Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies.

Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

Start a new discussion in the policy section

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

« Archives, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191

Repair (completed) of doubling damage to this page

The doubling occurred] betweeen the Revision as of 11:32, 2005 Jan 11 and the Revision as of 11:33, 2005 Jan 11. The only intentional risk of error that i took was assuming that the only intended change in that edit was adding "right" into the specs for the display of the Naked Maja censored image, and that the only other change was embedding one copy of the file in the middle of another. (Actually, i don't know or care if the two versions of the image specs were identical or not.)

So i worked on the basis of convincing evidence that

• all sections having two identical copies except for this one and its subsections:
  • 1.9 Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia?
    • 1.9.1 Background and update
    • 1.9.2 Fine art
• only the second copies of those sections got
  • the single edit made just before the "Background and update" section, and
  • all edits to the Fine art section, and
• the only other edit was the doubling edit.

While i am not prepared to certify that those are accurate and that i made no errors i acting on them, i consider the possibility that the doubling edit involved other changes the prinicpal risk, and am notifying that editor of the situation.

Policy archive

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Censorship and wikipedia

NEW: See additional discussion below at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia?

I understand that by introducing this topic yet again (not by me, but as a topic) that I am pouring salt on a few open sores, but I feel I must find a place to discuss it. Wikipedia has a problem in several articles concerning the inclusion of nude, obscene, or vulgar images. An example is Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse where there is actually a censored version of the article. However, at this location there is an attempt to delete the censored article. Shouldn't Wikipedia attempt to protect users who want to use its resources but have moral or ethical sensibilities to such material? For example, Nude celebrities on the internet actually contains links to pornographic websites. Is this really necessary? There are of course, many more examples (such as male circumcision, which carries no warning label). At the very least, I propose that pages with possibly offensive pictures contain warnings at the top, as a matter of Wikipedia policy. I am not advocating their complete censorship (although it might be best), but shouldn't we make our materials available to everyone? What about underage users (like myself, I'm 17) and the legal aspects of such actions. More importantly, what about school children? Sexuality is a common topic of research among teens, do we want them to come across obscene images as well as objective information? I'd like other user's opinions on this please.--naryathegreat 04:52, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the concern expressed by naryathegreat. I would like to recommend wikipedia to the librarian in my son's school (he is in fifth grade, and found some of the articles on History of Greece very useful for his research on the origin of democracy) but I hesitate for exactly that reason. Morris 05:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Might I direct you both to the discussion on clitoris (be warned that the page carries a graphic picture), which has continued for some time? Most editors are of the belief that any means of protecting those who might be offended or children from graphic images, including specific warnings, would be censorship, and they disapprove of it, but some are in favour of a more inclusive attitude. Narya, you'll note that the hardline editors believe that by visiting male circumcision you should expect to see a picture and consequently need not be warned.Dr Zen 05:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think hose editors are applying one principal in an absurdly inflexible way. A warning is not censorship. It's a complex world and we should all try to balance different objectives (such as protecting children, or simply those who are squeamish like me) in a proportionate way. Philip 17:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This comes back to question of defining obscene and objectionable. Now I know that your questions are about pictures but lets look at articles for a moment. I note that you have written some articles about WWII. Now there are some people out there who would find it obscene to talk about a period of human history where people were slaughtered. Should we put a warning at the top of the Holocaust article? How about the Battle of the Somme? Evil Monkey → Talk 06:32, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC). PS A somewhat similar discussion happened over having an article about Japanese video games on the front page

You are just coming up with an excuse for irrational behavior. We all have about the same guidelines concerning what is "obscene". You can say that you don't want people to take it that far, but what you really mean is that you have no reasonable objection to the proposal. The articles on World War II don't have graphic pictures or links to pornographic websites either (at least, the ones I've been on).--User:naryathegreat(t) 21:39, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

You say - We all have about the same guidelines concerning what is "obscene". - we most certainly do not. In the US female nipples cannot be shown on TV commercials for shower gel, whilst in Europe and elsewhere not only is this allowed but so is the display of male genitalia in such commercials. Jooler

Jooler:Merely because half of Europe "does it" does not make it "correct" or acceptable. Why don't you question the greedy motivation of the advertisers and the TV companies, and the unashamed actors who "act" being nude for the camera, all of whom are only out to make big bucks and they don't care if they trash the human race and human dignity and self-respect in the process. Please get some perspective! IZAK 11:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't share IZAK's view, but I have to say, Jooler, you could draw the appropriate conclusion from what you're noting, which is that standards vary. We ought not simply to apply our own standards. We should be aiming for inclusive and as far as possible all-embracing solutions. What would it hurt if the Frau was a link? So you have to do an extra click to see her boobs? Is that really censorship?Dr Zen 12:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Dr:Zen - You are trying to draw me into a discussion here about a specific issue that I haven't been following. I was merely commenting on the incorrect assertion by naryathegreat that "all have about the same guidelines concerning what is "obscene". Obscenity only exists in the mind of those who find themselves embarrassed when viewing certain images or possibly find their own arousal at viewing certain images distasteful. Ultimately they wish to impose their own view upon others and clearly that aim is against NPOV. What you find obscene is your POV and what I find obscene is my POV. If I find something obscene I stop looking at it. Everyone has that choice. Good god, go to google, turn safe image search ON and type in "nipple" and see what you get. If you are worried about what your children might see, the images found on Wikipedia are the least of your worries.Jooler 12:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To IZAZ - I see, you obviously have extreme views that are reinforced by your religious beliefs. I learnt a long time ago that trying to argue against people who have "faith" is a complete waste of time as they ignore rational logical argument and rely on dogma. Jooler 12:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Jooler: To oppose labelling pictures as being "potentially offensive" is just as dogmatic and as POV as any religious person I have seen in the US. Now, I don't know if you have the hard line position of opposing the labelling of some pictures as "potentially offensive" the way many Wikipedia editors do. This is a dogmatic position; it is an objective fact that many people will be offended by certain pictures; to ignore objective facts in order to push an agenda is to do the same thing that religious people do. Samboy 21:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Samboy - You put up a straw man. Jooler 23:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Several articles on WW2 do have graphic pictures, disturbing descriptions of things (when I was younger, and first heard about some of the things done in the Holocaust, I had nightmares for weeks), and other content that sensitive people might have issues with. I see no reason to single out something tittilating when other topics that might disturb are retained. It all should be kept. Note, however, that there is (or was?) a proposal to implement PICS-sensitivity (and/or other related automatic content-management) in Mediawiki, so if your browser supports that, you wouldn't see it but the rest of us who don't have it set would. This seems like a decent way to go. Please see here for more details. --Improv 22:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Photos of graphic violence are just as deplorable as graphic nudity and both cannot be shown in a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia which is used by millions of children who don't need to see things that most people don't see on a regular basis. IZAK 11:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I hope you stay around Wikipedia and share your thoughts with us. There are a lot of hard liners here who oppose even labelling "potentially offensive" images, and we need people like you to counteract their irrational position. They wish to push their very strong POV that no image is ever offensive to anyone, flying in the face of the objective fact that some images offend many people. Until we have a way of labelling offensive images, and a box some user may click to disable to loading of said offensive images (possibly separated by category), this battle will continue to rage on Wikiepdia. The only compromise is to label things that may be offensive in some manner. Samboy 21:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• We're publishing an encyclopedia, not a television program, not a school textbook and not a treatise on morality. If a photograph adds something to an article, it should be present. If not, it should not be. If it is present and may likely cause offence to some people then it should be well within expectations. So an article labelled "Carrot" should not contain pictures of disturbing things that are not connected with carrots, whereas someone reading an article labelled "Suicide bomber" could reasonably expect to find pictures of macerated people, given the subject matter. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The articles on World War II don't have graphic pictures: Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg. Okay not exactly on World War II but my point is that everyone jumps up and down when we see pictures of the 'naughty bits' (something that we all have a see on and daily basis) but would you be willing to support a policy that only 18 year olds could see this picture. Evil Monkey → Talk 04:08, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

The article at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse is already censored. The pictures have fuzzy bits over parts of the images that someone somewhere has deemed too shocking to show. I feel that the providing a separate "censored" version without the pictures can only have a political agenga. It it curious that of all the pages in Wikipedia this one should provide the incentive for someone to produce a separate page "to lessen the impact" of the article. The story of this article is the pictures. Without the pictures there would have been no story in the first place. There would just have been unsubstantiated rumous of abuse. To remove the pictures is an attempt to water down the article so that it can be forgotten about. Jooler 17:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Should there be a censored page for the Holocaust, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because we don't like what they say. How about The Bible where Ezekiel 23:19-20 reads:(19)Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt (20)and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.

