Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive 2

Disrespectful of Islam
Is this based on "Five Pillars of Islam", not the actual defining terms but just the name for the directives? I would consider changing this to the "Five directives of Wikipedia", to be more neutral. Wikipedia is not a religion nor should it seek to immulate one. Most importantly, it should not degrade other religions in mimickry. I am not a muslim, but find this a offensive.
 * Interestingly, it's always non-muslims that claim, or fear, giving offense. See Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive1 and Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive1 and Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive1. Thanks :) --Quiddity 19:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly wasn't non-Muslims who got offended at the Pope recently. This title offends me because it mocks one of the world's great religions.  One needn't be a Muslim to be offended, any more than one needs to be Black to be offended by the n-word.  RobertAustin 12:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Not a single Muslim has ever complained about this or taken offense. This is totally different issue than the Pope or the "n-word". In fact this is non-issue. What is perhaps offensive is comparing this issue of "Five pillars" (which itself is non-issue) to the Pope's words or the "n-word". Khorshid 12:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I'm Muslim and I'm certainly not offended. Hell, it's pretty cool. BurningZeppelin 09:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If the title is seen as offensive because it mocks in the sense of "making sport of in contempt or jest; speaking of in a scornful or jeering manner", it may be helpful to meditate on whether the use of the title is necessarily contemptuous. The perception of contempt is often a product of the expectation of contempt (which is sometimes from cynicism, sometimes from paranoia).  Take for example the advice I offer here.  I can see no offense inherent in the words, or obvious meanings, or the intended meaning.  Given this, if you perceive mockery in it, might I suggest that you are counterproductively cynically sensitive?
 * As for simple mimicry, I agree with the idea behind the saying "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Imitation alone is not disrespect.  Sincere imitation is praise.  All that being said, there is still the potential for careless dilution of the honor of a thing in flippant mimicry of it.  I would argue that the Pillars of Wikipedia are not flippantly created or intended, and are not held as valueless.  Just how reverently made and held they are is hard to say.  Your most reasonable cause for offense would come from this.  I would listen to the actual offended, rather than the offended on behalf of .  (Thanks, BurningZeppelin, for your input.)
 * Lastly, pillars existed before, after, and without their inclusion in Islamic record, and it is conceivable that Mohammed (all due respect to the man, his role, the religion, and its followers) may have used them in other metaphorical reference or in reference to their actual roles in architecture. If you have "pillars" of your community, must you not refer to them as such when there are five of them?  If you have five pillars in your building's facade, should you redesign?  Notice the first question in this talk section: " Is this based on "Five Pillars of Islam"? "  The uncertainty exists because the alternatives exist.  There are more pillars in the world than the Five Pillars of Islam.  Indeed, you can find dictionary definitions of "pillar" equating it to "a fundamental precept".
 * &mdash;Raymond Keller 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, fussing about things like this creates more problems than it solves. Concentrate on bigger issues. Anyway1986 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Consolidating policy listings
I'm asking for feedback on some merge-related suggestions, please come give input at Wikipedia talk:Simplified Ruleset. Thanks :) -Quiddity 22:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Estimation of number of articles to work on
Clause ...remember that there are articles on the English Wikipedia to work on... seems to be incorrect; it is rather misleading to estimate the way ahead using the current mileage, however intuitively it must be between  and Graham's number. =DBWikis 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it incorrect? It's exact! ? --Quiddity 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that is exact current number of existing articles and would be the lowest boundary of number of articles to work on, while estimation of the highest boundary is somehwhat less trivial, no? -- DBWikis 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You, dear sir, have spent too long in academia :P
 * That's the most abstract quibble I've ever heard on Wikipedia! --Quiddity 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's like quibbling over 2 cents. Like it matters&mdash;Arbo talk 14:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free content
This section talks about text only, but increasingly images and perhaps later video will be important, and these are bound by the same princinples. Perhaps we should mention them at some point. Stephen B Streater 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 14:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Danfarrell


