Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:32, 22 August 2005

Standard of Decency

Good page. I think the goal should be "appropriate" standard of decency rather than "high" standard. The high standard might imply it is for children or imply that certain favored adult orientied articles should be deleted. I think we should make things appropriate to Wiki and maybe even some process whereby pictures have either a warning or link or simething. --Noitall 05:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm changing the templates to reflect that. Agriculture 05:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Why was Bible tagged with with the WfD banner here? --Peter Kirby 07:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  The subject of Decency in the Misplaced Pages is presumably one in which editors of the article The Bible might take interest, as part of the recommendation for announcing a new Wikiproject, we announced it on a number of talk pages where interested users might be located. Does this explain it? Agriculture 08:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I thought you were marking the Bible for indecency. ^_^ --Peter Kirby 08:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

An amusing thought I suppose, but no. Nothing in the article appears indecent. If you have an interest in our project, I encourage you to join. Agriculture 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• • And why not. How decent is an organisation, which bases all its principles on a 2000 year-old book that has been shown many times to be inaccurate on many issues, and then promoting (sometimes very strongly) that people follow their ideals, and give them money, under penalty of going to hell for eternity? If this project was accepted I would certainly promote religion as indecent. Elfguy 17:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Funny, insightful, but totally besides the point. I have severe doubts that the Bible is considered indecent in Jeb Bush's Florida, of all places. - Haunti 17:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What standard of decency are you aiming for, other than 'appropriate'? Misplaced Pages impinges across many cultures, and there is Islamic opinion that any depiction of a creature with a soul is forbidden - which would disallow the use of any picture of a human being, for example. (See http://muttaqun.com/pictures.html) As Misplaced Pages is hosted, in the main, from Florida, are you aiming for what is generally socially acceptable to Floridans?

Well I think that the legal requirements of Florida are a given baseline, beyond that we should focus on building the standard from case law on Misplaced Pages, statements by adminisitrators, the definition of encyclopedic, and general consensus. Agriculture 16:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I searched Misplaced Pages for “Standards of Decency” and came up empty. When I searched for “decency,” I was redirected to “indecency.” It appears a parallel article on this subject is needed as well. RDF 20:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest that the general consensus is that developing any standard of "decency" will be inherently imposing a POV upon the encyclopedia, and that the only criteria should be whether or not a subject or photo holds encyclopedic educational value. "Decency" is in the eye of the beholder. FCYTravis 06:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The consensus also says we must follow Florida Law, which means it must help define the standard of decency. Agriculture 06:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Following a law does not establish a 'standard of decency' - it simply prevents legal liability. If Florida were to pass a law which stated that the teaching of evolution were forbidden, would that become part of the "standard of decency?" Encyclopedic and educational depictions of human anatomy and sex acts are not pornography and not forbidden by any law. Otherwise, it would be illegal to purchase college sexuality textbooks without showing ID. FCYTravis 06:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen a textbook used in colleges or high schools that show pictures of a man sucking his own penis. In fact, I don't think any of them even discussed autofellatio. Besides, the teaching of evolution doesn't violate obsenity laws, and it's doubtful that Misplaced Pages would be viewed badly in a court in Florida, any other state or internationally for having articles discussing evolution if such unlikely event of an anti-evolution teaching law were to be enacted in Florida.--MONGO 07:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Correct, it wouldn't violate obscenity laws. Neither does anything on Misplaced Pages, as clearly the images in question are displayed in a scientific and educational context and are not intended to appeal solely to prurient interests. That, prima facie, disqualifies them from being "obscene" in a legal sense. If you don't think autofellatio is discussed in sexuality courses, you must have taken them at Bob Jones University. FCYTravis 07:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss this matter, you will do so without a personal attack. As an alumni of the University of Maryland, that can hardly be construed as a conservative college. Furthermore, with a background in anthropology, I am well aware of what is taught in human sexuality classes...and what is taught as cultural differences in sexuality norms. So, since some cultures think that mating with their lifestock is acceptable as a part of their culture, then we should have pictures of this? We are trying to establish some level of acceptablity...that this project was commenced means that there are issues that some of us find unacceptable.--MONGO 07:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Some cultures believe that all depictions of sex should be forbidden and that no picture of women without a veil over their head should be printed. Some cultures also believe that gays and lesbians are disgusting Satan-spawn. Shall we change our articles to conform to their POV as well? Establishing any level of "acceptability" based on any criteria other than whether a topic or photo is encyclopedic or not opens the door to the destruction of this project as an open and free source of the unbiased and uncensored sum total of human knowledge. Thankfully, the vast majority of Wikipedians know this, and that is why your misguided goals are being opposed so vehemently. I suggest that if you want to create a "my-POV-safepedia," you take a text dump and create your own fork of the project, on which you may set any standards that you so choose. FCYTravis 07:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have requested that you refrain from personal attacks. I consider this your second warning. Your knee jerk reaction to this is based on some concept that we wish to eliminate when all we would like to see are a level of standards. All freedoms come at a cost. Should we also use the word "fuck" in every other word in every article? Of course not. I am sure you would think that not using that word repeatedly throughout an article is a standard. You attack for no reason.--MONGO 07:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in my reply. Please point out to me the alleged attack. As for fuck, Using the word "fuck" in every other word of an article would clearly not be very encyclopedic, would it? Please explain to me in which article using "fuck" every other word would contribute to the encyclopedic clarity and informative properties of the article. On the other hand, a photo of someone performing autofellatio is perfectly encyclopedic in the context of an encyclopedia article on that act. FCYTravis 07:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Accusing me of taking classes at Bob Jones University in the manner you did is a personal attack. Calling my goals misguided is a personal attack. suggesting I create a "my-POV-safepedia" is also a personal attack...surely you know this. NO personal attacks, okay. Ah hum, point made...there is NO article that the word "fuck" used repeatedly would be encyclopedic or decent. Therefore, we agree on a standard, yes. That is all this standard discussion is about...hoping to find where the threshold is of what is and what isn't encyclopedic and one of those ways is to understand what will make Misplaced Pages great. It will never be great without some level of standards...I think the standards are in route.--MONGO 09:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The word "fuck" used repeatedly is both encyclopedic and decent in the article fuck. Therefore your statement that there is NO such article, is completely wrong. There is at least one. Two such sentences are the following, which are used encyclopedically and decently, in an rticle:

