently. Next you'll be telling me you're "literally going to puke... literally!" — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 18:35
I love that photo for the FA. It's informative; the article is about a cornea defect and the first thing I noticed was how the curvature of the eye in the photo looks "sharper" than that of a regular eye. --Madchester 18:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Well said, informative is the key word here. The images that augment our Featured Articles should be informative, and this one is. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Plus, it's not like the image is permanent. In a few hours, it will be gone, replaced by a new featured article. -albrozdude 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Plus, the image was in the FA queue for a week before today, and nobody complained beforehand. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 18:30
Thanks for restoring the exciting original eye photo. Squeamishness is usually a sign that someone has been too well shielded from the beauty and fascination of the real world, and what better than an encyclopedia can help them to open their eyes more. Squeamish people tend react much less strongly if they see whatever triggered a strong reaction for the second or third time. Markus Kuhn 18:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
For heaven's sake get rid of it - it's horrible. Keep it in the main article by all means but there are lots and lots of examples of photos and pages that will never, and should never, be included on the main page because of their likelihood to disgust a large section of visitors. Surely the reaction here shows that this is one of them.--Lo2u 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that a) the fact that a minority finds a medical image disgusting is somehow relevant; and b) that Wikipedia is some sort of democracy. You are wrong on both counts ;-) Mstroeck 20:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, things that wouldn't make the main page might include nudity or pornography. Are you saying that it's just one step from showing the side profile of a person who's putting in a contact lens, to showing a person naked on the main page? As for your "large section of viewers", the number of complaints has been extremely small compared to the number of people who view the main page daily (a dozen or so, versus tens/hundreds of thousands, or about 0.01% to 0.1%). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 19:57
You realize that as of 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC), there actually is a picture of a person naked on the main page: Image:Anadyomene.jpg? I've no opinions one way or another on the subject, but just found that amusing. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a god, not a person :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 20:06
I wouldn't object to a naked person on the front-page in an artistic, informational or medical context. Mstroeck 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
But surely if the picture is appropriately illustrating an encyclopedia article, it is by definition informational? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Get rid of the ugly thing, what next? will you make goatse.cx a featured article and i will have to see goatse ass every time i will go to the main page? Jernejl 19:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's the next logical step, obviously.... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 19:53
Apparently the next logical step is to keep making snide comments at people who disagree even after you got the outcome you wanted. Obviously. --squirrel 20:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Jernejl claimed something obviously ridiculous as if it was obvious fact. In any case, you can take comfort in knowing that you didn't stoop to my level of snideness in your reply..... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 21:28

Do you all get my comment? Why not crop the photo to the actual eyeball instead of the gratuitous parts around it (the parts that are what are actually creeping people). The stretched eyelid above and below has nothing, nothing to do with the subject. I have yet to see someone explain that. Hah, have your eyeball and eat it to :-p --Bobak 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I've tried cropping, but without the surrounding lids/lashes, the eyeball loses all context and looks like a "white thingy with a black thingy next to it." — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 19:55