 * Was that a note in support? Stephen B Streater 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I would not support that. Images should remain seperate. We have many useful fair use images on important topics and we should not deprecate the contribution they make to the project. 65.60.96.34 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think images should be exempt from the "Free Content" rule; however, I think Jimbo would consider non-free photos a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation principles. Librarylefty 04:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Incompatible with the GFDL
What is not incompatible with GNU Free Documentation License? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisal.akeel (talk • contribs)
 * While I am not entirely sure what you're asking, there are a number of licenses that are less demanding than the GFDL, such as the Creative Commons Attribution license, and we tend to treat such licenses more or less the same way as we treat material licensed under the GFDL. Public domain material, obviously, is not licensed at all, and we treat it accordingly.  I hope that this answers your question.  Jkelly 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction
The first "pillar" says: "All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy". However, if you click on the "accuracy" link, it takes you to a page which says (as the very first senstence) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Now, to me and surely to most people, "accuracy" would imply that you are striving to include what IS true, but the linked page suggests that what you actually want to include is what other sources SAY is true, regardless of whether it is or not. Indeed, if the policies of Neutral Point Of View and No Original Research are properly applied, then you cannot possibly strive for accuracy. In short, the statement that Wikipedia articles must "strive for accuracy" is itself inaccurate. --Multivitamin 12:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is a threshhold beyond truth. You cannot know whether a thing is true unless there is some way to check that it is true; for the purposes of a Wikipedia article other editors and readers must be able to check that it is true by finding it in a library or on the Internet. The wording here may warrant changing though. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is unattainable
As a former publisher of a major publication in the state of Tennessee, USA, I must comment that neutrality or lack of bias is not only unrealistic, but dishonest. Everyone has influences that change their perspective on events, whether religious, philosophical, experiential or educational.

A glaring example from history is the U.S. Civil War. Even the name reveals bias. In the South, it is called "The War Between the States". Some even call it "The War of Northern aggression" or "The War for Southern Independence". But the victor writes the history books, therefore, it is called the "Civil War", the Southern Confederacy is depicted as evil Black slave owners and abusers and Abraham Lincoln is depicted as an honest caring man who out of compassion for black men "set the slaves free". The facts are very different -- but that is my bias.

William Cole, email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiggish (talk • contribs)
 * That is true - whether unconsciously or consciously, we do have personal biases and preferences that ultimately influence what we write, our way of thinking, and our way of expressing our thoughts. Yet, in Wikipedia, we strive to accommodate as many people as possible, and work to present a fair abd balanced view of issues to everyone. The end result may not be perfect, but we can still work towards it. –- kungming·  2  (Talk)  | Review 06:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that "Civil War" is a bit more newtral than "The War of Northern aggression" and what not, but anyway. You are right to some extent, there are scertain systemic biases evident. However we don't claim to be newtral in every way. Just that we should always strive to be so. Anyway you are free to chime in at Naming the American Civil War wich seem to adress some of your points. --Sherool (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if a NPOV is unattainable, then the text on the pillar suggests that multiple points of view be expressed. E.g. the Holocaust. In order to fully explain the event, a point of view must be expressed on the side of the Nazi's and on the side of the Jews involved. Seeing both sides of the story and understanding two conflicting POV's helps one to understand the whole situation from a relatively non-POV. --Kevin (TALK) 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

icons
I just noticed that the icons are supposed to be pillars. I had always thought they looked like elongated square academic caps with two tassels hanging from the sides. Jecowa 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, well. They're supposed to look like the top of some pillars (Not Doric nor Ionic, funnily enough). But yes, you're right. :) As long as Wikipedians understand the five pillars, the pictures aren't really relevant. –- kungming·  2  (Talk)  06:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it funny that they aren't doric or ionic columns? Jecowa 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Corinthians are inherently hilarious?! :) -Quiddity 20:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought it was funny because many pillars are usually Hellenistic in some ways. I like the Ironic Columns that Williams College has at their art museum (see my picture at the article). :) –- kungming·  2  (Talk)  01:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Five Pillars supporting non-appropriate religions
I find this very offensive being a muslim and all. Can you change the name of this thanks.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.136.194 (talk • contribs)

I also find it offensive, Is it making fun of Islam (if not, what is the reason for it being used?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.229.58 (talk • contribs).


