Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:35, 8 February 2005

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

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

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.

Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia?

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

See important discussion about this subject taking place at Misplaced Pages:Graphic and potentially disturbing images

This subject seems to have ignited recently at Talk:Breast#Image and Talk:Breast#New Image and at Talk:Nudity and Talk:Nudity#Lead image 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 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 Misplaced Pages article on Frau ("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 . The English article on Woman does not have this photo, but it does have this one 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages?

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. -- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages can be accused of being gratutious. :ChrisG 13:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages that I do not find objectionable, while there are other pictures on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
  • Legitimize art in the name of art. It is commonplace to have nude paintings on display at art museums and art galleries. You might have to accept that you are the one deviating from the norm here. As for my comment, it was only to request that you cease to randomly badmouth art which is hosted at deviantart for the sake of having a greater abundance of slanderous materials for your argumentation. While I'm at this point, I'd like to ask, are you also meditating? Tyln 10:28, 17 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: Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages should be a "free-for-all" and I have found that Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages become a pornographic site? Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. I also do not believe we will solve such a divide anytime soon here on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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  :

...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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages: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? ] 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, ] 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 Misplaced Pages:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. All those who think we shouldn't be creating blanket rules for censorship of Misplaced Pages, 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.

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages from becoming a de facto porn site, and is that so "terrible" and too much to ask of a supposed "encyclopedia"? What credibility will Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages with porn.

Is this degrading to the Elephant? And why not stop with humans. We have an image of an Elephant's penis on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I'd like to think that people are able to form their own opinions about this subject without adding moral to it. If you upload an image of a nude woman not doing anything pornographic (ie, she isnt depicted in a sexual act of any kind) because the article is about women my mind boggles why this isn't perfectly okay. I usually get the impression that in general Europeans seems to be far more forgiving when it comes to this subject than their American brothers and sisters and since I am European, I wouldn't think two seconds about seeing a picture of a nude woman, say, laying on a bed looking suggestively at the camera. It's a woman for crying out loud. How more natural can it get? That said, I do agree that certain things aren't appropriate for Misplaced Pages to display, but if such a picture would come along it should be treated along with its article in what it conveys. If its fluff, we delete it, if it's appropriate because it conveys information that is useful (like the 69 article), then for the love of all that is holy (I consider sex between two people who love eachother one of the most holy things in the history of holy, there's nothing dirty about it at all), let it be. Inter 20:22, 14 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Wonderful, wonderful, yes you see you have proven that it can be done. That with a few little black strips and stripes we can depict things within reason without offending people who may object to any displays of public nudity. IZAK 10:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good god! Well - all I can say without pushing the boundaires of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Misplaced Pages:Civility is - Yes I have proven it. I have proven how ridiculous your position is. It appears that you believe that images of works of Art appearing on wikipedia should be vandalised so that they conform to your extreme view of what is decent and what is obscene. Your positiion is indefensible and I have no more to say on the matter. Jooler 13:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

• If you think I am "joking" then you have truly not grasped my argument/s at all, which is very sad indeed. I don't think by the way, that your average Hindu in India is running around naked as depicted in any Hindu "art". Most Hindu men and women I have seen are dressed in long robes, suits, or saris, and I don't see them in bikinis either when they plunge to purify themselves in the Ganges usualy with full clothing on. IZAK 10:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • IZAK You could NOT! be more wrong! - See this BBC report - BBC Report on Kumbh Mela - Now if I might dare say so, I think you you have been truly hoisted by your own petard. Jooler 13:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent comments about Nudity discussion, 15 Jan 2005

I'm afraid I haven't read all of this debate, but yeah, I saw enough. What I'll say is, excessive puritanism and a project which proposal is to deliver the user all kinds of information, in an ever-growing, ever-evolving fashion, will never mix. There is nothing wrong, pornographic or corruptive in the depiction of a woman's naked body, nor anything like that. If you are malicious enough to think of 230957093270497049 naughty things when you see a naked woman,

Oooh! You said "230957093270497049!" That's very naughty, although rarely performed because it is difficult to organize the necessary eighteen participants...