What are you doing fucking in my bed?

What are you fucking doing in my bed?

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 11:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Not familiar with that article since you don't link it...2. that is the point of this project, that some disagree with your perception of what is and what isn't encyclopedic and what is and what isn't decent. The censorship of this project doesn't make the questions disappear...they will come up again and in all liklihood, some standards will end up being adopted at some point that may displease some people due to their appearance of censorship.--MONGO 12:13, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

1. It is linked. Perhaps you didn't notice - I'll duplicate it a few times so you can click on it easily:

Fuck Fuck Fuck

Fuck Fuck Fuck

Fuck Fuck Fuck

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

ALinkToThePast

While yes, this user said for the users to add his name to the list of members of the project, I am going to ask Link to add his own name in. I told the IRC people to stop adding his name in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What is decency

Its a very loaded word. Who gets to define it? Christians? Homophobes? horseboy 13:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the courts do and have. Can we agree on the US Supreme court statement about it - "I know it when I see it" and take each controversial image, etc. on a case by case basis. I think drawings in many cases are much better than photographs for an encylopedia when it comes to this issue. -Visorstuff 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that Redrup from which that phrase wqas quoted, was overruled later, and the Miller test is now the key legal standard, and is tracked in the Florida law. Note also that the legal definitions are of "obscene" works. "Indecent", and a legal category, is no longer used. "Obscene" works (in the U.S.) are works which are not afforded first admendment protection, and which a govt is free to simply ban if it so chooses. DES 21:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Note also the description of the judgements under that standard, while it was in effect, (in The Bretheren by Woodward among other places). The 9 Justices could not generally agree on what was and was not "obscene" under that standard -- each had a personal standard, a PoV, and no two standards quite agreed. DES 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Florida Law

I just read through the Florida decency law linked to on this page (). Here are the two relevant definitions:

(6) "Harmful to minors" means any reproduction, imitation, characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement when it:

(a) Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;

(b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and

(c) Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

(10) "Obscene" means the status of material which:

(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

(b) Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined herein; and

(c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The argument then becomes whether or not a certain article or piece of media "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." I think it's interesting that "academic" and "informational" are left out here, but I think we can make a good argument that most of what you'll see on Misplaced Pages--including pictures of a man autofellating--have legitimate scientific value. If attempting to document the whole of human knowledge isn't a scientific pursuit, I don't know what is. - Haunti 13:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Another question is whether or not the image, etc. is needed to explain or demonstrate the concept in question. Is is absolutely neccessary to show some of these items to explain what it is? How did people know about it prior to images being taken of it? -Visorstuff 15:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

A valid question for Misplaced Pages overall. However, if that criterion is only going to be applied to so-called "offensive" images, I would be tempted to say that it is POV. - Haunti 17:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you will find that, from a legal PoV, an image does not need to be needed to be protected. An image may have "value" if it helps make the meaning or content of the work clearer or more vivid, whether it is needed or not. Note also that the other key words are Taken as a whole. The case law on this is clear -- this means the whole work, not a single image or passage of text. In the Miller case, this meant that the entire book had to be judged as "without value" to be held as obscene. I strongly suspect (although I am not a lawyer, and there has never been a case quite like this as far as I know) that this would mean a judge would need to find that all of wikipedia lacked value before it could be held either obscene or "harmful to minors". At worst, it would mean an entire article including its images. DES 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• While the concerns about Florida law are valid, shouldn't they be handled by professionals instead of well-meaning but potentially wrong amateurs? tregoweth 22:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• • Hi. I'm a professional. We have nothing to fear from Florida law. Cheers! -- BDAbramson 21:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hear that everyone? Don't Panic! - Haunti (give'r) 21:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Page is america-centric