I have to agree with the majority of the people here. This image is disturbing, to say the least, and I think by the very nature that there are about a hundred or more people complaining about it shows that there are a lot more who don't write here very disturbed by it. This isn't censorship, this is just 'can we find a less squeamish picture to put up'? I'm sure the article's great, and there seemed to be several good pictures in it, but that picture is just too much for the main page.24.60.193.70 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The number of people who have replied here do not represent a majority of the people who have viewed the main page; the number of complaints has been relatively small (a dozen or so, versus tens/hundreds of thousands of viewers, or about 0.01% to 0.1%). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 21:01
  • Also, catering to the easily-offended is the same thing as self-censoring. Rather than fixing your problem with viewing the side profile of a person who's putting in his contact lenses, you wish us to change the image for everyone else, thereby avoiding your own problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 21:02
  • Considering that the photo does not violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, there's no reason for its removal. Likewise, Wikipedia gets almost 3 billion daily page views, so unless you take a representative sample, you can't claim that the "majority" want the photo removed. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a democracy and may contatin content your find objectionable. --Madchester 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Brian, you seem to be one of the very few defending this vehemently, while all around you dozens of posters are chiming in to say that the image is rather disturbing. If this were one or two people complaining about an image, I could see it being "easily offended" but it seems that many here are slightly disturbed by the picture. As others have pointed out, what's the difference between this and Goatse or other images which many find offensive? Carcharoth makes a very good point - medical imagery can be disturbing to many. And seeing as there are perfectly legitimate other ways to express this - as in charts, diagrams, etc., that others have suggested, you seem to simply be blithely ignoring the outcry, which is clearly symptomatic of many people who have seen the image and been disturbed but do not know how/do not care to write about it in the discussion page. I'm not claiming it's a majority, but here's a fact to chew on --- out of dozens and dozens of complaints here, there seem to be only a handful of people defending the image. Don't you think that's something worthwhile?24.60.193.70 21:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Simply saying "I'm offended" counts for nothing. That's no way to build consensus. The diagram that was suggested is unreadable at any size--the full size version is only 170 pixels wide; completely useless and uninformative, as I pointed out numerous times above (did you skip that?). I'm used to seeing a large number of complaints on a high-profile subject, such as Mediawiki:Anonnotice, so numbers alone don't intimidate me; no matter how many of you try to say "look at how many of us there are, we must be right", you are still only 0.01% to 0.1% of the number of people who view the main page. Provide any rationale beyond "I'm offended", and I'll listen. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 22:21
        • Brian, I understand your point, but I disagree with it. Are there any other, less visceral images we can use? There are several in the article, even excluding the diagram. And when I point out our numbers (as I do below), I only note it because it is clearly an indication of a greater, non-posting number of users. The 45 people posting against this aren't the only Wikipedians offended by it -- surely you can admit that, and surely you can admit that the numbers are clearly larger due to the response. On the other hand, even if we are only .01% to .1% of the number of people who view the main page, it would make you, the vehement defenders of keeping the image, even less than .01%. My point is this, the main page is different. If I click on a wikipedia article for penis, open heart surgery, putrefication or Joseph Merrick, I expect what I get. When I click on the main page for Wikipedia, I have no choice in the matter. Therefore, images which cause unnecessary squeemishness to a large portion of people - such non-artistic nudity, shocking images like Goatse, disturbing medical conditions, etc. - and this is a large portion, I wager, should be replaced by less visceral pictures. Even Raul and BillC stated that the intent of the images was not to make one squeamish, and Raul replaced the image with something else until it was put back. I think this should bring up a bigger debate on what guidelines medical imagery should garner on the main page, accessible to every single person who enters Wikipedia. But, Brian, I would like to know your reasoning behind not placing a picture of Goatse.cx on the main page if the article was an FA?24.60.193.70 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • To address Brian's argument here: "you are still only 0.01% to 0.1% of the number of people who view the main page." - this is a logical fallacy. The same argument could be applied if the article had started with a poor quality diagram and editor A then argued against editor B replacing the diagram with the photograph. Editor A could say that only a small number of people were arguing in support of Editor B to use the photograph, and hence should be ignored. The numbers argument has never worked on content issues in Wikipedia. The argument should be solely about the content and its use: Is the use appropriate? Can something better be used? What are the pros and cons of each position? Is it possible to build a consensus view, rather than polarising into opposing camps of opinion? Carcharoth 06:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not making an argument based on numbers. I'm saying that their argument based on numbers is flawed or wrong. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-07 00:52

I happen to be used to seeing pictures of medical conditions, some of which should be labelled with warnings. That's probably why the eye picture didn't shock me. But I recognise that some people would be shocked by it. I suggest that the guidelines for the use of images of nudity/genitalia/whatever are updated to include medical imagery. There is a grey area, and some people are more easily shocked than others. That is why there should be a guideline somewhere on the use of medical imagery that has the potential to shock people. Carcharoth 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia does not self-censor for the easily offended. See the disclaimer. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 21:30

I'm more offended by the way this mess has been handled by administrators. The condescension fairly drips off this page. Very little effort at building a consensus. --squirrel 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Consensus wouldn't be easy for something like this. You're either offended or you're not. The problem is whether or not to apply any importance to the simple complaint, "I'm offended." Should it bypass all else? I say: of course not. The simplest solution would be to make a guideline/policy stating that if an image or article has no complaints during the week before it finally appears on the main page (since these things are selected a week in advance), then it will go on the main page and should not be changed. Then, maybe, people will pay more attention to tomorrow's featured article, before it becomes today's featured article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 21:39

Just one final note. I've tallied up the responses, and there are about 45 posters who are vehemently against posting the image, 5 for vehemently keeping it, 10 for keeping it but expressing no strong opinion, and 2-3 of no opinion.24.60.193.70 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • There are actually hundreds of thousands who have not left a response, either out of apathy, or, more likely, the image does not irritate them. Or they simply don't know about this talk page, or that they can edit it. Whatever the case, Wikipedia is not a democracy. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 22:30
    • Wikipedia is not a democracy. On the flipside, you are not the dictator. Please do not assume that you speak for the entire Wikipedia community and may make pronouncements by fiat.24.60.193.70 22:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course I wouldn't do that. That would be ridiculous. I'm simply arguing what little rationale anyone has tried to give beyond "I'm offended". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 23:03
        • Okay, here's what I think is a reasonable set of questions or guidelines to follow on main page postings.
          1. Is the image the best representation of the article? (Yes)
          2. Is the image intentionally offensive? (No)
          3. Is the image unintentionally offensive? (Yes)
          4. Does there exist an equal or better representation of the image that is unoffensive? (Yes)
        • Again, this should only be valid for the main page, because users have no choice in whether or not to view it.24.60.193.70 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Unintentionally offensive? How do you determine that? I could see an argument for something being intentionally offensive, but unintentional offensiveness is more an aspect of the reader, not of the editor. Also, where is this "equal or better representation"; can you provide an example? As for your claim that viewers have no choice, why do you believe that? Are we forcing anyone to set the main page as their homepage? My bookmark to Wikipedia goes to my watchlist, not the main page; so there is the 1 necessary counterexample to your claim that "users have no choice in whether or not to view" the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 23:23
            • Thank you for editing my response to properly format it. All these questions should be referencing the "average" or "reasonable reader", as under US jurisprudence. Equal or better representation - the are other pictures available, for example, this, that are not as upsetting to the average visitor. And, again, when I say that users have no choice, I reference that the vast majority of users access the main page first. Do you dispute that the main page gets far more hits than any of the other pages? They do not decide to view an article or image of keratoconus, Yucca Mountain Johnny, the Czech Republic Elections, etc., and due discretion should be used so as not to unintentionally offend the average user without him making an informed decision on a subject. Is this so unreasonable?24.60.193.70 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • The image you give is not under a free license, so it couldn't be used on the main page. I don't know if the main page gets more hits; we don't have statistics for that, but regardless, users have a choice. They can close the browser at any time. We do not self-censor. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 01:49