Is that something we want children to read. Maybe I should get a campaign to get the Bible banned because it promotes sexism, racism, and its obscene in parts. Evil Monkey → Talk 21:22, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Evil: Logic and reality say that "words" and "photos" are NOT equal (maybe only "in the minds' of some beholders"). There are ways of saying things, and then again, there are ways of saying things. Wikipedia is NOT a trapdoor to all things negative. IZAK 11:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think, by default, nothing should be censored. However, it would be quite upsetting to me if a middle school library or a popular filtering software allowed no one to view an article I wrote simply because it contained images they deemed too sensitive. Because I can't change society, and because Wikipedia is not paper, we should take advantage of customizable settings to expose the encyclopedia to the largest possible audience. Although the default would be to include all such material some articles could have short warnings with a link to a discussion of the setting, how to set it, and how it works, for those who wish to use it. Deco 06:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To censor is to be inherently biased. Who are we to declare what is or what is not obscene? Our responsibility as editors of an encyclopedia is to collect and present information in as clear and neutral a manner as possible. We are not here to protect sensitive people. Sometimes the truth hurts - yes, women have clitorises. Yes, people got abused in Abu Ghraib. Do we have photographs which illustrate these things clearly and with the intention to explain and not to shock? Yes. And those pictures make the article more informative, so yes, they belong. Not everything in the world is pretty. Not everything in the world is nice. But it is still our responsibility to present it. If we censor, we make the decision for our readers - do we not trust them to decide for themselves what they want to read? I, for one, am throughly and totally against censoring or adding warnings to anything. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 08:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that we shouldn't make the choice for our readers. However, warnings are one way of helping the reader to make an explicit choice. — Matt Crypto 12:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Censorship is lying. I dont always tell my mother the whole truth, leaving out parts that I know would upset her, but thats basically the same as lying to her. Its an attempt to divert her from the truth. An encyclopedia should strive for truth. If you censor something, you help the people who are offended by it to avoid it, but you keep that information from anyone who wishes to use it. You would ultimately help more people to not censor the articles, but warnings of possibly objectional material would not effect the articles in any adverse way. Perhaps you could make warnings an option under user preferences. Inebriation station 2005-01-03 21:54 (UTC)

Censorship is not in the spirit of the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. It is bias in its most basic form. I completely disagree with the idea of censoring articles with dipictions and/or descriptions that are relevent to the articles they lie within. If they are not relevent, they should not be present. One precedent of proper discretion against use of a picture depicting a nude woman is on the Talk page for the Breast article. The picture that was removed was not relevant enough to the article (ie. it was considered pornographic and not informative). Summation: Censorship = Bad -ÅrУnT 06:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why warnings could not be placed at the top of pages that contain material that could offend some viewers. This does not censor the page, nor does it hamper its effectiveness in any way, but merely serves to give viewers a choice, similar to the way spoiler warnings are used. Does anybody here disagree with spoiler warnings? -ÅrУnT 06:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since when is using one's common sense and applying one's sense of decency "equal" to "censorship"? To refuse to allow Playboy or Penthouse into your home is NOT "censorship", it is rather an application of good ethics and superior morality, and shows that as responsible humans we are capable of knowing right from wrong by excluding moral poison and corruption from Wikipedia. Unless of course we want to invite Hugh Hefner and company (and those who admire him and his ilk) from setting up Wikipedia's policy of "new tastes" in photography of women etc? IZAK 11:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You know, I raised this issue about 6 months ago in requesting whether a template should be created for a warning that an article contains adult content. What the discussion boiled down to was that the template should not be created, due to the fact that it might end up inviting more trouble that its worth. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link to that discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26 - Adult content warning template? -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In terms of looking for a consensus, I think we should accept that any form of censorship besides self-censorship cannot achieve consensus. However, I think we should also recognize that expecting users to know which pages contain images that they don't want to see before they see them is not a reasonable approach to self-censorship. To this end, I think we could put the issue to rest if the MediaWiki software supported the following feature:

Each user may maintain a list of categories, such that images labeled with one of those categories appear in a linked rather than inline form on their display.

The category system we already have, and as applied to the image namespace, it allows us to transcend the debate over whether a picture would be found objectionable by a suitably large number of people, and just objectively place it in a category like Category: Diseased anatomy, Category: Explicit human death, Category: Nazi propoganda, or Category: Female nipple. The classification of what an image actually shows can be done at least somewhat objectively. Objectively determining which images should be displayed is in many cases hopeless. Shimmin 14:01, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Spot on Shimmin. Imho this is the obvious solution to the problem. We provide a search facility to help people find material they are looking for and toolbox features to ease authorship of articles. Features of mediawiki software should be designed to help people use and write wikipedia. Some people will undeniably want not to see images of certain types. As they cannot be expected to know where these images are the above suggestion would allow users to make these choices with the minimum amount of hassle. Barnaby dawson 11:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

do we want them to come across obscene images? This debate should be dubbed "The morality of neutrality". Honestly, this isn't christian conservative America - it's Wikipedia. Almost everyone here has sucked on titties before - either as a baby and possibly later. It's nothing new to any of us, and as a neutral encyclopedia, well, I must revert to the infamous Joe Friday. We are here to report, "Just the Facts, Ma'am". Maybe we can exercise a teensy bit of discretion by not showing rolled heads at guillotine, but breasts and penis? come on! --Alterego 06:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia biases

I am not clear where this belongs, so I am reposting it from the Proposals page:

I think Wikipedia needs a general disclaimer on all Palestine/Israel-related issues, like The majority of the editors on Israel-Palestine issues have a strong bias and all readers are requested to make independent conclusions, cross-check information themselves and best of all, avoid reading these pages for authoritative information very importantly, not take offense at the presentation of historical facts on these pages. This will stop the more conscientious editors from stressing over every moronic agenda-based edit that mutates Wikipedia every few moments and focus on articles they can actually make progress on. -- Simonides 01:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this the policy for every Wikipedia page. Nobody around here claims that you should use Wikipedia for any primary research and only use it as a starting point. And you would probably need to add disclaimers to Abortion, MPAA, RIAA, SCO v Linux etc. Evil Monkey → Talk 01:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

This is a good idea, as almost every Israeli/Palestinian article seems to have a permanent NPOV warning. - SimonP 03:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a constructive solution, so I think that this problem is part of the nature of the "wiki" system. I have found many of the articles in wikipedia very useful, but I am very unlikely to even read articles about Palestine/Israel issues for that reason. I think that the general disclaimer is a good idea, for the reasons given by Simonides. Morris 16:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• I disagree. I can't find the exact page, but somewhere in the FAQ for readers it's mentioned you should cross-reference everything you read in wikipedia. Singling one sort of article out to have such a disclaimer might inflame more people, putting it on every article discredits wikipedia. I see no use in such a disclaimer. It's more likely to cause problems at the editor end of the spectrum. Mgm|^(talk) 15:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

• As an ignorant outsider, I say this is a very bad idea. It violates Wikipedia: Avoid self-reference, it adds nothing not already expressed in the policy or by an NPOV warning, and worst of all, it makes broad generalizations about the editors of the articles. Imagine the impression on readers of our authority, especially if it were quoted elsewhere. Many articles have issues, but I hardly think it's fair to accuse "the majority" of the editors of having a bias in a public forum when not one of them would admit to it. Deco 06:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • (First apology in advance for bad English) I am a new regular editor on these issues. Yes I have POV too :). Problem resides in 'no original research'. If you make any statement which is a 'fact/conclusion' rather then an 'opinion' It is more likely then not, a subject of dispute. So these articles are mostly collection of views rather then conclusions. Some 'factual' articles are regular subject of deletion votes. Like 'Israeli violence against children'. And related articles which give supportive evidences. And on other site 'List of terrorist acts against Israel'. Although Policy clearly states that POV is not a reason for delete. Normally pro-Palestinian article gets more delete votes then pro-Israeli articles. (on other thought may be my POV again coming). I personally believe more serious need is about POV of titles. Like we should recommend use of words like claims, apparent etc in disputed titles. Take the example of list of terrorist incidences. The 'terrorist' is one of the words to avoid in wikipedia policy. Specially due to definitional problems. For example by most definitions, the civilian killing due to 'hate' does not qualify as 'terrorism'!. That's why u never see label of terrorist on nazis. There are many other issues there. But mostly if you hear from any active editor, you will get one side of the story. And if you try to listen to both. You will wish that their keyboards should crash :)

Zain 22:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

privacy policy

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Privacy_policy.

Democracy on Wikipedia

I feel there is a problem with the democratic process on Wikipedia. If for example people from the Church of Scientology created several hundred accounts on Wikipedia (making legitimate edits so as not to be accused of sock puppetry), they could decide to vote down any proposal for the inclusion of content that might be seen as detrimental to the image of Scientology (to the point of deleting pages on VFD), and nobody could do anything to stop it. The whole process therefore seems fundamentally flawed. Right now a vote is going on at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored) and there's nothing to stop members of the USMC (or whoever) ganging up on Wikipedia and voting for the retention of this page. Jooler 04:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you claiming something like this is happening, or is it a hypothetical? Yes, it is possible to overwhelm an open consensus group. It is why, for example, on VfD we ignore votes by unregistered users and tend to discount votes by brand new users who have not made other contributions. I venture to say that if we had a vote and 10 experienced Wikipedians all voted to delete while 50 total newbies voted to keep (or vice versa), we'd either consider it a draw or go with the opinion of the experienced Wikipedians. I call this sound practice. Others call it a cabal. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:19, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

At least you're honest. Call a vote and ignore the outcome! You might just as well delete what you please and not bother with the vote.Dr Zen

Well, it has already happened as regards individual editors, who (in one case) created a dozen sockpuppets, and was readying them so he could force his views on any article he wanted. It more luck than anything else that caught this. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another reason this is done is because often, very new users are less familiar with Wikipedia policies and that their contributions tend to show partiality to the subject in question. Experienced users tend to apply their personal standards of inclusion in casting their vote. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 06:54, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Well, these responses aren't really addressing the complaint, the idea that a group with certain interests could all become experienced users, solely for the purpose of pushing their weight around. My main argument against this is that anyone who has become a true Wikipedian has learned to weigh issues carefully and respect the viewpoints of others. If they haven't, it doesn't matter how many edits they might have, it will show in the scuffles they get into and the quality of what they write.