I'm not entirely sure I'd like to see european content censored because it does not meet american standards of decency, or american content censored because it does not meet arabic standards of decency, or in fact arabic content censored because it does not meet european standards of decency, I think we're going to end up with a rather diminished encyclopedia here ;-) (and let's not even *start* about asian content :-P ) Kim Bruning 14:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but since half the "members" are probably here simply for disruption, even if it passes Vfd it will be end up being a festering rubbish heap of slanders and personal insults. Just look at the exchanges in the voting section. It's doubtful it would ever be anything more than a place to discuss "decency".? I'm going to exit the tag for images and articles...it is to provocative.--MONGO 15:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, even if the result of the VfD is to keep, it's already been killed. I just can't believe the number of bad faith comments on the VfD page, people refering to us as "Nazi baby raping Satanists", these sort of people won't be happy with a fair vote, even if it can be had. They'll disrupt any attempts at discussion here. There is no way to win, it is their Misplaced Pages and we are not welcome here. Agriculture 15:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You have got to understand the vast majority of folks that utilize insults and personal attacks like that are just adolescent people. Ignore it. So far, there isn't a 2/3 majority to delete. Let's work on whether placing tags on "indecent" images and articles is acceptible...I'm inclined to think that it isn't going to make many friends. Perhaps the "mission statement" and objectives need to be made more realistic and a bit less confrontational.--MONGO 15:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but have you noticed that when it comes to people expressing this kind of free speech, the admins don't give a damn when people level personal attacks? Because we are saying what we are saying, the admins have decided it's fair game to act like jerks towards us. This will continue. Misplaced Pages isn't about fairness, free speech, respect, or anything else. It's about these people running the show and treating the rest of us however they want, and the admins approve. Agriculture 15:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason your project has been greeted with that kind of a reception is simply that it runs directly contrary to the founding principle of Wikipeda, WP:NPOV: any personal standard of 'decency' or 'obsenity' is by its very nature not neutral. I certainly agree that your treatment at the hands of certain contributors has been unacceptable, although I would note that you were called a 'freaking prude' rather than a 'Nazi baby raping Satanist' -- I think you rather misinterpreted that user's comment. The reason that 'it is their Misplaced Pages and we are not welcome here' is because, as another editor put it, the aims of your project are simply not consistent with the stated aims of Misplaced Pages. --Ngb 15:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that the display of "some" images et al severely violates the neutral point of view. That point of view revolves around standards. Examples: would it be encyclopedic and NPOV to show a photograph of a woman being raped? NPOV is based on standards...it does not mean anything goes. Let's say also, you create an article and I come along and put an obscene word in your article every other sentence because in my NPOV, it makes the article read better...would you think that this isn't vandalism. What if I agrued that it is NPOV to have it there because the article is enhanced by such wording. You see, that would probably violate your standard, which means you must have a baseline of what is and what isn't acceptable...how does what the project propose violate NPOV...I don't get it.--MONGO 15:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much value we're going to get out of arguing this out much longer, because I don't think it's likely either one of us will persuade the other, but, ok, I think you're a bit confused: in particular, there is no such thing as 'my NPOV', that's a contradiction in terms. The reason I believe this project as currently constituted violates WP:NPOV is because it is attempting to push one group of editors' position on what constitutes 'decent' or 'obscene' material onto the rest of Misplaced Pages. You might argue that the opposite position is itself pushing one group of editors' opinions, but I think it's reasonably clear that the only way to maintain a neutral stance on the decency (or otherwise) of content is to remove illustrative or encyclopaedic content only if the law requires it, and not because one or another group considers it 'obscene'. --Ngb 16:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Surely we can all agree on a base-standard for decency? I mean, surely some images belong and others simply dont, whatever you POV? Can we not agree that, say, an image of a man giving himself oral when the drawing shows this just fine, is not really needed on Misplaced Pages? I wish people would actually read the aims of the project befor voting or commenting. I dont mean you, by the way, Ngb. Banes 16:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. :) (Though I'm about as opposed to this ideologically as I could be, I hope that I'm managing to engage with the project in a non-confrontational way.) I'm actually not sure that we can all agree on a base standard -- we have contributors from all over the world, and they're all going to have different standards of what they find acceptable. That's why I think the 'standard' should be set at what the law requires of us and no more, since I think that's the only way to avoid favouring one group's POV over another's. As I've said before, our standard for inclusion should be based on what's encyclopaedic, not what one demographic might describe as obscene. --Ngb 16:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear Ngc. Rather than saying "Surely we can all agree on a base-standard for decency.", I would posit the opposite: there will always be arguments over where 'the line' should be drawn, both in the debate over what is decent and over the debate over what is encyclopædic. Decency, I believe, is a sociological norm, and what is decent in one community may be regarded as risqué, indecent, or even obscene in another. Misplaced Pages is used by members of many communities, and to remain useful to all, currently aims to be as informative as possible - 'holding nothing back' as far as possible/legal. If you don't like it, there is always the possibility of forking the project - take a copy of Misplaced Pages and set up a version that coincides with your norms - the great thing about the GFDL is that it allows that.WLD 20:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Truly, the best solution is for everyone who finds something about Misplaced Pages obscene to go fork themselves. . LizardWizard 21:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced we can "all agree on a base standard". I for one do not agree that the autofellatio image is "not really needed on Misplaced Pages". In fact I think it is highly desirable (on the proper page), for reasons i exponuded on in the latest vote on deleting that image. I would not agree with any "base-standard for decency" which lead to the conclusion that that image and other such images should be deleted. And I am from the U.S. I think that what is and is not "decent" is so intrisically culturally depandant that a truly NPOV standard for "decendy" is simply not possible. I haven't voted to delete this page, becauase I generally don't approve of using deltion on projects and policy pages (although this could be an exception, because itr is SO opposed to basic policy). But if it is kept and stays active, i expect to watch it and use it as a guide to votes of interst, where I would mostly expect to be votiong keep on content proposed for deletion as "indecent". DES 21:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Roughly:

• USA: Some blood ok, no nudity.
• Europe: No blood! "tasteful" Nudity ok , sex ok, but only either in context or "tasteful" (go and figure out what that means :-P )
• (East) Asia: Blood and gore ok or not ok, depending on region, partial Nudity ok, but genitals and nipples must be covered
• Arabic areas: No hair showing for females! Blood ok (?)
• Africa: ?

Does that help any? Kim Bruning 16:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That international thought process was probably beyond what was considered. When I joined up, I looked at the project more as a club type of deal. It amazes me that folks are thinking that some want to go through the articles and start nominating articles and Images for Vfd just because it seemed obscene by some arbitrary standard. I appreciate your trying to establish a standard. Perhaps the entire thing needs to be reorganized....removed from WikiProjects and made a WikiPage...eliminate the tagging template and maybe then peace will reign.--MONGO 16:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents and a possible compromise

I don't know that the project in theory necessarily goes against the principle of NPOV. Keeping Misplaced Pages legal is not POV. However, it appears that the Florida law might be misinterpreted by the Decency Project's proponents, or at least looked at in a way that is unnecessarily unfavourable to the official WP policy of non-censorship.

My guess is that those opposed to Wikipedians for Decency believe that the POV of its supporters is the unstated motivation behind the project and its actions (and, I must say, the title "Wikipedians for Decency" doesn't help the case that it really is NPOV). In any case, the burden of proof is on the project's supporters to show that their POV is not the motivating factor here (although those who oppose it must be fair and give the supporters a chance to explain themselves before rushing into a VfD).

As it stands, the justification for this project as presented on its project page starts with the following assumptions: 1) Either Misplaced Pages does not have standards for decency OR that the standards for decency that exist are inadequate, AND 2) that Misplaced Pages should have standards for decency (whatever they might be). IMHO, Agriculture, MONGO et al. should try and explain, based on the specifics of the Florida law and whatever else they deem necessary, why they believe the standards regarding potentially offensive content as currently endorsed in Misplaced Pages policy are inadequate. As it stands the project is simply a vague self-justification based on an unanalysed Florida law and a list of articles or other pages that the project leaders think should be deleted. Understandably, others see this as POV. In any case, I think that Agriculture et al. probably have their hearts in the right place, but did things in the wrong order.

So, here's my suggestion for what should happen now: The project's supporters should take a step back and explain in a NPOV fashion why the project is necessary (based on the specifics of the law) and what it will do. While they do this, everyone else should quit trying to delete the project. Then, after discussions have taken place, we can decide what to do. If Misplaced Pages is not following Florida law, it should start. But it first must be proven that it is in violation, which hasn't happened yet.- Haunti 16:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly agree. If this were 'WikiProject Keeping Misplaced Pages Legal', based on a properly researched reading of the Law, I don't see that anyone could object to it -- doing so would be a useful and important task. --Ngb 16:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

(The following was written in response to a comment by Agriculture that was deleted before I had a chance to post. In any case, my suggestion still stands, and I hope s/he'll get what I'm talking about)

I don't think that's what "these people" want to do at all. The way I see it, "these people" are ferverent defenders of the non-censorship policy on WP and do not see anything on the Project page to suggest that it is anything but an attempt to force some users' POV onto all of Misplaced Pages. That's not how I see it, but I can understand if others do.

Take the opening paragraph of the Project page: “Wikiproject Wikipedians for Decency was started on August 15th, 2005 to coordinate and promote standards of decency on Misplaced Pages. This project is intended to coordinate efforts to bring articles to appropriate standards of decency, and to help find alternatives for inappropriate content as defined by Misplaced Pages policy, and Misplaced Pages guidelines.”