There's now a new Featured Article on the home page, and so this issue is dead; but I wanted to make two comments for the record because I believe the problem has been misrepresented in the discussion above. One: it's not about offending people, a picture of an eye is not offensive; it's about being tasteful and considerate to people who would come to Wikipedia and not expect to be grossed out by an image suddenly presented before them. Two: This is not the best possible image by which to illustrate the problem, because the photo is of someone's eye being held open by fingers, the skin around it being pulled back - THAT is what makes the photo grotesque. If it had been a closeup of a normal eye being held open that way, it still would have been squickish. If the photo of the diseased eye had not had the skin being pulled back from it, I believe it would have been an acceptable photo for use on the home page. - Brian Kendig 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The skin is pulled back to show how the curvature of the eye changes; if the skin weren't pulled back, it wouldn't be so clear what the problem was. That is why it is an informative picture. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 01:53
    • I agree with Brian Kendig. See my comments at Talk:Keratoconus. I still don't know what a keratoconic eye looks like in normal life - I've only seen one with the eyelids pulled back, and that is not the normal look. Ideally, the article would have both pictures (eyelids in place and eyelids pulled back, and the former could have been used on the main page). Wikipedia has only partly informed me, and left me with unanswered questions. That will always be a problem with an encyclopedia that is restricted to free images, unless the requested images are created and uploaded. Carcharoth 06:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If people want a main page that will not offend then they should bookmark http://wikipedia.org/ and promote it here to be the main entry page for anonymous visitors. People can and will be offended anything, this is not the first time people have taken offence about content on the Main Page --Clawed 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If we ever have a Featured Article about cancer, are we going to put a picture up on the home page of someone lying on the operating table sliced open with a doctor holding the organs back to clearly show the tumor, because that's an informative picture? - Brian Kendig 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • One additional point I'd like to make is that, no, Wikipedia is not censored. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be sensitive to what we put on the main page; just because there's no rule against it. The number of complaints is enough to indicate to me that something should have been done, because for every person who actually comments lots more are going to be thinking the same. -- Mithent 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Monday, june 5th, 2006 featured article

The article is too grotesque to be on the main page, please change the article or at least take off the picture, thank you.--Andy 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Please provide any rationale beyond "I'm offended." Does it violate any guidelines or policy? Is it there simply for shock value? Is it not informative? Anything, please. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 22:46
  • This inspires me to get the penis article up to FA status. --Nelson Ricardo 23:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Its an eye for god's sake--70.172.207.131 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I object to Andy's suggested course of action, just for the record. It is a wonderfully illustrative, gore-free illustration of a medical condition. — ceejayoz talk 23:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To some people an eye bulging out of its socket is offensive or disgusting, I am not saying remove it from wikipedia as a whole, but the main page is the most viewed page and with a picture like that it could deeply disgust or offend anybody.--Andy 00:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • So could an article on evolution, but I'd hope we wouldn't avoid it on the Main Page either. — ceejayoz talk 01:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The eye in that image isn't bulging out of its socket. It's just shaped differently. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 01:32

Alternative picture

I've uploaded a new version of the picture. It's a minor change but it may be slightly less objectionable. If anyone likes it, feel free to use this version in the article. Shawnc 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which

I object to this disgusting, horrific krazy kat that is on the main page. Wocka-wocka-wocka! --Bobak 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • At least you'd have an argument. That cat's appearance, along with Felix the Cat, Bosko, and other blackface cartoons of yore are all the products of racism. Not that I'm seriously arguing for its removal :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 00:12
  • This obscene image of the gender-confused feline is an outrage. The initials of "Krazy Kat" are also strikingly similar to that of the Ku Klux Klan. Thank you very much, Wikipedia, as I have just lost my appetite (the fact that I already ate has nothing to do with it.) Shawnc 01:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention a Did You Know item about very outdated medical device for women with which to administer a poison to to them. What's going on here. The item is objectionable in my opinion. --Ancheta Wis 02:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Everything is poisonous; it's the dose that matters :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 04:16
  • oooo wow, ur sarcasm is funny, u should become a comedian. im kidding by the way--Andy 04:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • There is nothing funny about our paranoia! "Anyone else notice the KKK's under the bridge in town (at the beginning and the end of the film [King Kong])? Strong black ape falls for weak white lady, climbs white phallic symbol and falls to his doom. This doesn't sound racist to anyone else?"[2] "It may be interesting to note that the words "Kill King Kong," which is the goal at the end of the film, have the initials KKK."[3] Shawnc 04:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

South park was mocking scientoligy nott promoting it--Andy 11:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • YWhy would uyou even try to put penis as an FA, for shock value? because i didnt know wikipedia was a porn site.--Andy 11:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • A picture of a penis in an article about penises would not be porn. That would be an imformative, in context illustrative picture. (Sorry correcting your typing was a cheap shot but it is funny ;) ) --Monotonehell 12:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, my article for Fuck (film) was denied DYK status because it was considered offensive, and while Wikipedia is not censored, a potentially offensive image should be replaced if it does not cause the article to be less relevant, informative, or accurate. Cigarette 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you people serious?!?