Another simpler argument is that if this were to happen, the people who decide the outcome of the vote would presumably be aware of it and take it into account, unless the contributors were very clever about hiding it, to the point of voting against their ideals sometimes. It could happen, just not easily. Deco 07:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jooler, I don't understand your complaint. Are you saying that some people join Wikipedia to push their POV around? Are you saying that VFD is any more sensitive to Wikipedia's weaknesses than any other part of the project? Are you saying there is a problem with Scientologists or Marines? What, exactly, is the real or perceived problem with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored)? Do you have any thoughts on solutions? Maurreen 08:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My examples are hypothetical, but entirely possible. It would not be hard for any organized group of people who share a particular political/religious/other agenga to decide to stage what would amount to a "virtual" coup d'etat and usurp the decision making process of Wikipedia. Indeed that may have already happened. A cynic might argue that the predominant point of view that can be read between the lines of nearly every article on Wikipedia is one based on the mores and the cultural norms of the United States, and that any attempt to express a view outside of these norms is liable to get shouted down; and this is simply because the technological superiority of the US allows many more people from that country cheap access to the Internet in numbers that overwhlem people from other nations. I suppose this is the "cabal" of which you speak. My point is that there is absolutely nothing to stop a narrowing of this "cabal" by an organised group, be they neo-nazis in the US or communist ideologues in China. Jooler 11:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the possibility of the hypothetical scenario. I think that if wikipedia gets to the point of being considered an authoritative source (which could have already happened) it will be more likely. I am actually more worried about groups that are more subtle than the U.S. Marine. How about The Olin Foundation, or AIPAC. Morris 13:24, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is going to be a massive problem one day. There could come a time where the truth about a subject in many people's minds is "What it says in Wikipedia". I know about all the disclaimers about how you are supposed to use Wikipedia, but what proportion of Wikipedia users (as opposed to Wikiepedians) read them? Some people will automatically make appropriate critical assumptions anyway, but many won't. Wikipedia doesn't may the same type of claim to authoritativeness as some other reference materials do, but like it or not, it is on the way to becoming the most broadly influential work of reference ever. I have no solutions to suggest Philip 17:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with all who claim this to be a likely scenario. I also have to agree with Jooler on the point that anything going against the cultural norms of the USA gets shouted down, see for reference the history and talk of Christian terrorism. However, encyclopedias as a whole have a tendency to be biased none the less. I looked through a lexicon from the late '70s the other day, finding countless references to "bushmen" describing everyone not of a fair skin complexion. It also described communism as a great evil. Reaching my point here: Even if the article on communism in this lexicon was accurate and extensive, it included graphical models with "The Soviet system in theory" and another one labelled "How it really works". I live in Norway, for the record, where we had nowhere near as powerful anti-communism waves as in the US, and still very POV stuff like this snuck into the encyclopedias. My point is that no matter where you look you must be source critical. This goes not only for wikipedia, and this should apply equally much to; "serious" encyclopedias in print. --TVPR 18:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The nice thing about GFDL is that if Wikipedia were really to be overwhelmed by a particular faction, there is nothing to stop a different group from forking, setting up a somewhat more restrictive set of rules as to who can edit, and taking the project from there. And then the world will presumably sort out which fork has more credibility. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:35, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

In the sense that the most popular will be more credible? - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 22:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The National Enquirer is very popular and not at all credible. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:30, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly. Perhaps Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the Encyclopaedia world. - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 22:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or perhaps it is the Utne Reader. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

This scenario already exists. Several interest groups already do control articles by exactly this method. (I won't name names but I will say that in some cases those interest groups do not even realise that they are doing anything like this: they are just defending their interest.) Wikipedia was in fact designed to negate the effect, by insisting that decisions should be consensual, that is, include all views, but the drift from that to a community that votes on proposals, deletion, this, that and the other opens the door to the dedicated POV pushers. The interest group need only hold a poll on an article and it can then enforce the majority decision for the rest of the article's life. Or of course it can simply outrevert any opposition. The policy on reversion allows groups to tag-revert individuals, so minority voices can be shut down by interest groups without any difficulty.Dr Zen 12:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Can you name these articles? It is hard to know what the discussion is about otherwise. I don't mean to be difficult, I just want to know what you're referring to, and I doubt that I can guess it successfully. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • I can. The majority of the articles in the Template:Creationism for a start. This might actually be what Dr Zen is reffering to as I've seen her around in these pages. In these pages we have just a few very motivated creationists systematically biasing pages on that topic. They revert changes, introduce POV statements, change the format of the page to favour their POV. Until recently I was doing my best to reason with these few and make sure the page was NPOV. But it really is a full time job and one requiring considerable diplomatic skills. Furthermore, certain individuals amongst these profess to believe in NPOV but show by their actions a total lack of respect for it. Barnaby dawson 13:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • • Sealand is another example. Jooler 13:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The general point here is, it seems to me, that if you move away from genuine concensus decision-making to the rule of the majority, then you enable vote-rigging and the territorial rule over certain groups of articles by interest-groups who can simply vote-down any minority view that comes along, regardless of merit. These groupings can then find ways to use house rules like the 3RR to protect their turf by playing on the frustration of the dissenting voices. Personally, I have walked away from articles like Historicity of Jesus because I felt this going on by a group of users some of whom were acting in good faith in the way Dr Zen indicates above (others I feel fairly sure knew exactly what they were doing). Filiocht 11:40, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

agree with Filiocht. Votes are valid for layout decisions etc. Votes can never replace consensus and npov in questions of content (i.e. you cannot vote a minority position out of an article). Unfortunately, VfD does exactly that, sometimes, but more often to the inverse effect of voting irrelevant crap (GNAA) into WP. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole VfD process is the clearest example of the failure of voting here. The drowning out of minority voices is more insidious and, IMHO, just as dangerous in the long run. Filiocht 14:17, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Academic boosterism guideline useful?

For a while now I have been frustrated at the lack of restraint displayed by partisan editors in many of Wikipedia's college and university articles. So I've drafted a guideline on academic boosterism at User:Rbellin/Avoid academic boosterism. (It's purely a statement of voluntary principle, and anyway it's a special case of Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, so I don't think it needs to become anything more "official policy"-ish than a statement of principles for a segment of the WP community.) Feedback, discussion, and edits are welcome. Does this seem potentially useful enough to move into the Wikipedia namespace? -- Rbellin|Talk 20:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I generally agree. I am a little concerned, though, about it being used as a hammer. At least one user in my experience tried to do his academic boosting by ripping material out of the articles on what he presumably saw as institutions competing with the one he was boosting. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:11, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Any policy, applied unevenly, is dangerous. This proposed guideline, applied evenly, is an excellent one. Kudos to Rbellin for writing this up. --Improv 20:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It seems as though at least a continued discussion would be useful, so I'm going to move the page into the Wikipedia namespace. Further comments welcome at Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

GFDL license is a pain, let's switch to CC

The GFDL license is an overly-restrictive license that isn't compatible with any other content licenses (that I know of). Unless the FSF reforms it significantly, I would really rather not publish anything under it personally. WikiTravel uses the much more lightweight and compatible by-sa Creative Commons license. Why does Wikipedia insist on using such a beast as the GFDL? I'm sure more than a few people are sick of having to dual (or tri-) license their writing in order to put it on Wikipedia and other websites. If we're not using a license that's compatible with any other websites, it kind of defeats the whole purpose of having "free" content, IMO. For more information see the following:

• Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL
• Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL

Can't be done in any practical sort of way. If you don't believe me, I suggest you start by contacting all the anonymous users with copyright claims to their work here to get them to relicense their work. It would be a massive copyright violation to change the license without their permission. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alas, one of the risks of being an early adopter; Wikipedia is locked into the GFDL at this point despite its troublesome foibles. If we could change it to something else, then what would stop others from being able to relicence Wikipedia's content under non-free licences of their own choosing? I think the only possible "out" is if the FSF comes up with a new version of the GFDL that's cross-compatible with CC. Wikipedia's already partway there by having no invariant text. Bryan 00:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand that the wiki media foundation people are talking to FSF legal people about just that -- a new version of GFDL that would be better serve wikipedia's needs. Morris 00:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

FSF is aware of this and is working on it. CC founder Lawrence Lessig is on the FSF board of directors, so it's not as if there's no contact between FSF and CC. I'd say that Prof. Lessig is one of the FSF legal people and so I think something will be worked out. 67.120.102.204 06:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That would be great if the FSF could come up with a more compatible version of the GFDL. When I actually read the GFDL license I was rather amazed at how cumbersome it was. The Creative Commons licenses are so much more elegant. Kaldari 02:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

GFDL was really intended for software documentation, which faces somewhat different issues than something like Wikipedia. I'm not in any hurry to dual license. I'd rather see what GFDL 2.0 is like. 67.120.102.204 06:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can dual-license your own content under any license you like. I like to release a lot of my edits into the public domain. The GFDL isn't great, but it was there when Wikipedia started and it keeps everything under one integrated license. As others have noted, it's almost impossible to switch now — we would need signed consent from every contributor ever, or else we'd have to throw out all articles editing by editors who haven't consented. Deco 03:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia a beta tester?

Question: Why is the Wikipedia running beta software? The MediaWiki site says it "may not be stable. Recommended only for adventurous souls." I can't imaging my credit card company or even Yahoo! or Google running beta software which hasn't been thoroughly tested. —Mike 06:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC).

Software testing is expensive and time-consuming. Who would test the MediaWiki software if not us? I note that despite your inability to imagine it, Google does run beta software, for example Google Groups at http://groups-beta.google.com/ Gdr 20:45, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

You do realize that MediaWiki is custom-written by our developers for us, right? Our problems seem to be more oriented around "release quality" software by others. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia?

(See above related discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Censorship and wikipedia)

See important discussion about this subject taking place at Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images [1]

This subject seems to have ignited recently at Talk:Breast#Image [2] and Talk:Breast#New Image [3] and at Talk:Nudity [4] and Talk:Nudity#Lead image [5] and at several other places.

1. (Exhibit A): "Frua" photo, is she also "meditating"?
2. (Exhibit B): "Woman meditating" photo
3. (Exhibit C): Woman sketch (from NASA plaque)
4. (Exhibit D) Color sketch of woman's front (US govt FDA sources)
5. (Exhibit E): Marilyn Monroe dressed for Playboy's first cover
6. (Exhibit F): Wax play on back.

Recently, when looking at User:Rickyrab's [6] home page I saw this image of a voluptuous brunnete (see Exhibit A) (Exhibit A): "Frua" photo, is she also "meditating"? taken from the German Wikipedia article on Frau [7] ("Woman" in the German language) only added Dec 1, 2004 by Benutzer:Wikibär (who is warned - in German - about his unseemly behavior on his talk page), see Benutzer Diskussion:Wikibär [8]. The English article on Woman does not have this photo, but it does have this one [9] of a woman "meditating" (pubic hair and all..is that what a "woman" is?) (see Exhibit B) (Exhibit B): "Woman meditating" photo Exhibit B is taken from "copyright" http://buecax.deviantart.com/ ..."deviantart"???