The phrase “to coordinate and promote standards of decency on Misplaced Pages” makes it sound like the point of the project is to impose a groups of users’ moral standards on the whole of WP. As well: “to help find alternatives for inappropriate content as defined by Misplaced Pages policy, and Misplaced Pages guidelines”. The fact that some pages and media have already been suggested for deletions implies that there is some sort of consensus that they are in violation of WP policy, which there isn’t.

In any case, my suggestion is that you take some time to write down a NPOV reasoned argument on why this project needs to happen and what you plan to have it do. Perhaps you think that what appears on the front page is adequate, but most people don’t seem to agree. I think you have a good idea, but it just needs to be articulated better. - Haunti 16:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Witch hunting

Please explain why Talk:Wicca needs a decency tag. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 21:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• That's ironic because it's literal witch hunting--205.188.116.14 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• It was added by a "godfearing parent", not Agriculture, leading me to think that some kid has been looking up paganism on Misplaced Pages, and their clueless fundamentalist parents fear for their child's soul and are trying to get such dangerous material censored. Except that someone who knows how to transclude a template (instead of just blanking the article) probably has some experience on WP already... ~~ N (t/c) 22:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD UNITE!!!

• I BELIEVE THIS ONE ARTICLE HAS BECOME A NEXUS OF INAPROPRIATE PORNO GRAPHIC MATERIAL!! I SUGGEST ALL REAL MEMBERS OF WfD ORGANIZE A BOYCOTT OF THE VfD!!!!!! WE MUST SMITE OURSELVES FOR OUR SHAmEFUL NEXUSING OF PONOGRAPHIC IMAGES OF CLOATHED WOMEN!!! THIS SHALL NOT STAND!!!--205.188.116.14 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

So....your plan to "unite" includes vandalizing my user talk page by declaing me immoral and that I am pure evil: . I would ask your members, Agriculture, to not attack me because I put the project up for deletion. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

On Second Thought...

Okay, developments over the past 24 hours have changed my mind about this whole thing. After seeing a notice going up on the Talk page for Wicca and seeing members of the project do all manners of ridiculous edits and VfD initiations, I'm now dropping my support for keeping this page. Agriculture, I think your heart is in the right place, but this Project has become a rallying point for all manner of moralistic, NPOV-ignorant people. I'd suggest you delete the whole thing and try again in a more sane, less POV-friendly fashion. - Haunti 22:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree. I think the aims of this page are well taken care of elsewhere, and the name of this project smacks of fundamentalism of various unpleasant kinds. Exploding Boy 22:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did indicate support for this project not being VFDed, but since it's now pretty clear to me (see below articles which have been tagged) that this project and/or it's members or proponents on behalf of the project is really attempting to engage in POV pushing and censorship (for example the tagging of Bisexuality or Hip hop coming into the scope of the project), because of these very provocative actions I can only see this as certainly not working towards NPOV and being a form of attack page. -- Joolz 23:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Haunti, Joolz: just to make it quite clear, those articles were tagged by an anonymous user who has absolutely nothing to do with Agriculture or this project, and who was probably hoping to provoke just this kind of reaction. I too think this is a rallying point, but apparently for people who would try almost any trick in order to get this project deleted. Frankly, I don't care that much about the issue, except that I want to see those people not succeed ;) ObsidianOrder 05:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I realise that not all of those edits were done by someone who supports the project. However, the point is that this project easily lends itself to such actions. Some of the edits in question were done by honest supporters of WfD, and even though Agriculture might be doing the right (NPOV) thing, s/he can't control the actions of all supporters. At the very least this project needs a fresh start. At most, it just needs to end. - Haunti 10:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hip hop?

Who in the hell (yes, I said it) tagged hip hop with a "Wikipedians for Decency" tag? There's nothing obscene or offensive about the article, and as such, I am removing it. --FuriousFreddy 23:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: IF YOU CAME HERE BY FOLLOWING A MESSAGE POSTED BY "GODFEARING PARENT", IT IS PROBABLY A TROLL

An anonymous user has been posting the following message to numerous talk pages where such a posting would create strong reactions, in a blatant attempt to unfairly influence votes in the VfD on this page:

"Something which may interest editors of this page

{{DecencyWikiProject}}

Any help which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. -Godfearing Parent."

There is no indication that user is in any way associated with the original author, members or supporters of this WikiProject. Thank you for your time. You may proceed to voting below. ObsidianOrder 01:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The original postings were a rational (perhaps ill advised) attempt to collect favorable votes. The trolling campaign (and it can hardly be anything else) is a similarly rational, but rather more underhanded, attempt to collect unfavorable votes.