Pardon me for butting in here, but as a long time reader (but not a contributor) and, yes, fan of Wikipedia, I am quite frankly appalled at this whole "Thine eye offends me" debate. I understand that as scholarly bookworm types you may have trouble dealing with reality. But it's a picture of an eye. I do appreciate all the hard work you folks have put into Wikipedia. I, for one, am certainly much more knowledgeable about the world thanks to you. But I am shocked that you would spend so much time and effort on such an utterly trivial matter. Personally, I read Wikipedia for the raw undiluted facts, not for some pre-digested pablum that Mommy and Daddy think won't upset my innocent 3-yr old mind too much. If I wanted that, I'd go to disney.com

</rant>

-wisefool

ps - I'm almost tempted to start my own "Freepedia - The Uncensored Version"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.17.74 (talk • contribs)

Yes, they are serious. That doesn't mean they necessarily will be taken seriously, though ;-) Mstroeck 07:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I am disappointed that so many people felt that their 'duty' to put a gross image up on the home page outweighed their courtesy to their fellow human beings who were uncomfortable with the image. - Brian Kendig 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not that they wanted to put up a gross image; it's that they didn't think it was gross, or if they did, they realized that it was still the most informative image to use, and didn't violate any guidelines or policies, etc. "I'm offended" will never be a rationale worth listening to, and catering to the easily-offended is just as much a courtesy as buying a round of beers for an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 14:48
A nontrivial number of people were bothered by the nature of the image. (Witness the amount of complaints here, and imagine how many people out there shared the sentiment without commenting.) You and a few others insisted it remain on the home page anyway, and chose to ignore the fact that it bothered anyone. That's just a lack of courtesy, because the home page did not need an informative image for the article if said image was squicking people out. It's like drinking a beer in front of a recovering alcoholic and telling him "I'm sorry you're bothered by this, but *I* don't have a problem with it, I'm not breaking any law, and I'm not going to cater to you just because you're easily offended." Perhaps we do need a guideline against another incident like this in the future; I'll raise it in the appropriate place. - Brian Kendig 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If your alcoholic walks into a pub and demands everyone stop drinking, then it's an unreasonable request. If you go into a pub, you will see people drinking beer. If you go onto an encyclopaedia, you will see informative pictures and text about the world, most of which is a scary, disturbing, even disgusting place. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
HeHe, mine's a double Sam ... hic --Cactus.man ✍ 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps not 3-yr olds, but my 5-yr old certainly does use a computer. And more to the point, she was not "disturbed", "offended" or otherwise made uncomfortable by an image of an eyeball. To the contrary, she became rather informed about various eyeball afflictions. So best case, Wikipedia has just sparked a new career in opthamology. Worst case, she'll be more careful about her own eyeball maintenance and disease prevention. In any case, as her dad, it's my job to determine what she sees or doesn't see, not yours. - wisefool aka --Abhagwat 16:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

probably because she could not comprehend what she was seeing, ansd i dont think a 5 year old could care at all about eye diseases so i believe u made that story up--Andy 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about censorship. It is about good taste. If we had a article on the penis, would a picture of a penis go into the featured article page? If we had a featured article on a massacre somewhere, would a picture of some dead guy be appropriate for the featured article section? Of course not. Wikipedia is not censored, but we all must remember good taste when editing this website. dposse 15:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The correct answers are generally: 1) yes; 2) yes. The image you are all complaining about has gone. Let's please give it a rest and drop it now OK. Time to move on, we have work to do, not pointless bickering. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There is work to be done on wikipedia, is it like a job, that sucks i thought u could edit what u want when u want--The Nation 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of us consider it an unpaid job that we love to do. Others of us edit here and there as we desire. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Amen. -- 64.229.230.17 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

volunteering sucks, especially for something that doesnt care how you feel, it just cares about its namesake to protect--The Nation 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What of this horrible picture of a man on the frontpage? Graven images! Wikipedia is full of idolaters --BURN THEM (it?)!!!1!111one! --18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

WORLD CUP?! There is only one cup, and it is the holy grail, there is only one football, and it's American. I am offended!!! --Bobak 00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling for Hindi in the Wikipedia Languages section

The devanagri version of hindi is spelt wrong. It reads "Hanedee" rather than Hindi. Seems like I can't edit it.