Is this a new "German" "trend" to flood Wikipedia with still life reality pornography? Perhaps we could live with the "sketch" (see Exhibit C) (Exhibit C): Woman sketch (from NASA plaque). But here are some big questions:

• Should a respectable online Encyclopedia that has young kids and teenagers reading its articles, have explicit sexy full-frontal nude photos of anyone?
• The pictures in question (Exhibits A and B) (Exhibit A): "Frua" photo, is she also "meditating"? (Exhibit B): "Woman meditating" photo are highly erotic and suggestive (if you don't think so, you may be too numb to appreciate their physical features...otherwise why not post photos of ugly women too, are they not women as well?) These graphic photos should NOT be used as an "example" of "a nude" or "a female" and such-like expressions of fake "NPOV" as I have heard from some folks on this subject. "NPOV" nipples anyone? Or, "NPOV" breasts or hips or pubic hair??? Beats me! (By the way, the articles on Nipples and Breasts have a good example of a fairly "acceptable" image of a woman (see Exhibit D) [10] of the kind you'd find in a doctor's office maybe.) (Exhibit D) Color sketch of woman's front (US govt FDA sources)
• Where are the voices of those who believe that images that belong in Playboy magazine and parading women like naked cattle is degrading to the dignity of women? (Even the Playboy article has the good sense to show [11] Marilyn Monroe with clothing on! (see Exhibit E) (Exhibit E): Marilyn Monroe dressed for Playboy's first cover: (and Marilyn Monroe surely was a woman too):
• Where will it end? Will we also be presented with sexy pictures of every sort all in the name of "teaching biology" (now where have we heard those lines before?) Or how about articles about Sado-masochism and "bondage", will there be photos too, or some real depictions of, say, Lesbianism??? Where do we draw the line???!!!
• So the $64,000- question is: Should Wikipedia be a "home" for all manner of pornography under the guise of pseudo "scholarship" and who gets to decide? Guys like Benutzer:Wikibär? Or real scholars and serious editors worthy of their honor, name and having enough self-respect and common sense, and human decency to know better than allow filth to flood Wikipedia?

It is time to set clear policy on excluding anything that is even border-line pornographic, pulling the plug on it and excluding it, and anything like it, because it is clearly unbefitting a genuine encyclopedia. IZAK 08:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a place for actual photographs in encyclopedias of the real world. I am a male, so have a penis, which I see everyday, so am not offended when I see an image of one in Wikipedia. You must also remember that your definition of what is obscene and 'flith' will differ from someone elses. For instance a person from Europe that a brief view of a nipple on US TV raised so much anger. However I am not arguing for these images in particular. Both seem to have been created to be erotic in someway. Maybe the images needed are like those seen on the BBCs 'Human Body'. And add a warning to the top of pages to tell people that there may be something on this page that will offend them. Evil Monkey → Talk 09:43, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

The only way to satisfy all users is to have some kind of filter out there so people don't have to look at naked women on Wiki if they don't want to (even if they hit "random page"). As an aside, the pictures shown here seem to be strongly influenced by men who do not respect the sexual boundaries that many women I know have. I think the presence of such pictures will discourage women and non-liberals from contributing to Wikipedia. Samboy 23:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everything that is "visible" to the "naked eye" should now be depicted in an encyclopedia? This makes no sense! IZAK 09:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I do not find myself offended. You may argue that we can use more neutral or less erotic images. But I really don't find these pictures immoral, filthy or obscene. To me, this is only nudity. This is not slaughter or abusing. -- Toytoy 10:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

ToyToy:Think in logical terms. IF this is only the start of Wikipedia, what will it look like once we post all imaginable and freely available explicit photos all erotica?

Absolutely. How would everyone feel if Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg was removed. It shows naked bodies, so by IZAK's definition it must be pornography. Evil Monkey → Talk

Do you think, by this same logic, that Wikipedia should have "tasteful" pictures of Lesbians making love too? IZAK 10:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We do have tasteful pictures of lesbians making love. More than one. Neener. grendel|khan 09:01, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Only goes to show that we are in an out-of-control spin that will land up with Wikipedia becoming a de facto porn site, or worse... IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Holocaust which was genocide, how that was related to pornography must have been a very interesting lecture in abstract "logic". Sexy women posing for cameras does not equal starved skeletons of victims (in Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg they actually look more like a bunch of broken matches than "humans"). In any case, I do NOT say that having pictures of naked dead Holocaust victims is acceptable. One can skip photos of dead Jews with (what was left of) their exposed shriveled genitals to realize what happened to them at the "hands" of the Nazis. And yes, the subjects of nudity and violence are connected when it comes to controlling how we expose YOUNG readers to life in an encyclopedia. There ARE better ways to doing this, and you know it! IZAK 10:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong but I always thought that Wikipedia was intended to be the largest and most comprehensive Encyclopaedia in the world, not a childish, prudish Bolderized one, or one politically or religiuosly censored? I would imagine that if IZAK looked in any medical encyclopaedia he would will find plenty of pictures that he might consider obscene. If a medical encyclopaedia might have such pictures why shouldn't Wikipedia? I don't know what all the fuss is about. Jooler 11:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am NOT saying cut out the topics! I AM saying be more careful with images you flash! We don't need to turn Wikipedia into a "nudist colony" of nude editors/students! IZAK 13:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Judge for yourself: Is this "pornography"? IZAK 11:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC):

Holocaust dead at Bergen Belsen May 1945 (the Germans were in a rush, so they couldn't burn the Jews' bodies.)

I fail to see any pornography in these 'exhibits'. What are you talking about? And why, why, Evil Monkey and IZAK, does it always have to be about the Holocaust, even in completely unrelated discussions? I agree that the "Frau" picture would be controversial by some standards on woman, but what's wrong with the Pioneer image? or the Marilyn cover? And why shouldn't there be a picture of a nipple on nipple?? ffs, people... dab (ᛏ) 11:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was not the one to drag the Holocaust into this discussion. (But come to think of it the Nazis would make the Jewish women - and men - strip...why?...the Nazis must have been perverts!) The main topics of discussion here are "Exhibits A and B", does it have to be "full motion action" to qualify as pornography? It can also be the "gentlest" and "quietest" of shots, the photos are very alluring and should be published in a venue other than Wikipedia. IZAK 11:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, I find it truly amusing that such a religious person like you is spending so much time hunting marginal porn in Wikipedia. -- Toytoy 11:26, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I guess you live and learn don't you! It's not amusing at all really. Someone has to do some "housekeeping" as so many people think that Wikipedia should become a kind of "free-for-all" with all sorts of ansavory photos and just "make peace with it". I am not scared that you may be shocked, I am more worried that Wikipedia, becuase it is so "welcoming" should NOT turn into a "red light district" in the name of "gathering information". Not everything needs to be graphic. What will we say on "Judgment Day" when we are asked: "How could you allow such things to co-exist?" Someone has to make the case, may as well be me. How else can we protect the truly innocent by the way? When working in the "sewage" there is always the risk of the smell, but it's important to make sure that the sewage and garbage MOVES O U T and NOT "back up" into the Wikipedia mainstream!IZAK 11:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, IZAK; but you're acting ridiculous. By your logic, that WP should be a large and serious encyclopedia, why should there not be a picture of nipples under "nipple"? You are in reality taking a puritan, holier-than-thou approach to this whole discussion, defining what is and what is not pornographic as per your own personal standards. You only have to draw the line a few inches longer than you do to defend women being forced to wear a burka, because hey, skin is filthy and pornographic. Simple question to end the discussion: Is all nudity pornographic? Does nudity per se have to be sexually arousing? If the answer is yes, then, and only then can you defend being against all nudity in an encyclopedia. Also, if the answer is yes, I suggest you seek councelling. However, if the answer is no, that all nudity is not neccerarily sexually arousing, then there is no way to claim it must be removed from WP. --TVPR 11:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

TVPR: The discussion is NOT just about some "nipples". Your "logic" to defend obvious graphic pornographic images of FULLY (frontaly) naked women (now now, let's call a "spade a spade") falls flat. For example: Is all nudity pornographic? The answer is, it depends how and where it's presented: When Playboy presents it, it is, but when nude in the doctor's office it is NOT, so what is your point and where is your logic? I am not talking for myself, but if you have pre-pubescent children you don't want to expose them to a photo of a lady showing off her pubic hairs...now doesn't that make good sense? IZAK 12:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This stuff is nothing new really... nothing that you don't see like on a documentary on an African tribe or when the Discovery channel visits an African tribe. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia it is NOT the African "jungle" either, so don't get so jaded. IZAK 12:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

man, 'Exhibit A' is not even linked from any article. Just list it on images for deletion. If 'Exhibit B' is pornography, so is half Image:Nudemaja.JPG, and thousands of cherished works of art. If you think an image of an unclad human is 'sewage', I guess we cannot help you, but you can hardly expect others just accept such an opinion as a fact. dab (ᛏ) 11:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

dab:FYI:Exhibit A is being HOTLY debated in Talk:Breast and at Talk:Nudity (see below also), and it's ignited a call for "censorship" by some people. IZAK 12:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, I raised a similar issue with an adult content warning template. See The archive of the Village pump discussion for more information. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so let's try to create some sanity. It's never too late. IZAK 12:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that no matter how ridiculous you think IZAK's view is, he holds it genuinely, and he is not alone. Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone. Does that not include IZAK and others who find these pictures offensive? Personally, I'm all for the Frau and I don't mind pics of anything and everything. But Wikipedia is not about my POV, is it? Dr Zen 12:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• By the way, please do NOT make it sound like it's just "lil' ol' me" that has a problem with this. Sure if you like "Frau" you will love all that will come down the porno pipeline in double quick time into WP, all in the name of "objective knowledge" of course. IZAK 12:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we have been through this several times. I realize that IZAK is not the only man on earth to take offence at these pictures. However, if we could remove content just because some people object, WP would be empty soon. The criterion is npov, not unobjectionability. Now, I fail to see how an image of a nipple represents any sort of pov. a nipple is a nipple. dab (ᛏ) 12:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Er, but take a look, it's a lot more than a couple of "nipples" we're talking about here. IZAK

Have you considered how ridiculous this debate is when you consider the amount of free pornography avaliable on the internet and the amount of nudity shown on television? I don't think Wikipedia can be accused of being gratutious. :ChrisG 13:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia MUST NOT join that filthy bandwagon! It can serve as a better and more cultured example to the human race. Just because "everyone is doing it" does it mean that I too must become involved? Hang on to your hat there...! IZAK 13:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clearly there are some issues to discuss. As indicated, this is really part of a wider discussion on generally sensitive/offensive/disturbing images as currently being voted on at Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. For my part, its a question of boundaries. I'm sure there are images I wouldn't want to see on Wikipedia and I'm sure my boundaries aren't the same as those of other editors. As such we need to decide as a matter of collective policy where those boundaries should be, or come up with some technical solution such as image tagging and allowing an individual to set their own preferences as to which classes of image are visible.