Re: off their rockers - try User:DavidsCrusader. I think he's also a troll, but hey, he could be for real. Anyway, you're wrong to be adressing me as part of this project since I had absolutely nothing to do with any of the swirling vortex of insanity that this issue has become until today... and with any luck I won't have anything to do with it after today either. ObsidianOrder 02:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"feel free to join us"

How about feeling free to oppose you? The question of "decency" is so completely subjective that I find the idea of applying a standard for it incompatible with Misplaced Pages's most fundamental policy of maintaing a Neutral Point Of View. This is as pointless as formulating a standard for political correctness, and almost as dangerous. Tverbeek 02:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• WikiProjects like this make me wonder how far away a WikiProject that is made to make other WikiProjects stay neutral is... Werty8472

The Goodbye Girl

You're really opening a can of worms with the word "decency", you know. I'd like to call your attention to the following scene from Neil Simon's The Goodbye Girl. Richard Dreyfuss's character (Elliot Garfield) has been playing his guitar late at night. Marsha Mason's character (Paula McFadden) comes to his room to talk to him about it. She knocks on the door and

McFadden: Are you decent?

Garfield: Yes, I'm decent.

She enters the room and starts to speak to him, then suddenly spins around and covers her eyes.

McFadden: Oh my God, you're naked. I thought you said you were decent?

Garfield: I am decent. I am also naked.

Decency depends on context. An autofellatio drawing, or, yes, even a photo, can be appropriate and perhaps even decent in the context of an article on autofellatio. Few people who would be offended by the image would not be offended by the article itself. It would be wholly inappropriate to an article on Disney. The law cannot be divorced from intent, nor can an image or article be judged separately from its context, nor can the great state of Florida exempt itself from Miller v. California.

I disagree with your project. Even if it does not come to recommending the removal of all material that would not pass Tallahassee community standards, I'm afraid it could have a chilling effect on articles and images that are encyclopedic and belong on here. I also voted keep on the VfD, because I think you should have a place to discuss this subject. --DavidConrad 05:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You're discussing values...we are discussing legal implications and encyclopedic merit. No doubt the intitial efforts came accross rather as a witch hunt...I had regrets initially once the Vfd commenced myself. I am not an advocate of censorship...I am an advocate of establish a baseline of context and content. Those that repeatedly state they wish no standards to be established already violate that principle when they registered. Misplaced Pages has standards...it is not a completely free enterprise. If it is going to become the only reliable source of web based information and a a household word to all, it must have at least a symposium of argument such as this project would protect. You can't silence dissent or else we all lose.--MONGO 05:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

You may want to be discussing legal implications. In fact, I tried discussing legal implications. But a Project entitled "Wikipedians for Decency" cannot possibly keep on the legal track for long. It will (and has) attracted every moralistic firebrand who just wants to censor WP content. I don't like it, you don't like it, but that's what's happening dispite our best efforts. I would encourage the project to start anew with a fresh name (ie - Keeping WP Legal, or something like that), but WfD cannot continue as-is. - Haunti 10:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that Jimbo's comments essentially showed that the project probably isn't necessary even if it sticks with its intended track. If we're not going to get into legal trouble and there's no unchecked wave of illegal images, why worry about it? - Haunti 10:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by a yahoo

I am very worried about our member Noitall's commitment to the project! He voted keep on the VfD's for Chelsea Charms, SaRenna Lee and Pandora Peaks and seemed to have prior knowledge of them. Furthermore he voted delete on Casey James but expressed previous knowledge about pornography and porn star Jesse Jane. I am seriously worried about why a fellow member of WfD is voting KEEP on articles under investigation by our group and where there is obviously a conflict due to the obscenities and possible legal battles Wiki might face because of this. -DavidsCrusader 03:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

DavidsCrusader: Your trolling was amusing for about five minutes. (actually it may have been less than that) Now go away. ObsidianOrder 03:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

To the extent that I answer this yahoo, it is to say that the issue is one of encyclopedic merit. One of the pages mentioned was not notable, the others were, thus they had encyclopedic merit. Nothing on any of the pages was obscene or created specifically to get on Wiki. I am not a prude and neither is Wiki. Even though I greatly advocate for standards, we have not attempted to come up with those standards. And just because we have standards does not mean that deletion of an article should happen. Perhaps it is modification or elimination of an uncyclopedic picture, possibly created to get on Wiki, such as the autofalatio picture, which caused this in the first place. --Noitall 13:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:DecencyWikiProject

Censorship is indecent

This project can be saved. Nothing in the project requires that it be about prudishness. As such, my attempt to redirect the project to a roving force of anti-censorship decency crusader is not "pollution," and assuming such is Not Good Faith. Please restore my contribution to the target pages. Hipocrite 16:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the following is what I removed from the project page:

18 August 2005

• SEVERE -> Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion-> August 17th -> Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency
• - The project in question is designed to push censorship on wikipedia. Nothing is less decent than censorship.
• Suggested action - vote your conscience as to whether the project should be deleted or kept.