well, that's your problem, I'm sorry. Everybody is free to think as they please, and nobody minds that. Our mind is ours to be used the way we want it. About the drawings, for Christ's sake. If you're offended by the drawing of a naked couple included in a greeting message sent to space, or a little sketch (made by one of our fellow users, if I'm not mistaken) of a couple of lesbians making sex, I am sorry, you'd just do better to cover your eyes and refrain from looking at Misplaced Pages's articles. It's clear that such a person cannot endure this content, no matter how much this is discussed, so it's better just to refrain from coming here, instead of trying to change what's already stablished (and surprisingly, tolerated by everybody else). It's year 2005, people. Let's evolve. My (more than) two cents.--Kaonashi 00:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You know IZAK, it has occurred to me, after reading most of the debate, your view is a very biased point of view. Think about it. Culturally, there are different degrees of what people accept as "sex" and what is "porn." By making your claim of censorship, you are making the encyclopedia more POV. For example, there is far more blood in Japanese animation, anime, than the stuff that they place on Cartoon Network. There was an episode of Outlaw Star which involved nudity that was banned from Cartoon Network... however, during the series run of Outlaw Star, a Japanese animation TV show, on Japanese television, it must have been seen. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To me, nudity has artistic or scientific value, while pornography is simply meant for sexual arousal/pleasure. Usually, it's very easy to tell the difference between the two. A nude painting or statue would constitute nudity, whilst a picture of two people engaging in sexual intercourse would most likely be pornographic. I think it really has a lot to do with common sense, yet many people are afraid they might be perceived as perverted or abnormal if they find nothing wrong with a depiction of a penis or breast. Yes, it's possible to come up with all matter of varied circumstances that would put my above idea to question, i.e. "Well what about this picture, what would this be, huh?" All I can say is most of the people I've known are able to make a distinction, and the people asking this question are doing so just to make a nuisance of themselves. People should be held accountable for themselves, so if they do find something offensive, they just need to stop looking at it and not let everybody else know they find it offensive. | Aequo 18:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"An argument could be made that I have perused and considered this image in a way that is 'contemplative'--which is the an aim of art--rather than "arousing"--which is the ain of pornography. Whether the image is pornographic or not is a wholly subjective decision, another viewer might dismiss my analysis completely and see nothing but base purposes at work Sexuality and its depictions remain contested, which is not all bad. Despite the evident threat for moral crusaders, sexual pictures shouldn't be noramlized as "art" just so that they'll be considered fit to view, nor should they be sorted into predetermined categories. The difference between "pornography" and "erotica" may, in fact, simply be one of style. Ideally, the entire realm of sexual imagery will remain ambiguous and fugitive, hard to pin down, in its fleeting refusals and taunting provocations, it will maintain substantial disruptive power." Squiers, Carol (2000). An introduction to a book of sexual photographs Peek: Photographs from the Kinsey Institute ISBN 1892041359

Suggestion

Flickr has a great system where anyone can simply click "Flag this photo as 'may offend'." I suggest we adopt this policy.

--Alterego 07:47, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately this would likely result in anonymous editors "running through the halls" flagging everything in sight. If you can't trust people not to replace perfectly reasonable articles with repeated references to genital osculation, this would be tantamount to handing a loaded gun with a hair-trigger to a baby with hiccups. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 13:16, Feb 2, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages policy, it should be! Otherwise, we get duplicate articles. Quill 04:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It belongs at the top only on LONG ambiguation pages. Pedant 23:09, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Ahhhh... that's the kicker. - RoyBoy 22:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there a project to fix links to disambiguation pages? Alphax (t) (c) (e) 03:57, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Template:ISBN

I created the template to flag articles for cleanup, i.e. those that mentioned books and needed an ISBN added. User:Ctorok has been in touch with me about the category and I put up a suggestion on Template talk:ISBN about what numbers should be cited. I'd appreciate Wikipedians adding their suggestions there. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:57, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

BBC News

Is it public domain because they are government funded? I wanted to add the chart from this story to Nanotechnology http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4187813.stm

The BBC per se are not government funded, saying the the BBC is government funded suggests that it is an organ of the British Government and that the Government can withdraw funding if they wish to do so. The BBC World Service is partially funded by the Foreign Office but the BBC itself is funded by the television licence and by commercial operations within BBC Worldwide. The BBC is an autonomous Corporation operating under a Royal Charter. Jooler 23:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it would make it damn sexy! - RoyBoy 22:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The BBC's policy is:

You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of bbc.co.uk content requires the prior written permission of the BBC.

Then I should try to attain said permission... think I'll succeed? - RoyBoy 22:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You might acquire permission to use it on the Misplaced Pages site, but acquiring permanent permission to freely redistribute it and give others that right as well seems unlikely. Deco 22:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even if it were government funded, British Government material is Crown Copyright, not public domain. Proteus (Talk) 22:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Given these kinds of limitations on images that would otherwise greatly enrich articles, I've sometimes simply included in the image box for the page's existing image a 'more photos' link to the superior image. (Such as at stem cells)--Nectarflowed 02:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deleting articles.

