Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:23, 12 March 2005

Talk archive

Picture of the day Amphipoea oculea, the ear moth, is a moth in the family Noctuidae, with a wingspan of 29 to 34 millimetres (1.1 to 1.3 inches). Its range includes southern England, where it is widespread and common, as well as Ireland and continental Europe, with the exception of Albania, Greece and Turkey. Adults are found from June to September depending on the location, with one generation occurring per year. At night the moths come to light and flowers, seeking honeydew and sugar. During the day they feed at the flowers of thistles and ragwort. This female A. oculea moth was photographed feeding on field scabious in Keila, Estonia. The photograph was focus-stacked from 22 separate images.Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus Archive – More featured pictures...

The image at clitoris

Thanks for your message. You are more or less right about Jimbo's action at autofellatio, I think, but he was quite clear that he didn't approve of the image and thought it should be removed until there was a compromise. I've asked for the same, Timbo. We could link the image until the problem is resolved.

I don't agree that the minority must concede, Timbo. I think NPOV means, clearly, that all views must be included, not that the majority must prevail. We have been over this enough times. You haven't yet convinced me that "consensus" means "the majority wins" and I'm not at all convinced that was the intention of Misplaced Pages, nor do I want to see that principle prevail. I believe fiercely in inclusivity in this project. I do not agree that polls are a good means to create a consensus. Quite the opposite. They destroy any attempt to find one. The polls confirmed that there is a majority for keeping the image, Timbo, but you ought not to ignore that they also showed that there is some dissent. You would be kidding yourself if you did not think there was.

From my POV, I don't see the big deal in linking the image. You can still view it if you wish to, but those that do not know that there will be images that are illegal in many places and, at the very least, considered objectionable in others, will not be upset. Why is it such a bad thing that we should show some concern not to upset readers? It doesn't mean we agree with them. I have been quite clear, Timbo, that I am not a prude, am not offended by the images in question and do not have any desire to have a censored Misplaced Pages. But the hardliners have opposed all means even to allow the page to be displayed without the picture, any warning and any way to prevent upset. It seems to me that they are determined to push their POV and feel justified because they have a majority.

But look, Timbo, a majority of people on this planet believe there is a God of some kind. Would we want our page on God to suggest that it's a fact there is one? Misplaced Pages does not simply reflect the majority, white, liberal view. I'm proud that it doesn't. I will continue to argue that it shouldn't. Dr Zen 08:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I am proactive, Timbo. I am talking to you. I am willing to discuss the whole issue. The edits keep the issue alive. They're no big deal to revert. I don't insult anyone.

But I will not be running any polls. I know who has the majority. But I also know that there is dissent. Dr Zen 08:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, compromise isn't possible with those who will not compromise and consensus is impossible with those who don't want it. It's fruitless talking with you, Timbo, because you are so convinced of your rightness and so aware that you have the numbers (here) that you will not consider that there even are other views you should accommodate. Dr Zen 21:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for polls, a quarter voted for a disclaimer. That's a lot of dissent. the link vote was for a link to a different diagram not to the photo, but even so, 13% voted against that. Not comparable. The next attempt at a poll collapsed because the hardliners could not find a wording that worked for them. Others have expressed dissent elsewhere. A lot of the dissent has been very fierce. I'm astonished that you feel that because the dissenters are a minority, they must simply be ignored.

We went a long way to creating consensus on a images on/off fork but that collapsed, largely because Tony Sidaway refused to allow a warning, which would render the fork useless, of course. This was a considerable compromise on both sides and is still worth exploring.

We discussed the link and had a quasi poll about that. There was nothing like accord on the issue. The discussion broke down because a hardliner called those who want to accommodate all our readers the "jack ass faction".

I'll quote myself, Timbo: "The point of Misplaced Pages is that the "majority" takes care of the "minority", that all views are represented. Well, it's the point of my Misplaced Pages." This is the point you and I need to discuss. You need to convince me that either Misplaced Pages's majority should not take care of its minority, or that the minority is sufficiently insignificant that it need not be considered.Dr Zen 22:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am taking your point, Timbo. I'm glad that you at least, despite your firm stand, believe that compromise is not impossible. I am not "edit warring" on my own though. It takes two sides to make a war. We had a compromise solution that most of the people discussing the page were happy to have in place temporarily, but people who were not involved in discussions opposed it. I guess I feel that the "war" began there.