It seems ironic that you would accuse me of not assuming good faith when you accuse the project's members of having designs to push censorship on Misplaced Pages, a goal they deny aiming for. Your accusation is especially ironic considering I've been one of the people encouraging that we assume good faith regarding this project. I'd appreciate if you would not use the project page to try and sink the project. Enough of that is happening on the Talk page and on the VfD page. - Haunti 17:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Musta missed where they denied wanting to "use ... governmental power to control speech and other forms of human expression." Was it when they linked to Morality in Media, on Florida's obcentity law? I'm not assuming bad faith. Secondly, I'm not trying to use the project page to sink the project, I'm trying to use the project page to make the project something that will help, not hurt. Hipocrite 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The link in question is directly to the PDF text of Florida's Decency law--whether or not it is hosted on the Morality in Media server is irrelevant. The text is the same regardless of where the file is located. To assume that the link is somehow proof of POV is in bad faith, without evidence to support such a claim. Secondly, claiming that the project is an attempt to censor Misplaced Pages and then providing a link to the VfD page and telling people to "vote their conscience" sounds like a sinking attempt to me. If you want to change the project for the better discuss the issue on the talk page, then make the relevant changes to the project page once a concensus has been reached. Your edit was not constructive, and was thus removed. - Haunti 17:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The location they found the law is certainly relevent - why use that site instead of the official http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0847/titl0847.htm&StatuteYear=2004&Title=%2D%3E2004%2D%3EChapter%20847. ? Also, you alleged that they denied wanting to "use ... governmental power to control speech and other forms of human expression," but I show that they (the original project founder, now not in the project0 actually wanted to use the laws of florida to control speech and other forms of human expression. Finally, as a member of the project, please do not exclude my viewpoints. If you have an opinion on how our project should work, you should feel free to sign up.

On the seperate issue of making the project better, you raise an important point regarding discussions on talk pages before making unilateral changes to project focus, a point I hope that you raise with MONGO. I intend to take your advice to heart.

I propose that we focus on indecent censorship, rather than indecent nakedness, and that we redefine the project for that focus. All project members in favor? Because this project has been assaulted with sockpuppets, we'll need to determine eligibility for policy decisions in the project. Allow me to propose 100 edits and 3 months? Editors with less than 100 edits and 3 months should feel free to object before the poll closes.Hipocrite 18:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it is indecent to censor an image of a natural human body of God's own creation. We must fight indecent censorship all the way!--Wiglaf 18:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh gee whiz. WARNING: WIKI-KNEE-JERK ABOVE. Jimbo said we can't have images of sexual acts because law would require us to keep records on the performers and he is not willing to do so. So there is a standard. Agriculture 18:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Who are you, and why are you saying "we" when refering to a project to which you are not affiliated? Hipocrite 18:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding your name to the user list does not mean you are all of a sudden a member of the project with more right to contribute than me. Having your name on that list does not give you the right to hijack the project in accordance with your own whims. - Haunti (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Bug off you stupid troll. Agriculture 18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks. Consider yourself warned.--Wiglaf 18:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, warn me and not the troll. I forgot they run the joint. Thats it, I'm out of here. You can have your damn Vandalpedia. Agriculture 18:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite has been raising valid points about the definition of decency in Misplaced Pages. Whereas you make ad hominem attacks, again.--Wiglaf 18:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

He vandalized the page in violation of WP:POINT, then came here, made a few admitedly good points, then trolled a bit as well. Am I making some ad hominem attacks? Sure I am, because I'm sick and tired of the trolls running the show while admins let them and over the past few days they've pushed me so far over the edge that I don't care anymore. Misplaced Pages will never be an encyclopedia for that very reason. Agriculture 18:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Agriculture, I think you are just wikistressed. Relax!--Wiglaf 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I just finally understand what Misplaced Pages is really about. Agriculture 18:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is about presenting information and about discussing guidelines for them, like we do here, in a polite way.--Wiglaf 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

While my initial edit to the project was done without due consideration to reaching consensus on changing the focus of the project in talk, said change was reverted in minutes. I'm sorry I tried to take unilateral action on the project (Which you are not a member of, BTW) without going to the other project members. I've since corrected that, and look forward to a dialogue about what is really "decent," and what parts of "decency" this project should focus on. Feel free to join the project and contribute. Hipocrite 18:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you should try to be more diplomatic and not stress that he has written that he is no longer part of it. I write here and I am not a member. Your behaviour can actually be construed as trollish.--Wiglaf 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Like I said on Ag's talk page, I think everyone needs to deescalte to like three replies ago or something. As such, allow me to apologize. Hipocrite 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally, thank you. Can you please ban 205.188.116.5 next? Agriculture 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If you report to me what has happened, when it happens, I may do it.--Wiglaf 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