That's because your computer may not be rendering Indic Devanagiri text properly. To properly render complex Indic text, please see Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 08:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Peruvian Election

Thought that this should be on the main page Peruvian national election, 2006. The second round was held yesterday (June 4) and Ollanta Humala has already conceded the election which means that former Peruvian President Alan Garcia is President-elect of Peru.--Jersey Devil 10:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

An admin has suggested to wait at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Perhaps a discussion should go there. -- 199.71.174.100 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Serbia & Montenegro breakup

Serbia has formally acknowledged the breakup of S&M: [5]. Perhaps the "in the news" item on Montenegro should be recast to announce the country's formal breakup? --Jfruh (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that the word "independence" as used in the subhead of the BBC article ("Serbia has declared its independence...") is not correct and should not be carried over into any news items or articles on Wikipedia. The text of the BBC article is correct; as a result of the declaration of independence by Montenegro, Serbia has acknowledged that it is a separate state and has declared itself the successor state of "Serbia and Montenegro," which seems logical and which the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro explicitly gives it the right to do. (I just read Article 60 of the Constitutional Charter to confirm this.) One state declares its independence (after a referendum), the other becomes the successor state. (This probably would have occurred without any vote by the Serbia parliament at all, but it makes sense that they would want to acknowledge what has occurred so that their official records explain why they aren't electing officials of the former unified government anymore, and things like that.) This is significant because Serbia continues to be a member of the UN and continues to carry all the benefits and burdens of all international agreements. Montenegro, on the other hand, must now "join the club" of sovereign nations, by applying for UN membership, signing on to various treaties, etc. 6SJ7 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, definitely true, but let's update the thing already. Can anyone be bold and update the front page, or is there a consensus process for it? --Jfruh (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


ITN

In The News should be updated a lot faster, effort goes into updating articles for ITN so it would be nice if there was some quicker movement from admins. --Midnighttonight 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think the Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates process is slow? I don't know much about it personally, but I wouldn't be prepared to use a very large portion of the candidates there, there is a lot to think about when putting items in ITN. If you mean there are facutal errors, put them on WP:ERRORS ❝Sverdrup❞ 15:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Article writers, especially of new articles, are welcome to place them on the Current events page. I don't think there's any requirement (or should be, given this is all a volunteer effort) that hte Main Page be updated instantaneously. What ends up on the Main Page ITN box is a selection of items that are of interest for longer periods of time and are somewhat balanced for systematic bias. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

End of the World????

Why is the fact that the world is prophecised to end today not on here?! - furthermore I think that in general wikipedia is quite weak in that regard - see Number of the Beast and Nostradamus- yeh and you just wait - the sky will turn to flame and the apocolypse will come when the antichrist rises, only 8 hours 26 minutes left! - you'll see! Benjaminstewart05 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a whole strives to maintain a neutral point of view. For one thing, the majority of the world is not Christian and thus cares not at all for Christianity's Number of the Beast. —Cuiviénen on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 at 14:54 UTC
Any Wikipedia:Requests for adminship closing today at the same time ? Watch out! That could be the wiki-antichrist. ..... Seriously, Nothing has happened yet, so there's nothing to update on ITN. It's not an anniversary, so OTD doesn't fit. Number of the Beast is hardly an FA. Perhaps a new article on sth related to this prophecy can go to DYK, but is there one ? So, no, this "End of the World" business should not be mentioned on the Main Page (yet). -- 65.95.105.186 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Eight hours? Well, it's less than two hours till 6pm here, I'll let you know if the apocalypse comes. -- Mithent 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone repeat after me: That's great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane - Lenny Bruce is not afraid. Raul654 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it here yet??? - I'm in GMT which is widely regarded as 0 so it might start here - so seven hours and twenty one minute left!! - good luck! - get away from the coast and onto high ground - lol. Benjaminstewart05 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd of thought it's because it's not a big deal. Yeah, the world will end today just as it has done once a century ever since that diabolical Gregorian Calendar was introduced. It's traditional, an exciting occasion, but fairly localised over people who associate with religious texts but do not read them. Those of us lucky enough to be near them watch in awe, everyone else goes about their business as usual for another century. Skittle 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Stop spoiling my fun! Benjaminstewart05 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No kidding Ted 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well nothing yet and it is past 6/06/06 6:06:06... Oh well, if it doesn't happen this year, there is always 100 years time! Benjaminstewart05 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I can see the headline towmorrow: World fails to end. In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been playing REM and "O Fortuna" all day :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 17:48

Interesting combination. --Monotonehell 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I hate to be nitpicky, but in response to Cuivienen's remark about the world not being mainly Christian, *point* [[6]]. I just can't wait till all this 666 hysteria ends so I can sleep nicely for another 100 years. Cowman109Talk 00:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
According to that link, there are 2.1 billion Christians, and (6.1B-2.1B) 4 billion non-Christians. It doesn't seem like Christians hold the majority to me.. —EdGl 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Nothing happened! - How dull! Benjaminstewart05 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
As expected. Life is boring as usual. -- 64.229.230.17 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Normandy

For some reason the link on the front page for the Battle of Normandy isn't working - in the "on this day..." box Sotakeit 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's linked to the article's edit page instead of the article itself. MartinMcCann 16:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The page was moved by a vandal a few minutes ago, but has now been moved back. Clearing your browser's cache should fix it. — sjorford++ 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On this day... 1948

The Czechoslovak Constitution mentioned should link to the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth-of-May_Constitution