 * Please see below. —Quiddity 23:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A new discussion page should be created, as this might be a problem and suggest wikipedia is supporting a Muslim faith rather than being "neutral" as it claims to be. Move towards renaming page Five Directives68.123.226.197 19:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that this is similar to the Five Pillars of Islam, and it just seems like it could easily be changed to a more "neutral" stance, as stated in the archives as the "Five Directives of Wikipedia". If it can easily be changed, It should be changed. All the fuss would be over just like that. Drivec 02:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 5 Pillars.. refers to babylonian & pentagram type stuff.
 * source?--68.127.37.93 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sixth Pillar?
Forgive my whimsical curiosity. If the 5 pillars of wikipedia are a sort of loosely laid homage to Islaam, is there a sixth unofficial and highly controversial sixth pillar of sorts which wikipedians are divided over following? Sorry for posting a stupid question on the discussion place of an important topic, but....well, answer anyone?--Mr Bucket 04:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "they" deleted the discussion on it. Jecowa 04:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe our title has anything to do with Islam, just a naming coincidence. Pillars of is a common metaphor for describing some thing's fundamentals. -Quiddity 10:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the notion that "pillars" does not hold directly to Islam. Without knowing, is it a literal translation from Arabic? I'd guess not - more importantly, "pillars" is a term used everywhere. The European Union famously has '3 Pillars' to it's structure. If anything, Wiki should be 4 pillars, not five - the fifth should just be a addendum. But five sounds better! Gwilym84 00:25 25 January 2007
 * I see 5 pillars of Wikipedia and I think of T.E. Lawrence's book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom. I'd never heard of the Muslim thing, no offense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pigkeeper (talk • contribs) 09:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes but what if you were Muslim, as I am. And I'm offended. You have to take it from all perspectives. 68.127.37.93 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Main Page
I have a few questions and problems with the Five Pillars article. It's fine to have a centralized moral code, but it clearly models the 5 pillars of Islam. Is that the right image for an encyclopedia that stresses nuetrality? Besides, pillar #5 just sums up the first 4, it isn't really origional. In addition, shouldn't the page be LOCKED? If I were a vandal, that'd be the first page I'd go for. Please, I'd like some support and feedback on this issue. Seldon1 04:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a reason to lock it. Looking through the history, that page gets vandalized once every few weeks or so.  Page protection should only be used when absolutely necessary and that just isn't the case for that page. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So what if it models the five pillars of Islam? Would it be better if we had the Ten Commandments of Wikipedia?   Dooms  Day349  04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See, then we'd need to come up with five more, when only five suffices. We could also go for the Four Noble Truths of Wikipedia if we could decide on one to cut, but none of them seems redundant. —Cuivi é nen 04:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, locking one of the most visible pages kind of goes against the "You can edit this RIGHT NOW!" thing we strive to keep. Besides, the anti-vandal crew (me included) probably has that page on their watchlist, and revert any vandalism that appears before any problems arise. PullToOpenTalk 04:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And what makes you so sure it isn't modeled after The Five Precepts of Buddhism, hm? -/- Warren 05:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's called "Five Pillars". Anyway I think it's fine, it doesn't really affect anything. --WikiSlasher 05:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pillars hold things up, it's a metaphor not unique or original to Islam. I don't think I need prove prior art on the concept of "five". --Monotonehell 12:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoever says its just a "coicidence" is wrong. Proof and point? Look on the disabiguation page. Obviously it was modeled after the muslim faith guys, just change it to be neutral. 65.11.99.81 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh come on now! Pillars are constantly used for metaphorically representing major concepts, as in the Three pillars of the European Union. I'm sure that nobody meant harm in the close parallel to Islam's Five Pillars. --Kevin (TALK) 01:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not really applicable, its not "5 pillars of European Union" its "3". No relation to Muslim faith, where "5 Pillars" in and of itself its readily suggesting the Five Pillars of Islam, too much of a similarity!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.7.187 (talk)

Previous discussion notes
Interestingly, most of the previous responses from people identifying as Muslim, were positive (see Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive2). But more recently, there seem to be more complaints coming (see and ).

As I wrote above, I don't think our page name is intended to be comparable to the five pillars of Islam, it is just a numerical/naming coincidence – "the pillars of" is a common architectural metaphor for describing something's fundamentals/foundations/principles/rules (see google). Possibly a note pointing this out could/should be added to the top of this talk page? Might help prevent a few future repetitions of this discussion. —Quiddity 20:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you ask me, putting a note explicitly pointing out (and denying) the connection would spark even more discussion. Let's just leave it be. Andrew Levine 06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * True. How about linking the word 'pillars' in the page? (i'll boldly do so, feel free to revert if it's problematic) —Quiddity 10:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I redirected that pillar link so that the page would go to Column, since that's what we're really trying to get at. Pillar leads to a disambiguation page. (I'll boldly do this, so feel free to revert, yeah, just see what the last guy said.) --Kevin (TALK) 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Making it "5 pillars" instead of any other number is implying it is dirived from the muslim faith. 65.11.99.81 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a Muslim, but I have always thought that the "5 pillars" was an intentional reference to the 5 pillars of Islam. I would feel the same way if the number was changed. Similarly, if it were titled the "8 commandments" (or, even more parallel,  the "10 commandments") of Wikipedia I would link it to the Bible. Just a comment. CMummert · talk 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Commandments and 5 pillars are analogous - saying one of them is broader is untrue. Naming it "Wikipedia 5 Commandments" would be just as blatant as its current name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.30.49 (talk)

Let's make it the "The 5 Axioms of Wikipedia". I am a Scientologist (we have "Axioms") but we would not be offended, IMO. If not, then I guess we could make it "The 5 Lugnuts of Wikipedia" as it keeps the wheel on. --Justanother 09:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)