A few other points of reference are;

• The argument at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored)
• We already have images of sadomasochism, in fact one of them is a featured picture.
• We also have images of slaughter at slaughterhouse. Although I'm not sure that's quite what User:Toytoy was actually worried about, I'm sure that some people would find them disturbing.
• Its difficult to come up with a policy which excludes images of full frontal nudity without harming articles such as Sandro Botticelli which shows his famous picture of the Birth of Venus. Of course there's then a range of decissions to make in other art subjects, including Erotic art.
• When reviewing the argument over which images to include at talk:clitoris, I checked a university level biology textbook I had to hand, and noticed that they did switch to using drawings in the style of Exibit D in their sex related topics.
• Whilst Exhibit B is copyright, it is actually licensed 'copyright free use' - provided attribution is given. Many of the images on WP are copyright - GFDL images are also copyright and require attribution, although it is a common misapprehension to think that GFDL images aren't copyright.
• If the principle concern is over what younger children might see, it may be possible to use a specifically child targetted fork similar to Simple as part of the solution (whilst also excluding some sensitive articles).

I also think it is useful to consider which images a conventional encyclopedia would include or exclude - though they have the advantage of firm editorial control without needing to arrive at a consensous for each and every controversial picture. -- Solipsist 14:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any problem with Exhibit A or Exhibit B but I do have to point out two things.

• First, we were all born naked, there are various studies which seem to show that the only problems with nudity are induced by overly prudish societies.
• Second, Think of the children. If'd I'd only had exhibit C when I was young, I'd have gone crazy. (I had those cutaway books that were closer to color versions of Exhibit B.)

--Ssokolow 15:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, images of full nudiy and sexual organs, such as those here and here have no place in an encyclopaedia. (Hint: wave your mouse over the links to see where they actually go.) Noel (talk) 17:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Banning nude pictures would be a gratuitous expression of a point of view. The criteria should be whether it is encyclopaedic; that is, whether it provides useful and relevant information - a picture of a naked person has a clear information content relevant to some articles, and so should certainly be included. --Khendon 17:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Allowing nude pictures without any warning or any filtering is also pushing an agenda. A very liberal agenda. A very, quite frankly, sexist agenda. Samboy 23:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is pushing an agenda; the agenda that the appropriate question for judging wikipedia content should be whether it is informative and accurate, not whose cultural norms it conforms with. And sexist? Uh? --Khendon 11:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how a warning attached to a specific picture is not inherently POV. There are already warnings attached to pictures on Wikipedia that I do not find objectionable, while there are other pictures on Wikipedia that, while very few people would call them objectionable, do give me some problems because of a phobia, so for me they are very objectionable pictures. Fortunately for Wikipedia I don't make a fuss about this and slap a POV warning on selected pictures. Things would get silly very fast. I just read the articles without downloading the pictures.

The site disclaimer is on every page and warns that, subject to the laws of Florida, Wikipedia does contain material, including pictures, that some people will find objectionable. This kind of site-wide disclaimer is appropriate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to concur with Tony, here; Izak is using 'morality' as an argument in favor of censorship. IMHO, 'morality' is *inherently* POV, by definition. AFAIC, as long as a photograph is illustrative of the issue, and is not a violation of law which can get Wikipedia in hot water, it should stay. I've got a little personal rant on zero tolerance policies that speaks to this directly: if you *don't* have zero tolerance policies, then some people will try to 'sneak stuff by', by taking advantage of judgement. But that doesn't justify such policies. Ruling out nudity would be a zero tolerance policy, and I'm against it as much on those grounds as on any others. -- Baylink 05:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is one small thing I must add to this discussion. I was the one that searched diligently and, at long last, found a picture that seemed suitable to represent the nude female body. It was difficult to find a nude image of a woman that was both natural (in pose and appearance (like no tattoos, no makeup, etc)) and not sexually charged. When I did, I went through the process of personally contacting the fantastic artist responsible and asking him if we could use his image to benefit Wikipedia. Amazingly, he agreed. Finally, we had a natural-looking, relatively neutral, non-sexually charged image of a nude woman to adorn the woman article.

• By the way, that photo you speak of, is plenty "sexy" too, don't kid yourself. IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All of this is why I must laugh, but particularly at statements like "pubic hair and all..is that what a "woman" is?" because I am a woman, and yes, this is what a woman is. She is not the makeup or the clothing she wears. And I openly wonder, after reading this statement, IZAK: would you prefer if she had the carefully trimmed and styled cunt of your friendly neighborhood prostitute, or would you prefer the waxed-smooth cooch of a ten year old girl? I'd be delighted to hear about your point of view on this matter. →Reene^✎ 06:35, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reene:Try to maintain a dignified discussion at times like this please. IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have yet to answer my question. Women (as well as men) have pubic hair. Pubic hair is completely natural and normal among healthy women of childbearing age. This is a fact. So if you take such an offense to the normal portrayal of a nude woman that has not altered her natural (dare I say "god-given" in a figurative sense) features which unnatural extreme would you prefer? →Reene^✎ 01:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Reene, the problem is, I don't get your "question", simply because it's not a "question"! Seems, you are making a statement that challenges current norms of public displays of human nudity in most places, so it's hard to have a one-way discussion with you. No one is denying that beneath their clothing all humans (smooth kids or hairy adults) are in fact and in reality nude/naked, and there is nothing wrong with that G-d-given fact. The question/s before us is, to what exent should public displays of human genitals be allowed to appear on an encyclopedia without crossing the line so that these "displays" could then become excuses for pornography (which in turn is also a subject for an encyclopedia, but should not become an excuse for actual pornographic pictorial displays.) I know it's a fine line, but try to follow the reasoning. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to make point that Exhibit B is not a 'deviantart' photo. It is a photo by a real life artist which has placed the given photo on display at deviantart. Artists like to have their artwork seen. Tyln 07:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Ah yes, legitimize public displays of nudity in the name of art, an old ploy. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Exhibit F): Wax play on back. I'm the photographer of the "sadomasochism" picture that Solipsist mentioned above. The wax play picture is also mine. It's pretty, it adds greatly to the article, and it couldn't be illustrated without nudity. (Wax doesn't come out of clothing, believe me.) It's at an article about a deviant sexual act. It clearly illustrates the concept. Now, tell me why the image doesn't belong on that page.

• Great: Wikipedia now has graphic displays of deviant sex: Another step to it becoming a de facto porn site, what a shame... IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that the image doesn't illustrate the article? I'd be happy to make a better one if you're suggesting that. Or perhaps you have an issue with the existence of the article wax play in the first place. In which case, why don't you take it over to VfD? grendel|khan 10:07, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

• If the subject is one that relates to human nudity, then extreme caution is called for because nudity is the "gateway" to erotocism and sexuality, which are explosive dynamite topics that should be treated with all due care, and not become de facto expressions of sexual voyeurism in the name of publishing encyclopedia articles. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, it is POV that woman has a naked photo of a woman on it, while man has only a line drawing. Clearly, a male Wikipedian needs to photograph himself in all his naked, furry glory, and fix this notable gap.

I agree that putting the naked meditating woman in as part of an article on meditation isn't the right thing to do. It doesn't illustrate the article, unless it's an article about meditating naked. This is the only test to which it should be put. Period. Nudity is in; gratuitous nudity is out.

We don't have harlequin type ichthyosis illustrated on-page for the same reason we don't have goatse.cx illustrated on-page: both are used as shock sites. Wikipedia is not a tool to scare the crap out of people, or to vandalize Slashdot with. Note that gangrene, amputation and palmoplantar keratoderma are illustrated on-page, however, which I support.

Line drawings are well-used on some of the sex position articles, like 69 sex position and tribadism (as I mentioned above). I think these are a good compromise between not illustrating and putting in GFDL'd porn, which, face it, never comes out quite right.