It is going to be the case on Misplaced Pages that if there are two sides that are implacably opposed on any issue, and they will not enter negotiations in good faith, they will each be left with a course of editing the article to make it better by their own lights, and that will inevitably mean an edit war. You know that I feel that suggesting that the article is "stable" if no one edit wars over it is not particularly good faith. The opposition has not gone away just because it is not editing the page! Of course, it doesn't progress the discussion to remove the image. I'm not stupid. But if the "other side" will not discuss a compromise, because they form a majority -- something I simply do not think is within the spirit of Misplaced Pages, even if it has become more and more the de facto means of operation here -- what is left to a dissenter? The other parties in the edit war, Timbo, I should remind you, have not even been involved in the discussions, or when they have, have shown no willingness at all to consider compromise. There can only be a dialogue when both sides are talking! Otherwise, yes, it's just the same old stuff over and over.

I do believe a compromise should be possible. Personally, I feel linking the image should be explored, or having the option to turn the images off as Cool Hand Luke suggested. I think the opposition to this is particularly unfounded. We all agreed that the default would be images on (although of course they would need to be visible only on scrolling down). We differed over the wording but I don't think that was irresolvable. I know some implacably opposed any compromise, Timbo, but surely, if those who are willing find one, and then put it on the page, those who are not are exposed as POV pushers?

As far as placement in the article is concerned, this can only really be a solution if it is indicated that there is a picture! I think a link does this best of all. The picture is there. It is available to be seen. But it doesn't confront children or those offended by that kind of thing.

The discussion about whether children should be confronted by this kind of thing, which many of the opponents of compromise reiterate, is not actually germane to our discussion. Yes, I agree that it's a bad thing that some people think vulvas are offensive, but the point is that they do. NPOV says include all views. That means include all views including the ones you don't personally agree with. I've mentioned enough times that my personal view is that there is nothing wrong with the picture.

What would be useful, Timbo, would be for you to address first of all the issue of whether you are genuinely prepared to include the other views to your own? I firmly believe you are. I do not believe some of the others are at all, but you at least seem willing to try to find a way.

Next, it would be useful to discuss alternatives in terms of how they include all views and not how the majority might make concessions. This has been the problem in discussing this, I think. People say "linking is censorship and I'm against censorship" and I say "no, it's not censorship because, look, the picture is still there, it's simply caring for the sensitivities, however misguided, of some of our readers". We should be looking at how those views are reconciled (I think they can be) rather than how they can be more firmly entrenched.

Finally, anyone trying to find a compromise has to shit or get off the pot. You have to be able to say, there is no compromise possible (I think this is very rarely the case in Misplaced Pages because disputes are usually over expressions of views and there is usually a middle course that nods to both), or that this is a compromise that is acceptable to both sides, we'll make it, and then allow the hardliners to stand outside of, if not a consensus, then at least a compromise that has involved considered discussion. Dr Zen 00:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Again

Hi again Tim, I really do think that picture is a pornographic, I will admit on the clitoris article I was over-reacting but I don't feel that way in this case.--198 03:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I recognise that you do not feel that linking is possible because you think it conveys a negative message. I tend to agree with Samboy, who suggested that the message it conveys is quite neutral: "We know some are offended." and not negative: "We think vulvas can be offensive."

In any case, I am suggesting that we do legitimate that POV. Suggesting that it should not be recognised is exactly what I feel makes you a hardliner! We ought to try to include all POVs, not simply the one we personally endorse.

Recognition of the value of the other POV in no way endorses it. By saying, yes, we know some people feel this way, we in no way agree that they are right to. This is exactly my position. I feel the POV that I am wanting included is entirely unhealthy and close to unacceptable.

But I would want holocaust denial included in an article on the holocaust, Timbo, even though I find it totally unacceptable, because I believe that the principle of NPOV is what sets us apart (and I'm going to return to it when I discuss what is "encyclopaedic").

As for inclusion/disinclusion, I do see your point that you feel linking out of the page is not including the image. I don't agree, because the material is there and is available to readers, but I understand the POV. I thought that the page fork would be the best solution to that problem. I really can't understand the objections to it as anything other than "we get our way and you can just fuck off", although I do understand the concerns over how to word a link.

But Timbo, this is why I say the first point that must be passed is an agreement that the views contrary to yours should be recognised. If we can agree that we should be inclusive then we are discussing how on each point, not whether. This is where the heatedness has come from, I think, on the talkpage. The anti-imagists, if you like, are frustrated because they don't feel the pros are willing to even begin to compromise and have taken the attitude that anything they give is a (grudging) concession. This is very much fuelled by comments like "the article is stable, why should be bother talking about it?". Well, the issue was not actually resolved and didn't go away! But once we've agreed we want to include all, how is easier.