Did you know > double-balloon enteroscopy > picture of polyp a bit gross

I think the pic is too gross for a main page pic. Its an intestine polyp.. yuck ... andrewkeith80 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, without the accompanying text it's pretty hard to work out what the picture is of. Anyways, DYK is due for another update any time now and the picture'll be gone. See also Wikipedia is not censored, blah blah etc. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The preferred term is "squicky." —David Levy 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Gone, replaced with a nice Polish gentleman, but there's a toothbrush waiting in the wings ... so for those of a nervous disposition, look away now. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how diseased internal organs only garner one complaint while a picture of an eye filled the page with discussion. --Monotonehell 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

People are more cranky on Mondays.... -- 64.229.176.142 17:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed is not the founder of Islam

This is false information. Muhammed simply completed the message of delivering the message of Islam to the world. Before Muhammed , there were many other prophets of God such as Adam, Ibrahim (Abraham), Isa (Jesus) etc. Please correct this piece of misinformation

  • Thanks. I've changed it to "the leader of the Islamic community".--Pharos 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • To put it correctly: Muhammed was the prophet of Islam. Verrekijker 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • see Talk:Muhammad for an overdose of this question. Would anyone say that Jews and Christians are Muslims because they follow pre-Mohammedan "prophets of Islam"? dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Muslims do, in a sense, believe just that. Jews and Christians are considered People of the Book and are and are given special status (dhimmi) in muslim countries (they are second-class-citizens - below muslims but above other religions) Raul654 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
          • trust me, I am aware of that. It's a semantic confusion. You may want to chime in at Talk:Muhammad. dab (ᛏ) 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
            • In a certain sense, one could say it's also religious historiography. Muslims would consider some historic Jewish and Chistian groups as followers of Islam, and Mohammed clearly built on earlier traditions. Anyway, I just tried to summarize Mohammed's role for DYK in a bite-sized, uncontroversial, and historically meaningful way.--Pharos 18:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Yes I think that's the point exactly. According to Islam, historic Jews and Christians were followers of Islam to some extent (following the earlier prophets of Islam, although the Christian believe that Jesus Christ is God was clearly an incorrect believe according to Islam). When the final prophet (Muhammad) came along, they finally diverged for good. Nil Einne 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad is clearly the founder of Islam and anything else such as the views stated above are purely POV. Articles should mention that Muhammad is viewed not as the founder but as the final prophet of Islam within the belief itself. Also, whether or not Islam recognises older prophets has no bearing on the fact that Islam simply did not exist until Muhammad founded it - regardless of Muslim claims to be the original religion ( class under "religious belief" rather than "historical fact"). siarach 17:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Turtles all the way down .... --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is best left for the Muhammad chat. However I disagree. From a purely historical view point you could just as easily say the people around Muhammad were the founders of Islam not Muhammad himself. If we state that Muhammad is the founder of Islam, then we would have to claim that Jesus Christ is the founder of Christianity and probably other things that I can't think about at the moment. And eventually all this would just get out of hand. I see from the discussion in the Muhammad article that there appear to be various fairly neutral statements that have been suggested so I personally don't see the need to continue to push the view that we should state Muhammad is the founder of Islam on the main page. NB not that this is important but I'm agnostic. Nil Einne 18:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that Mohammed is the founder of Islam as we know it. Claiming that prior prophets belong to your group does not change that. --72.13.168.149 03:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

New theme

Perhaps: "Wikipedia-links: the world to gather"? Verrekijker 10:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To gather what? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Page should be better surfable bei the keyboard, because it is faster, like: 

like the cursor should be in the search field when you access the page or when you found a page.
it would be nice, that after you searched for some word sou could instandly tab through the available
posible pages.
Or to have some shutcuts to make browsing faster

That is just a

We do have some keyboard shortcuts already, for example, ALT+X for random page, ALT+R for recent changes, ALT+Z for main page, ALT+E for edit, and so on. These work in all pages, not just the Main Page – Gurch 14:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For this we crash the servers? :-) Skittle 14:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly an unprecedented flood of reporters trying to get to the press release ;) Raul654 15:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tell Wikipedia it's welcome.-GangstaEB-15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please get it off the front page as one of Wikipedia most notorious critics recently published a vicious article accusing Wikipedians of being self-important and we don't want to give the scoundrel ammunition. Osomec 17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references ? What the critics say is not that important, though. We manage ourselves here. --64.229.176.142 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As I think about it, I am actually a bit sad that we didn't have a Wikipedia:One thousand featured articles pool. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
FA growth is almost exactly one per day. Everyone's guesses would fall within the same week :) But it's never too soon to start Wikipedia:One million featured articles pool Raul654 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
PS - put me down for May 11, 5247. Raul654 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
* Insider trading! Illegal! ;) --Monotonehell 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm, what I really meant to say is that I consider this more important than most other milestones, even if it was a bit predictable. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
So, this really just highlights that out of 6,908,145 articles, only 1,000 are "comprehensive, factually accurate, and written from a neutral point of view." What does this say about the other articles? --Nelson Ricardo 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
See the Assessment scale. Articles don't have to be featured to be worthy. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
(in after edit conflict) That's not strictly true. It means that of 6,908,145 articles, only 1,000 are at the same time "comprehensive, factually accurate, and written from a neutral point of view." and also have someone who cares enough to nominate them for FA, and to satisfy the various other demands of the FAC crowd. They include, among other criteria, being well-written, good layout, not too many fair use images, a lot of rock solid inline citations, and being neither too long nor too short. An article needs much more than being "comprehensive, factually accurate, and written from a neutral point of view." to get FA status. Also, I certainly don't see why going out of our way to hide the undisputable fact that a pretty large percentage of our content is shoddy helps anything. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-08 21:09