One of the things I love dearly about Wikipedia is that I can look up a potentially offensive topic, something like flatulence or inflammatory bowel disease, and learn a lot. The highest of quality, in all things---this is what we're standing for, not shoveling parts of our bodies and lives into poorly-written and non-illustrated back alleys of the site. grendel|khan 09:01, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

grendel:We should still keep our senses though and not create a cesspool that will come back to haunt us when Wikipedia is finally called a "fully-certfied" porn site. IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Holy tarpit, IZAK, has nobody ever told you that the slippery slope argument is fallacious? If you're trying to convince sensible people, you're failing spectacularly by relying on that idea. Some images of nudity on Wikipedia are not going to make it into a pornography site. Do you consider sex-education books erotica, too? Frankly, just because you find something stimulating does not make it smut. If you got turned on by images of shoes, they would still not be porn. Similarly, if you get turned on by images of naked people, that does not automatically make them porn. Essentially, the idea that nudity is always equivalent to erotica is a POV, and a minority POV too.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 05:21, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot to add this: I am deeply offended by your continued reference to images (and indeed works of art) like Erleuchtung as "pornography" or somehow offensive or immoral and your continued attitude and statements that their presence in this encyclopedia is somehow harmful. Indeed, I consider such a hostile, negative attitude towards nudity (a natural state for a human being), parts of the human body, and even sex acts immoral and incredibly harmful (especially to children). However, I can accept that we have different points of view and can agree to disagree, whereas all you seem interested in doing is pushing your personal system of morals and POV onto other people. Why is this? →Reene^✎ 01:54, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Some questions: Do you have little children? Are you trying to raise a normal family? Does your life-partner approve of looking at other people's genitalia? Did I forget to mention that public displays of nudity are offensive and even against the law in real life in most societies on this planet, so why should Wikipedia be part of the outcast minority defying what most people on Earth call morality? Really, I am not being prudish, just want to do some "reality testing", so that Wikipedia does not slide off the deep end in its haste to document and represent every dimension and wrinkle of naked skin under the sun. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do help care for small children in my family, yes. I am not sure what "normal" is to you, but I believe the younguns I'll undoubtedly be rearing someday will have a very healthy, normal view of the human body and human sexuality as well. The statement that nudity is only a problem in societies that make it a problem is true. People only find the human body (or human sexuality, as they are, despite your belief, mutually exclusive entities) disgusting or immoral when they have been raised to believe such things. That, to me, is very wrong and borderlines on child abuse. And I don't think such displays are offensive in "most societies". There is the small matter of Europe and their lax stance on nudity, and there are even places (public places) in the US where it is perfectly acceptable to lounge about nude (with your children, no less) if that is what you so desire. I think you need to step back and ask yourself whose morals you're really fighting for, because from where I stand, you are in the minority. And frankly, your views on the matter seem very unhealthy. →Reene^✎ 00:20, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is true that there is a sad lack of an equivilent photograph of a nude male for the man article. I was actually going to attempt taking one of my signifigant other in a similar pose, but unfortunately, we did not get around to doing so. I will search around for a photograph that can be used, though, unless someone else wishes to volunteer. →Reene^✎ 09:27, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reene:What are you trying to prove: "Lowest Common Denominators" or "Highest Common Factors"? IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your question is confusing. Perhaps you could clarify yourself? →Reene^✎ 01:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I mean to say, are we going to reach for "higher standards" or "lower standards", you figure it out. IZAK

Higher of course. What kind of encyclopedia would we be if we did not place images on these pages to illustrate the information they are offering? Check out a paper encyclopedia some time. They've all got images that you would undoubtedly find offensive as well. →Reene^✎ 00:20, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

It should be fairly obvious to everyone that this is not a child's encyclopedia. There will be no 'G' rating, and we might be lucky to get a 'PG' rating. But I concur with the arguments that have been made that nudity is appropriate when illustrating a point. However I also took a look at Woman and I cannot see how the so-called 'Exhibit B' satisfies that condition. The caption makes no attempt at illustrating anything, and the text of the article makes no reference to the image. The image should be removed. Oh, and Reene, unless you manage to illustrate a point, don't bother uploading a naked photo of your hubby, boyfriend, boss, or whatever—I would be inclined to personally zap it, faster than you can say...well, uh, "zap".  :-) —Mike 12:56, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

It was decided, after much discussion on the talk page, that an actual, living portrayal of a nude woman was called for on the article, and that the voyager image was insufficient in representing a nude woman. I went along with consensus here and, in the spirit of being helpful, brought an image that most (if not all) involved thought was appropriate. The man article, being closely related to the woman article, was still lacking in such images, however (as others pointed out). As I know no other models that would be willing to pose for a nude photograph and am unable to pay for such a model, turning to my SO (whom was willing to give it a shot) seemed logical. As I recall, we're encouraged to procure our own images for things where possible instead of taking them from other sources. So why would you object to such a thing? Are you opposed to a nude photograph in general or the idea of a Wikipedian using a loved one (with their consent of course) for something of that nature? →Reene^✎ 01:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think you did extremely well in finding Erleuchtung, and that it's a most suitable image for the Woman article. I would encourage you to take that photo of your SO and upload it for the Man article. If others have better photos, it may be replaced there, but any half-decent photo would be better than none.-gadfium 02:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I read through the talk page and archive and couldn't find any such consensus. There was some crap about whether this image was too abstract or that image was too specific; it made me laugh. And User:Sam Spade couldn't make any coherent arguments (and actually refused to) as to why the nude images were necessary. If this is the quality that passes for discussion on article talk pages, then I feel sad for the Wikipedia.

If you go back read by original remark, you will see the point I brought up was that the image caption doesn't try to illustrate any point and the article text makes no reference to the image. It looks like the image was stuck there in a gratuitous show of nudity. Can someone provide a good explanation why that image is necessary and why it received that placement within the article. Anyone? —Mike 04:39, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be referenced in the article to be useful; why would you think that? It's necessary for the very simple reason that what a woman looks like is an important piece of information in an encyclopedia article about women. --Khendon 07:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to say my two cents on this issue. First of all, I'd like to say that I consider myself a normal, rational, moral person. I definitely do not beleive Wikipedia should be a "free-for-all" and I have found that Wikipedia has done fairly well at editing out images that have no purpose other than to shock. However, I have to wonder if User: IZAK is not pulling some huge joke on us. Wikipedia become a pornographic site? Wikipedia becoming a "sewer"? Are you serious? I have to seriously wonder if it is not you, IZAK, who has the problem. I think as has been demonstrated in this discussion most people have no objection to the images of nude human beings on here. Pornography is meant to sexually stimulate through mental imagery and honestly it seems like you are the only one on here who is being sexually stimulated by the images you object to, as you constantly refer to them as "sexy" and "alluring" while most people here consider them simple images of humans. To adress the second issue, I believe it was User: Samboy who made a good comment about how some people might object to nudity, etc. and decide not to visit Wikipedia. That is an excellent point, but what can I say? There has always been such a divide between what certain people might consider objectionable and what the greater community might. This is nothing new and is most certainly not unique to Wikipedia. I also do not believe we will solve such a divide anytime soon here on Wikipedia as in order to do so we would have to have everyone see the world through objective eyes which is impossible. My personal suggestion is that a warning be posted on the main Wikipedia page warning that this website should only be used under Parental/Adult Supervision. This is overdue as due to the nature of Wiki-editing and of an encyclopedia itself, material can always be questionable. Also, it would do away with a lot of the arguments of people like IZAK and give the rest of us freer reign and freedom from nudity-censorship. Secondly I would like to point out that I beleive we are doing a good job. Contrary to IZAK's beliefs, Wikipedia is FAR, FAR from being anything remotely pornographic and I beleive the vast majority of people who visit do not go away offended. Lets keep up the good job and fight censorship. -CunningLinguist 12:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Background and update

The following appears on Talk:Breast [12] :

...Here's the controversial image here, if anyone needs it for reference in the discussion. Rickyrab 01:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nude, breasty Woman... Note - if you're reading this at school, you can get in trouble! (comment by User:Sam Spade.)]]

All other disputes aside, who thought "breasty" (in the photo caption) was an acceptable encyclopedia term? -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Me. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe all your breast are belong to us? ;) Rickyrab 02:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My question is, where would consensus deem this image appropriate? I happen to think this image is better than none, on pages where it is relevant. The german wiki is full of nudity. We have some provocative images, but only on obscure pages. The policy is extremely broad in what it allows, and the Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images poll is clear cut in favor of allowing anything encyclopedic, w no particular guidelines. So my question is, where would the frau image be appropriate, on the english wiki? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nothing comes to mind. Something about lighting and photography, perhaps, but one could surely come up with better illustrations for that than this image. So, nowhere, I guess. I must confess I'm a little confused by your eagerness to use this image - not every photograph in the world is going to be necessary or useful in an encyclopedia. Are you saying we should use "provocative" pictures (i.e. ones with naked people) whenever possible, just because we can? Perhaps that should be added to the editing guidelines. :) -leigh (φθόγγος) 13:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

PS. I really don't think the nudity was the main objection to the use of this image for breast - it's that, well, it's not a picture of a breast. That's like using image:superman.jpg for the boot article. -leigh (φθόγγος) 13:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I simply felt that since it had been removed from one page, that I should find another place for it. I'm pro-image, having often found an article lacking due to lack of image. Also, I thought this was a nice photo (apparently few agree). But whatever, its not a big deal, and I'm not trying to enforce a pro-nudity POV or anything. I'll respect the current consensus here, and and move on to other things. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 14:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cheers. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:24, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

If anyone wants to continue this discussion, Sam has also posted this image to Teat, and I need someone to back me up at Talk:Teat. (I'm not saying I dislike the photo; it's just Not Appropriate.) —tregoweth 19:18, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

New Image

Breasts. (By User:Sam Spade.)

I've cropped the old breast image to make it more appropriate for this article... Feel free to add it to the article.

New vote option...

...added to Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. All those who think we shouldn't be creating blanket rules for censorship of Wikipedia, feel free to vote with me. — マイケル ₪ 03:12, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

---

I think Exhibits A and B are not encyclopedic, and I have doubts about the most recent photo of just breasts.

Clarifying "censorship": My understanding is that censorship only exists if it is imposed by an outside authority. Internal decisions of what to include and what to exclude are part of editing.

Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images, in my opinion, is too long to be very useful. The fact that the poll has so many proposals indicates that more discussion is needed to work toward consensus. Maurreen 17:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Frau.jpg is a lousy example, because User:Sam Spade was, IIRC, the only person who kept insisting that it be used, first on breast and then on teat, ffs. Sam's preferred caption was "nude, 'breasty' woman," so I am hardly confident in his/her conception of what is encyclopedic. Moreover, our objections to the dear Frau were not her nudity, but the simple inappropriateness of the image for the articles in question. Sam had an image and was looking for somewhere to put it, and the conclusion I and many others reached was that there is not an article for which that is the best image. End of story.