On the question of encyclopaedic merit, Timbo, I think you have simply abstracted the dispute. Those who oppose the image don't think it has "encyclopaedic merit" because they do not believe it should be in an encyclopaedia. You want to define "encyclopaedic" entirely functionally, and I understand that desire, but it ignores other ways of defining "encyclopaedic" (the exact same problem happens in VfD, where those who want to trim Misplaced Pages claim that what they want cut is not "encyclopaedic" because their definition of "encyclopaedia" is not "contains all knowledge" but "contains what I think an encyclopaedia should contain"). IOW, Timbo, I don't see the point of bickering over what encyclopaedias should or shouldn't contain as a route to resolving the issue.

What I do think is that a roadmap that looks like this is a way forward:

1/ Are you willing to recognise views you do not yourself hold and try to include them? Do you agree that this is in fact what NPOV means in a broader sense? 2/ If yes, are you willing to explore ways to make this happen in regards to this page? (IOW, are you willing to compromise because you accept point one, not because you feel the other side has any particular merit? Once I had asked myself this question, I realised I could not dogmatically support a photo and claim to be supporting the NPOV policy at the same time.) 3/ What ways are open? I suggest the possibilities are: a link, a fork, a small picture at the bottom of the article with a strongly worded disclaimer. You may have others in mind, and they could be put on the table. 4/ What are the objections of each side to each way of resolving the POVs? 5/ Can the objections be answered reasonably in the spirit of trying to find a compromise? 6/ Voila!

As it happens, I feel that at least a group of editors were discussing ways (without having accepted that they should compromise), and that came to nothing. I think it came to nothing because of a lack of commitment from both sides to pass the first couple of hurdles.

Just to discuss for a moment your point about spiders, Tim. If this were Britannica, we would not be having this discussion. There would be no clitoris pic and the spider pic would be there. But this isn't. It's not a regular encyclopaedia.

I think that if we can reasonably assume that a picture of a spider will offend or upset readers, we should link it too. What is lost by it? The picture is still there but now arachnophobes need not fear the article! Everyone is included.

When you say the pictures add to the article, well, they add for some but not for others. They don't add anything for you. They wouldn't add anything for my friend S, who cannot look at pictures of, well snakes actually, not spiders without feeling physically ill.

And yes, here is where the misunderstanding is, precisely. Your POV is that the spider photos don't need taking down on your account. But Misplaced Pages is about all accounts and what is right for all. No? Dr Zen 02:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You made a very interesting point. I think an equally strong one would be to say "what if someone said the word 'Jew' was objectionable?"

I think that if we are going to pursue that line of discussion, I should say that I think the objector can be asked to cite their sources, just as they can for any other issue. Is "Jew" objectionable to many? Can he/she show many objecting? You see my point. I don't think there is any real case that the view we're discussing is not held legitimately by many of our readers, and some of our editors.

It is very difficult, though, because we wouldn't want to be in the business of saying "this view is legitimate, this one not". NPOV does not allow that. It's not about judgment, is it?

That's why I say point one on any roadmap has to be "should the views in question be recognised?" If the view is that the clitoris picture should entirely be excluded, we have a problem that is very difficult to resolve. We might agree that both views are legitimate, and that one has the advantage of being held by the majority of editors (although I doubt it is held by the majority of the intended audience, which, if I quote Jimbo correctly, is the whole world) and yet, if neither will compromise, one view must be ignored.

In the case of the white supremacists, you need to return to the principle. Should they be offended and upset because of the views they hold? (Well yes, at every turn they should, but you take my point here.) If the answer is yes, what ground is there? If we are reduced to saying, because I don't like their view, we're really working in a POV way.

I'll await your further response, when you've slept on it ;-) before saying anything else.

What does interest me, though, is whether you feel that your objection to a link would necessarily hold against a fork? Dr Zen 05:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IFD

I listed Image:Autofellatio.jpg on IFD because I feel it's Un-Encyclopedic...I'll be honest I threw up when I saw that dis-tasteful picture. I hope could though we possibly compromise.--198 03:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... were you drunk when you wrote this? I hope could though we possibly compromise too, and we did. Check out the voluminous discussion and polls at Talk:Autofellatio. I'll be honest I don't believe you threw up when you saw that picture. TIMBO (T A L K) 07:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Being trolled

You can tell whether you are being trolled. Ask yourself whether I am showing you a genuine commitment to include your views, whether I am responding to your positivity. Yes, comments were heated on the clitoris page. Raul and Snowspinner are only interested in pushing their POV by whatever means. I can't respond positively to that. If anyone deserves censure, it's those who have taken that attitude. You could simply say "I am backed by the majority" but you haven't. You declare a shared interest in at least trying to satisfy all views. That's something that I can respond to positively. Dr Zen 04:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)