What was the code for that bar thing that said "Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing 1000 featured articles? I need it for the WarWiki. (That was not a spam. I seriously need it). --Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out the page history for Template:Main Page banner Raul654 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Challenger explosion pic

Today's Selected anniversaries box is really misleading. It's a picture of an event: Challenger exploding, implying that Challenger exploded today. Which it didn't. Melchoir 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what reading the text is for. A photo of the explosion is better than a photo of the report, for sure. — ceejayoz talk 00:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Except the only explanatory text is at the bottom of the box, opposite from the pic, and by the time you get to it the impact of the picture has already taken effect, which is not to be underestimated. And then it's anti-clamactic: no, wait, nothing's exploding, it's just a report.
The picture belongs at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 28, where it already is. Can't we have Donald Duck or something? Melchoir 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the complaint. I've changed the image to Donald Duck. - Brian Kendig 00:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair-use image, you can't use it on the main page. Find another pic, and don't forget to protect the image, and make sure the image isn't huge (ie, reduce the width if it's a tall image). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 00:56
Brian K., that was rather Disneyesque of you, what a surprise!  ;-) --hydnjo talk 01:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've switched it to a free image, Nero. It's also fitting, 2 days after 6/6/06. (666 in the Bible was a reference to Nero, not a evil horned fire monster). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 01:02
Thanks, all! Melchoir 01:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

US -> U.S. per MoS

Could we get the intro for today's featured article fixed? According to WP:MoS#Acronyms and abbreviations, United States should be abbreviated U.S. (note the periods or full stops). Right now it is used both ways, US and U.S. in the same paragraph. Dismas|(talk) 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

*gasp* Stop the presses! — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 01:39
Fixed. *phew* That was wild! — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 01:41
Sarcasm just one of the services that you offer? Dismas|(talk) 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Museum ship?

The blurb for today's featured article says: Wisconsin ... currently functions as a museum ship at the Nauticus National Maritime Center in Norfolk, Virginia. Wisconsin ... is currently awaiting donation for use as a museum ship. The article says this, too. I don't understand - is she a museum ship now, or will she become a museum ship? - Brian Kendig 04:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

She functions as a museum ship now, but the navy still legally owns her. At the moment she is set to be legally donated to a museum association for use as a perment museum piece. More info on this can be found on Wisconsin’s talk page TomStar81 00:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo, one thousand featured articles. Woo hoo! Eyeball kid 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The current mark-up language (linebreaks mine): 

<font face="verdana,arial,helvetica"><b>The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing <span class="plainlinks">
<a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article" class='external text'
title="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article">one thousand featured articles</a></span>.</b></font>

This is awful! It uses the deprecated font tag which will make the main page fail validation. It also hardcodes fonts, which I frown upon (all other fonts in the Monobook skin use "sans-serif" as font to ensure that people can choose which font they want to use).

Please change it into this: 

<span class="plainlinks" style="font-weight: bold;">The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing
<a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article" class='external text'
title="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article">one thousand featured articles</a>.</span>

It would make the text use the default font (which is "sans-serif") while still being valid XHTML. —Michiel Sikma 「Gebruiker/Overleg」 08:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? This request has been ignored for some time... —Michiel Sikma 「Gebruiker/Overleg」 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, seems that it was done. I thought that it hadn't since nobody left a message on this page. But thanks! Looks fine now. —Michiel Sikma (Bekijk me of praat met me) 18:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

religious services

Hi, 

 I found the following in the main page:

" ..that Reverend William Mitchell was an Anglican missionary, and the first ordained 

person to provide religious services in the Swan Valley area ... "

The words "religious services" should not be used in this context as there are many religions including the religions of australians before the westerners came to Australia. The right use should be "christian religious services".

As I cannot edit the main page myself, I request you to attend to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.54.176.109 (talk • contribs) .