Aside from that, I think it's unfortunate that the anti-nudity crusade is being led (at least on this page) by user:IZAK, who seems to have difficulty making logical, on-topic arguments and responses to disagreements. His/her statements are full of logical fallacies (especially the straw man), and he/she's difficult to take seriously. I think it's important for the community to have this discussion -- in fact, I'm pretty confident that it already has, several times in its history -- but it's difficult to do with IZAK screaming bloody murder all the time.

FWIW, my vote is more or less to soldier on as WP's always done, always attempting to be sensitive to those whose obscenity radar is more sensitive, always using the least offensive, most informative image possible. -leigh (φθόγγος) 21:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I am not sure what the above writer means, that I "have difficulty making logical, on-topic arguments and responses to disagreements. His/her statements are full of logical fallacies (especially the straw man), and he/she's difficult to take seriously..." when absolutely NO examples are given at all. Could you please point to ONE example of what I said that is "wrong" in any way (according to your lexicon) to back up your criticism? Makes it sound like I am leading a "crusade" ("jihad"?) against "nudists international" or something...go figure...All we are talking about is trying to keep Wikipedia from becoming a de facto porn site, and is that so "terrible" and too much to ask of a supposed "encyclopedia"? What credibility will Wikipedia have if it allows itself to host an increasing flood of images that rightly belong in Playboy magazine? IZAK 10:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Responded on your talk page. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:03, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think Exhibit A is sufficiently likely to be generally seen as erotic that it would only be appropriate on a topic where eroticism was inherent in the subject matter. Exhibit B strike me as generally innocuous, I would guess that "community standards" in at least 90% of the English-speaking world would consider it acceptable, although there certainly are places in India or Arkansas where it would violate those standards. The holocaust photo is, of course, hideous, but I think appropriately so. One of the things with a picture like that is that it plays very differentl at low resolution than it would in full, excruciating detail. Exhibit A would have to shrink to very tiny to change its effect. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:06, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Is this "parading men like naked cattle"? IZAKs rantings about "pornography" are particularly ironic given that Wikipedia is apparently partly funded by pornography (via Jimbo Wales' bomis.com). Perhaps he thinks that all women on wikipedia should be wearing a burkas? I remember seeing a Australian car sticker which said "Thank God it was the Convicts and not the Puritans" - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb.donate 00:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find the connection that makes bomis.com a pornographic site, it's just an informational portal it seems to me, so your exaggerations are not welcome. IZAK

See http://babes.bomis.com/ if in doubt. - XED.talk 20:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a joke - laugh. There has been a rash of vandalism to Wikipedia after a guy who claims to be psychic added an article about himself at Sollog. After it was NPOVed he took exception and started vandalising pages saying that Jimbo supported Wikipedia with porn.

Is this degrading to the Elephant? And why not stop with humans. We have an image of an Elephant's penis on Wikipedia. Evil Monkey → Talk 23:40, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Great, and by the way, did you get the elephant's permission to photograph and publish his private parts? And what is the connection between an elephant and a human being? I don't get it! IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I just had this thought of the elephant signing a constent form with a paw print. Or conversely if permission was not gotten, suing for breach of privacy. Evil Monkey → Talk 01:25, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ohhh dear, how long before someone created Erection (censored) ?!? Jooler 23:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A this rate nothing will be out of the question on Wikipedia. IZAK 09:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With a bit of luck, yes, as long as by "nothing" you mean "nothing will be removed from wikipedia on moral grounds". Words like "immoral" or "offensive" are never useful when deciding what should be in wikipedia; only what is informative and encyclopaedic. --Khendon 17:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wrong: There will have to be a standard or else Wikipedia is in effect open to become known as a porn site if every single naked human body and pornographic related article/s will be "blessed" with images and photos that depict all manner of erotic and sexually-related subjects. It's not that complicated really. And at some point Wikipedia editors will have to make a profound choice and find a way of having many photos "packaged" so that they don't break the bounds and boundaries known to most of the human race. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine art

Would IZAK like to have a look at William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery and explain why he does or does not think that that page should be stricken from Wikipedia before we become a cesspool of late nineteenth-century art? grendel|khan 07:53, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point what about Erotic art in Pompeii or the famous erotic sculptures as the Hindu temple at Khajuraho which BTW is a World Heritage Site - we do not all share the same Judeo-Christian sensibilites. It is worth pointing out that none of the images that were previously on this can be considered obscene by the judgement of the US Supreme Court ruling of 1973. Jooler 08:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who says that the entire universe needs to view naked ladies from the nineteenth century or Hindu strip shows from "temples"? We can find ways of putting little black covering marks over their naked vitals if need be. No need to go ga-ga all "in the name of art." There are other criteria besides "art" that govern human life, and that too should be prominently conveyed in a respectable and serious encyclopedia. IZAK 10:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suggest the part of the universe not interested in the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery is excused for not clicking on the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery link. dab (ᛏ) 11:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see IZAZ, so are you seriously suggesting that the first picture on Francisco Goya be replaced with the picture on the right? And you are talking about "respectable and serious"!? Jooler 11:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

File:MajaCensored.jpg

Maja censored, Francisco Goya

Isn't this all a bit of a red herring? Equating the National Gallery with Hustler is not a serious argument on either side, is it? Filiocht 11:43, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that the point? None of the images that IZAK initiated this discussion with were quite Hustler material either. Jooler 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With that last comment from IZAK, I've decided that this whole discussion just has to be a huge joke pulled by IZAK. He can not be seriously suggesting that just because Hindu's don't worship a Judeo-Christian God, their religion cannot be taken seriously and their places of worhip should be written with quotation marks as if they have no right to use the word Temple.

Also according to the Art article , art it "any product of the creative impulse, out of which sprang all other human pursuits". Of course this is pretty vague but we have to remember that one person's Rembrant is another person's 'filthy' porn. Evil Monkey → Talk 19:49, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

User-activated censorship (a proposal)

OK. I know some people go mad if a woman does not cover her hair. I wonder if there can be a system to flag images based on its contents. If I cannot tolerate any picture of nudity, I set a personal preference to filter all images with a nudity flag.

The HTML code may need no modification but the server only sends out a blank image.

We need all kinds of flags to help people co-exist with their fears. A true veggie may not want to see the picture of a sausage. Personally, I hate to see a sausage that's too small to feed me. I want mine big. -- Toytoy 14:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

and an anarchist may object to being exposed to images of national flags. That way leads madness. If you don't want your children to see women, don't let them on the internet, or out-of-doors, for that matter. dab (ᛏ) 15:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not allow children to view our encyclopedia? It won't cost us a lot. We can make something like google's SafeSearch or voluntary ratings, like the Toytoy proposal - so we'll say: 'click that button - and leave your child within our encyclopedia', so parents will be happy. This could greatly increase our audience. Every child likes to learn, most grown-ups don't. ilya 00:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why we only think images might offend/damage children; think of all the texts we have about sex, violence, war, holocaust etc. The world is not only for children, and if you want to protect your kids, you should not let your kids surf to sites describling the world like wikipedia does. ✏ Sverdrup 16:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I keep seeing this "Somebody might be offended by XXX, so we should not allow personal preferences at all" argument posted, and it's a slippery slope fallacy. The thing about offensive images is that they increase the value of Wikipedia for some people (The naked woman on the woman page only adds value for horny teenage males, however) but decrease the value of Wikipedia for other people. I think a lot of people plain simply do not understand that offensive images decrease the value of the wiki for some people; I do not think this is a logical reaction as much as it is an emotional reaction. I was offended when, in high school, my parents had to sign a permission slip for me to get sex education; I was also offended when, in high school, you had to get parental permission to have a school perform an anonymous survey about your sex life. I am offended by the fact that people, being denied sex education, are becoming pregnant at young ages because they don't know about birth control. I know that there is a lot of emotional backlash because of the excesses of the conservatives, but I don't think we should react to those excesses in a way that pulls conservatives out of the discussion. (I also think a lot of male-oriented sex discussion here pays too much attention to the physical aspect and not enough attention to the emotional aspects of sex, but that discussion is for another day). Samboy 15:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally I feel that we should have warnings at the start of articles, similar to what is shown before some TV shows in here NZ. ie

This article contains depictions/descriptions of nudity/violence/whatever which may offend some people. Reader discretion is advised

Evil Monkey → Talk 00:00, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but television series have a much lower level of neutrality. Why not also This article contains depictions of women with bare arms/legs, which may well be offensive to some people? Etc. The only NPOV thing to do is tag pretty much everything precisely and give people the option to block whatever part of the taxonomy they want to block. This would be a huge chore and lead to lots of disputes though. (Why was this discussion moved from Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images by the way?) --fvw* 00:09, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

An excellent point. I can see that flagging images and articles that could possibly offend people would be utterly impossible to satisfy everyone own POV. Evil Monkey → Talk 00:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

The very act of tagging articles and photos as offensive will offend people. In addition, by tagging a specific item as possibly offensive you will be offending someone who finds that item as particularly non-offensive. Obviously there is a certain low level of filter that could be applied. George Carlin's seven dirty words for example, and we already filter much nudity. --Alterego 03:19, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

To use user-activated censorship, it is not necessary that anything be tagged as possibly offensive. Things should be tagged based on objective criteria. "Category: Female nipple", or "Category: Map showing independent North Cyprus" can be applied to an image obejctively. And it's something that need concern only the person who desires to censor themselves: those who gain no utility from such categorization need not participate in it. Shimmin 00:45, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

See my proposal on Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images - essentially, that for controversial images the image should be replaced the alt text by default, plus a "click here to display the page with this image" (and user pref option to override the default and show all pictures immediately). Advantage of this: doesn't require any complex categorisation systems; doesn't declare images "offensive"; it;s just minimal user control over what they see when they first come to a page. (I for one could live without having to see the picture of the penises above right. It's not like we can't have the discussion without having those thrust in readers' faces.) Rd232 22:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You want to mangle the default view? Please. Feel free to censor for yourself, but don't dare define others' work as not fit for the public eye. grendel|khan 09:47, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Make it all or nothing. No user or group of users should have the right to decide what is and is not potentially offensive. So either move for an option to block all images on Wikipedia (which would be a great option for dialup users as well; perhaps with a "click to load image" placeholder on pages) or don't even bother implimenting anything at all. I realize this can be a touchy subject with some (I daresay even most) people, but don't let your (general "your") personal, religious, or cultural biases override your common sense. →Reene^✎ 10:09, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this would be useful, but I also have pointed out that all web browsers known to me permit the user to decide whether or not to download and display images. I used to do this with NCSA Mosaic and Netscape when I had a slow (v32) modem, and have used the same feature more recently for various reasons on Firefox and Internet Explorer. So while it would be a nice-to-have feature on Wikipedia (and in my opinion the only form of server-side image barring that is fully compatible with NPOV) it isn't as if the user didn't already have the option to accept or decline images. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are legal threats blockable offenses?