tip of the iceberg

yikes. while the intent may be honorable, the problem I see immediately is that this codifies language that effectively says "you'll know it when you see it" as to what can and cannot be on wikipedia. Tagging Wicca as indecent is only a tip of the iceberg that will quickly slice through wikipedia if this is made policy. I would oppose this simply because while it might fix one problem, it will create several new ones. FuelWagon 18:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god and all that is holy! Will someone tell these damn Wikipedians to read up on issues before responding with the Slashdot-knee-jerk? Wicca was tagged by a troll trying to discredit the project. The project doesn't aim to codify language which says "you'll know it when you see it" or any other bullshit like that. The point is to examine Florida Law and existing Misplaced Pages policy, discuss with the community and come to a consensus about what is encyclopedic, and what will get Misplaced Pages into trouble, primarily with regard to images. The point is to take all the pre-existing case law on Misplaced Pages IFD's, statements by Jimbo about what can and cannot be on here, and provide a guide so people can help determine whether new content should be included. Now go sit in a corner and think about what you've done. Shame on you! This is why the trolls are the ones who run Misplaced Pages. Agriculture 18:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is? So that's how you've been doing it--172.141.31.144 18:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have always wondered why Americans are more tolerant to graphic violence than to graphic nipples. Perhaps you could care to inform an ignorant Euro about this?--Wiglaf 18:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is who you can ask, and this is where you can reach him. - Haunti (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, he is just a politician. You never know what a politician thinks, only what he thinks gives him votes ;-).--Wiglaf 19:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling that Jeb Bush is about to end up on a bunch of online mailers for gay porn sites--205.188.116.14 19:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder what your response would be if I called your excessively theistic language, which might be offensive to my beliefs as a Humanist, obscene? --Ngb 18:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd respond that it's noth theistic language but a quote from Rejected which is followed by "My anus is bleeding". Agriculture 18:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Can't help but admire the comeback. :) Nevertheless, do you take my point? What you seem to want this project to do ('examine Florida law', etc.) is inconsistent both with the name of the Project and the information on the Project frontpage, and I do feel that you're very misguided to conflate issues of obscenity/decency so totally with issues of what is encyclopaedic. --Ngb 18:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If the project survives, it especially has to take into account decent behaviour to fellow wikipedians.--Wiglaf 19:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Once the VFD is over, I am still willing to help to help the project be renamed and revamped to fit a better style, unless people want to drop it completely. And, IMHO, while some voted to keep the project, they wanted the project itself to be renamed and revamped. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure that I really want the project to survive, if it does I'd be more than happy to help make it into something constructive for the WP community, as per Agriculture's original intentions. - Haunti (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This project would have a better chance of surviving VfD if it were renamed. There is value in defining what it takes to comply with the law, as we do when investigating copyvio. But the current title is inherently NPOV. Perhaps something like "WikiProject: Compliance with obscenity laws"? --Arcadian 23:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC) (Addendum -- where I wrote "NPOV", I meant "POV"). --Arcadian 22:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, something could be salvaged from all this....a project as big as this could use a more coherent examination of legal issues. Rx StrangeLove 00:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

A problem with this is that obscenity law is practically a non-issue. As others have said, the law could only apply to Misplaced Pages as a whole, not individual articles or images. The educational merit of being the world's largest encyclopedia far outweighs the "indecency" of having graphic images. There is no need for a project to identify legal issues other than perhaps copyright. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The risk of lawsuits is always possible and there is nothing wrong with members of Misplaced Pages voicing concerns of this potentiality. It is a grave distortion by opponents of this project to suspect that those that wished to put a question mark in the form of a tag on what could possibly be articles and images that may be of potential legal`harm to the entire enterprise, were going to do so as some form of decency or morality police. However, I would have been an unlikly candidate to expect that I would have personally utilized such tags, hence, my removal of them. The core of my personal argument has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with what gives Misplaced Pages the most credibility. Having namespace articles devoted to what could be construed as offensive to many readers and contributors does not add to Misplaced Pages's credibility overall. If this enterprise is going to become a household word "check with Misplaced Pages", then it needs to ensure that, in the very least, these concerns are addressed. That we are conversing about them here is an important step.--MONGO 01:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This Page is not silly enough

This page is not silly enough. How can I be expected to read pages that are not silly? I demand the right to tag this page as insufficiently silly.--Gorgonzilla 22:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed

>"since relevant sections of Florida Law have been located..."

Florida's obscenity law specifically exempts works which, taken as a whole, contain "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". This clearly exempts Misplaced Pages since Misplaced Pages has literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. Thus the Florida law is not specifically relevant for Misplaced Pages. Jimbo Wales has said the same thing on the listserv. Kaldari 23:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

How much would it cost to move the servers to California if it were? --Gorgonzilla 02:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Can I just note to all concerned, but there is a great big world out there that isn't just the 50 states ... and amazingly it does have the internet. WP already has sub-servers in other countries and whilst there may be an expectation that the main servers will remain in the USA (FLA) for the time being there is nothing that carves that in stone. --Vamp:Willow 09:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

MONGO vandalism

Editor User:MONGO is abusing WP removing all the members he imagines not to be sympathetic with him/her. S/he has no idea the reason why any given member has joined the project, and certainly has no right to remove anyone. This behavior almost certainly crosses the line of vandalism, and will be reported as vandalism in progress if it is repeated.

Moreover, the factual accuracy of this page really is disputed. It is unlikely that the characterization of Florida law given is at all accurate, and the dispute tag may not be unilaterally removed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:32, 2005 August 22 (UTC)