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia's Bias

Wikipedia exercises bias and is slanted towards 'negative western popular beleif'. The practices are reminiscent to totalitarian propagandists, that censor any information that challenges their political beleifs. I would not trust this source of information due to it's editors 'gang' mentality. As well as their 'removal' of information outright without valid reason. Their ignorance of misifnormation and pop culture facts that are not 'truthful' place the validity of this site as anything more then a popular medium is certain. This site is more about politics then it is about spreading truthful information. The systems used to catagorize information are often 'discriminatory' especially in favour of western practices and Eurocentric and American-Centric bias. The most severe practices are outright deletion much like ftp deleters, and claiming information is 'nonsense' or 'original': where the first is an outright attack without valid reason and the second is plainly political for not liking or agreeing with what is stated without giving any valid reason. "All comments are original interpretations of other information." Where something is completely derived or self sourced then it is understood to be 'original sourced'. However, in the case of an article being composed from excerpts of something else, it is no more original then other works, thus disputable; however outright deletion with no reasoning other then stating an item is original, in the case of using a source document. Such practices are false practices. The censoring done by wikipedia is common practice, and appears to be politically motivated. I would not use this source for any unbiased works, as this is an extermely biased and censoring site. Don't let the anyone can edit or contribute line at face value. Many times any additions to the information pages are removed, often without any reason other then personal attacks or 'incorrect' editing, in the form of falsely stating something is something that it isn't such as the case of original works. This site politically censors, not for information validity reasons, but for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.167.147 (talk • contribs)

If you don't like it don't read it. AllanHainey 11:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't about 'liking' it is about providing truthful information.

The bias you note is due primarily to the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias report on the current state of human knowledge. When some portion of the truth is not an established part of this knowledge then an encyclopedia is not the appropriate place to first add new nuggets of the truth. In the case of Wikipedia the limitation is primarily due to the fact that the community has no effect method of performing independent fact checking and thus must rely on other reputable publishers to perform this crucial effort before information can reasonably be considered to be part of human knowledge. --Allen3 talk 12:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you give any examples of pages or information being deleted without a valid argument? If so, I'm sure the deletions can be reviewed and reverted without too much trouble. Note that all pages should follow WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. If the articles in question violated one or more of these policies, deletion was probably warranted. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
What does this have to do with the Main page, which is what this Talk page is for? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like you have an issue with particular points in particular articles, which you're then projecting onto all of Wikipedia (and everyone editing it, by extension). Wikipedia is a broad collection of people with -- and I guarantee this -- at least as many points of view. Part of the challenge of using or editing Wikipedia is understanding this and working with it as a fact of life. I will note that I have seen, or worked on, articles where there was a strong anti-American or -Western bias evident. But I have also seen people argue that they see bias where most people see a neutral description, simply because they can't bear to see their pet topic treated objectively. In any case, if you have been told that your contributions are original research, then it's your responsibility to show the editors challenging what you have written by providing verifiable sources that the article can properly cite, so that future editors and readers can be assured that the information isn't just the opinion of an individual editor. It is harder than writing by yourself, that is very clear, but when you are successful in a community of people in producing an article of excellent quality, the satisfaction is accordingly high. --Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammar/wording

Sorry to be a fuss pot, but as the 1,000 articles have already been created, surely it should read as a thankyou "for having created 1,000 articles". I just thought that I might bring it up Lofty 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It's written in the style of a headline, like all the entries in the In the News section. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 16:04
    • it's (a) not technically in the news section, nor is (b) being a headline an excuse for violating grammar. (We could say, thank you contributors for writing our next 1,000 FAs :) dab (ᛏ) 16:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Assuming it is in the style of a headline, are there any problems with grammar? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 16:10
        • You mean, writing is not a participle but a verbal abstract? If we want to say "WP thanks its contributors for their writing 1,000 FAs", there is no need to cut this down to "WP thanking contributors for writing 1,000 FAs". Nor do we see this sort of mutilation very often even on ITN. dab (ᛏ) 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Meh, not that important. The English language is so fluid that it could be accepted usage in a week. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 16:36
            • now that is the sort of attitude I've come to expect from a blog Wikipedia :p dab (ᛏ) 16:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Try reading through OED and the 1728 Cyclopaedia, or any old text. Only a century ago, all the "rules" were different, and a century before, different again. I'll still fix obvious mistakes, though. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 17:14

Net Neutrality

Can we put something in the Main Page Current Events section about net neutrality? Its of vested interest to all of us, and we need to make sure that the discussion is available to those who come looking for it (and even those who arent looking for it, thus the CE addition request). I think that the HoR defeat last night provides enough media coverage to justify it.

Sorry a little more context and hints for those of us ignorant, please. --Monotonehell 18:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The relevant article doesn't appear to have been updated. Please make sure the ITN criteria have been met before suggesting candidates on the appropriate page. Thanks, BT 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

ITN rename?

I've noticed a lot of traffic on this page is caused by people misunderstanding the purpose of the ITN section on the main page. ITN is not WikiNews. Would renaming the header help? That is if we can think of a better, more explanitory title. Something like "Current events" (where it links to already); "Articles in the news"; "Current affairs"; "Hot items" ; "Hot articles"; "In flux"; "Happening now"; "Ronald the hampster" (Okay not the last one. These suck a bit, just throwing a few out there) --Monotonehell 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it's fine the way it is. The number of people who are confused is relatively low. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 21:03

U.S. centrism on the front page

From Did You Know: "That a circumferentor was an important tool to surveyors for mapping the western frontier?" The western frontier of where? The U.S. of course, but other countries also have western frontiers. Please amend it. 62.31.55.223 19:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also possibly link it to American Old West instead of Frontier? Copied to the appropriate place --Monotonehell 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it referred to the Americas, not just the US. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 21:00
The Frontier was a legal term in the United States, denoting a range of settlement beyond which homesteading was possible, among other things. Just FYI. --Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_71&oldid=1160940076"