Wikipedia doesn't have a clear policy on the proper response to legal threats. According to Wikipedia:No legal threats, legal threats against Wikipedia by editors are a violation of policy, but there does not seem to be consensus to block or ban users who engage in this practice. Nevertheless, many admins do routinely block people for making legal threats. I don't believe these blocks are justified by policy. Whether or not you believe blocking should be allowed, the policy is currently inconclusive. Maybe someone could clarify this, or if necessary, we could have a vote about it. Cross-posted to WIKIEN-L. Rhobite 00:31, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like you are right, was not able to find anything in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy either. These blocks are not sanctioned by policy. Until the wikipedia community decides on this issue, admins should stop blocking people for making legal threats, since it is not a blockable offence. If people see a legal threat, delete and warn. Blocking someone is a serious thing to do, there should be CLEAR policy outlined in the blocking policy. --Nasrallah 00:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above statement is wrong. It would be more accurate to say that this is not a black-or-white issue. There is a fairly long history of blocking users for making legal threats, and the arbcom has ruled that making legal threats is a violation of wikiettiquite. On the other hand, blocking policy does not explicetely condone or oppose it. So it's a bit of a grey area. →Raul654 01:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

What admins are and are not allowed to do is set out by the wikipedia community, not "a fairly long history" of admins blocking without clear policy. You got it the wrong way round. Policy is not dictated by admins. Legal threat blocks are not sanctioned by policy. It is not in good faith for admins to continue blocking until clear policy has been agreed on by the wikipedia community. --Nasrallah 01:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you want to get technical (which you apparently do, based on the above posts), we are all using wikipedia web servers by the grace of the wikimedia foundation. I (and I assume the rest of us) have no legal right to force the wikimedia foundation to allow me to use its servers. If the foundation (through its agents) tells me that I was not allowed to make updates to its computers, that is their right. Morris 04:14, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

it is policy to block people for disruption. admins have some discretion to decide what is disruptive. if legal threats are disruptive (e.g. replacing entire articles), their authors may be blocked. If a legal threat is reasonable and polite (e.g. "please remove copyvio, or I will take action"), there is no reason for blocking. dab (ᛏ) 14:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is so much personal profile encyclopedic?

The article of Jay Chow contains a lot of personal profile, such as "his favorite..., his favorite...", etc. Can anyone tell me that whether these kind of articles should be cleanup? Thank you!Mickeymousechen 03:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)mickeymousechen

I never put stuff like that in articles that I write/edit, but I don't think I would bother to remove it from an existing article, unless you think that it is incorrect. Of course some people say that my writing is a bit dry... (See Lewis B. Schwellenbach for an example biography that I recently substantially wrote) Morris 04:07, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Nasty. Much of that can be removed because it's simply redundant. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, tag it for clean-up, or fix it yourself. Dan100 10:21, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is also possibly a copyvio: [13]. — Matt Crypto 12:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns aside, this kind of obsessive detail seems to be typical of fandom in China and Japan. Keep it because it tells us a lot about how his business is conducted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to turn a Wikipedia article into an example of a point merely to illustrate that point. If we want to convey this, I think it's much better to directly state something like "Like many celebrities in Japan and China, it is typical for Chow's fans to have a large interest in small details of his life, such as his food preferences or shoe size", rather than including a bullet point list of fancruft minutiae. — Matt Crypto 15:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Offensive image at Lolicon

Because it was 2 against 1 on a little-known article, I thought this debate was concluded, but just yesterday someone posted on my talk page in support of me.

A while back, I thought the image at the Lolicon article was too offensive, and replaced it with a different one. Compare

• The original image (WARNING: This image might be considered child pornography in Canada, Australia, and many other countries)
• My replacement

An objection was immediately raised to my image; that it wasn't a fair representation of the sexual basis of lolicon. As the tentative statement at Wikipedia:Profanity says, accuracy should not be sacrificed in order to be less objectionable. So I dropped my case at that time.

However, the anonymous note on my talk page reminds me that unlike the stylized or medical images on other articles, the Lolicon picture is objectionably pornographic. The Profanity page also notes that you should not use pictures that are illegal for many Wikipedia readers to download, and I think this might fall into that category. Since there is still an even split on the issue-- 2 vs. 2-- I'd like the opinion of the Village Pump on which image to use.

Ashibaka tlk 06:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However remote the possibility, being caught with this kind of image in your computer can cause lots of trouble in some countries. You just don't want your ex-spouse to present it in a child custody case. I don't like that manga image. I do appreciate the freedom of speech. However, I do believe this kind of image could get some people in serious trouble especially in the U.S. There were some cases where innocent people were accused to be pedophilias and it costed them jobs and families. -- Toytoy 07:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for us to bow to paranoia in this way. People can clear their cache if they need to, and given what popups and banner ads place on one's computer nowadays anyhow, it's likely they'll need to know how to do that anyhow. If the image helps the article, it should be there. Very few other considerations belong. --Improv 09:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The picture you chose doesn't look like lolicon to me because it is not sexualized in any way. I won't look at the other picture but I read the article without images. In my view, a genuine lolicon picture could be unsuitable for Wikipedia because it may be illegal under Florida law. People who really want to see lolicon online can use a search engine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the eroticism in the original Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg image. (Yes, I admit to finding that fact reassuring). Just how is this image different from the Coppertone girl, also [14]? The Coppertone girl has been famous in the U. S. since 1959.

I am sure that there are those who get a charge out of the Coppertone girl. Doubtless some of its advertising effectiveness comes from the shock value of the its implied borderline sexuality, but it was never even slightly controversial. Not even in the Fifties. Not even in Florida. (It was created by a Floridian, for gosh sakes). That indicates to me that it is well within what the overwhelming majority of Americans find acceptable. (In contrast, Brooke Shields' "Nothing comes between me and my Jordaches" ads in the eighties were controversial). Dpbsmith (talk) 13:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P. S. OK, Canadian readers, I've found that Coppertone sun products are indeed sold in Canada, by Schering Canada Inc. Do they use the Coppertone girl on the label and in their advertising there? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone pointed out a significant difference between the Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg and the Coppertone girl, one which I had failed to notice in the manga image. The manga image is explicitly sexualized in a way the Coppertone girl is not. I withdraw my comment. Don't really know the right answer on this one. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The original lolicon image is legal anywhere within the United States (including Florida) according to the US Supreme Court (see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). It may not be legal in Canada however. Kaldari 03:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just a note on the legality of these things: It is typical for H-manga (especially of this kind) even in Japan to have forenotes that essentially state that every girl featured in that publication, despite her appearance, is of a legal age of consent. This is enough in most countries (the US included) to clear a person of any sort of legal wrongdoing despite how young the girls may appear to be. So that really isn't an issue here. →Reene^✎ 03:49, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

What is the correct position for the disambiguation notice, before or after the text? I see both, but I consider it more "correct" for the notice to be on the bottom. - RoyBoy [∞] 23:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It's not supposed to be on the top. It belongs on the bottom. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Yep, at the bottom. Check out Wikipedia:Disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 01:37, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Well if by disambiguation notice you mean the text inserted by Template:disambig, then yes that goes at the bottom. But if you mean a note that there are other uses and that links to a disambiguation page, that should go at the top of an article. older≠wiser 02:48, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Heartily agree with user older-wise directly above. If that isn't Wikipedia policy, it should be! Otherwise, we get duplicate articles. Quill 04:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Russian (usage) page

User:Mikkalai has created a Russian (usage) page, and is busy replacing links to the Russian (language) page with links to his Russian (usage) page, on the grounds that he wants to declutter links to the "Russian language" article. Is this in keeping with Wikipedia policy? Jayjg | (Talk) 19:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point. One usage is (for example) this sentence (from the Clockwork Orange article):

He tells his story in a teenage slang called "Nadsat", which mixes  Russian with English slang.

If I clicked on the word "Russian" in that sentence, I would expect to see an article about the Russian language, or maybe Russia, or maybe even slang in the Russian language, but not an article that says simply: This is a technical article for the sole purpose of linking to it from pages that say that someone speaks Russian language or that something is wtitten or translated into Russian, etc. The goal is to declutter links to the "Russian language" article. What possible use is that article?? (The italics above is the entire text of the article.) I'm not a policy lawyer, but this change clearly looks like a bad idea to me. Morris 19:35, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia policy has much to say about it directly (apart from the fact that making big changes without discussion first is not a good idea), but I agree that the change isn't a good idea in most cases. --fvw* 19:49, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

I'm strongly against the idea; I haven't seen it done in any other cases. It seems to be a way for User:Mikkalai to differentiate what he thinks are "important" links to Russian (language) from what he thinks are "unimportant" ones. However, convenient this may be for him, it seems to be inconvenient for the readers of the articles in question, which I think should be our primary concern here. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see he has created a Russian (spelling) article for the same purpose. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)