Hello, didn't really know where to post this, but here it goes! There are a couple of articles about people who are maybe non-notable, and their articles are not much of use to anyone. I heard one person complaining that his article has no reason to be here, and would like to have it deleted. The article is well written and I think that it might be kept because of that. So, what should he do? Edit the article or try to have it deleted? I mean can we make an article on someone who does not want to have an article here. Lapinmies 06:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Add them to the Votes for Deletion page - Skysmith 10:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• As to your other question, whether it is OK to have articles on people who don't want them, I would say, unequivocally, yes. Slippery slope, it may be, but consider this situation. John Doe sees his article on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps he feels he isn't noteworthy enough, or that it is unfairly critical. So he demands it be taken down. Now replace John Doe with Saddam Hussain, George W. Bush or Osama bin-Laden. We must not allow any form of censorship, which is basically what allowing people to demand their article be taken down is. Smoddy | ειπετε 23:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That said, removing a piece of information from an article because the subject feels that it violates their privacy is, sometimes, justified. Such things should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Deco 05:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which is what VfD is for! :) Smoddy | ειπετε 13:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prose intro before first header--Guideline/policy?

When my removal of an opening header was questioned, I went looking for written MoS policy/guidelines to back me up. Best I've found so far is a bit indirect: Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_Layout#Introductory_material says "...because the first paragraph, above the first header, should be the introduction to the article.", although it also describes itself as "Misplaced Pages Guide to Layout is an annotated, working example of some of the basics of laying out an article." (emphasis added), with that sentence coming before the first header. Anyone know someplace it is stated more explicitly? Niteowlneils 16:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is now, because I've boldly updated the page you mentioned.
This style is ubiquitous across all Misplaced Pages, and therefore de facto policy. I sampled 30 random pages. Of these, a whopping 25 had no sections at all, because they were too short, or a list or disambig page. One had two small sections following a huge opening blurb, and the remaining 4 all had intro paragraphs before the first section. A random sampling among featured articles may be more relevant and insightful: of 10 FAs I checked by clicking madly at semi-random places, all 10 had from 1 to 3 intro paragraphs above the first section, except Abraham Lincoln, which had 4.
I furthermore updated the guide to reflect that for biographies, people commonly use the introduction paragraphs as summaries. JRM 17:47, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Thanks. Since posting, it also occurred to me that the header I removed, "Definition", is arguably redundant/self-evident, as a Misplaced Pages article, by definition, describes the subject indicated by the title. Niteowlneils 20:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical order and umlauts

I was just going to add Michael Häupl to the alphabetical list of people when I realized I had no idea about our policy here. As "ä" can be transcribed "ae" (and "ö" can be "oe" etc.), there are basically three options. Considering alphabetical lists in German, I have come across all of them, sometimes even within the same list (telephone directories). I'd like to avoid that kind of chaos in Misplaced Pages, so who can point me to a reference?

The three options (as I said, all taken from real life) are:

(1) ä regarded as a: Habicht, Hall, Haller, Haubner, Haunold, Häupl, Haupt, Häuser, Hausman, Hawelka.

(2) ä regarded as ae: Habicht, Häupl, Häuser, Hall, Haller, Haubner, Haunold, Haupt, Hausman, Hawelka.

(3) ä as a kind of addendum to a: Habicht, Hall, Haller, Haubner, Haunold, Haupt, Hausman, Hawelka, Häupl, Häuser.

With more and more German names being added to Misplaced Pages, I think this is something that should be discussed / clarified.

Could you please also put a brief message on my talk page? Thanks. <KF> 22:46, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

You might look at the Swedish alphabet and Finnish alphabet which sorts ä near the end of the alphabet.--Henrygb 15:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Now of course I realize that there is also an article on the German alphabet. <KF> 11:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it should definitely be sorted as "a", since that's (I think) how most people would do it English. --Khendon 12:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As this is a computer medium and some people are going to use computers to sort things have a look at:

• http://www.ex.ac.uk/~DCannon/ist-5-15/document/p237.txt
  • http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/xbd_chap07.html
  • http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~davidt/cit3611/C_UNIX/character_collation.htm

There is a problem with theses definitions, because the range is "Aa-Zz" so to get the full range of the alphabet one has to use "A through to z", because the algorithm for searching is not defined in the literature, a backwards and forwards search will turn up different sets for "A-Z" and "a-z". Philip Baird Shearer 13:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Browsing through the list of people shows me the following:

(1) In lots of cases, just as Khendon suggests, ä is treated as a etc. This is the Microsoft Windows "dictionary sorting" referred to in the German alphabet article. Random examples include Ludwig von Köchel (List_of_people_by_name:_Ko), Ernst Jünger (List_of_people_by_name:_Ju), Karl Böhm (List_of_people_by_name:_Boa-Bok), and Georg von Schönerer (List_of_people_by_name:_Schn-Scho). Could we agree on this rule?

(2) In certain cases, the umlaut is ignored: Händel redirects to George Frideric Handel, which is at least partly understandable if you read the article. But we should be aware of the fact that occasionally the umlaut might be ignored for no good reason. Check, for example, the list of people for the not-yet-written article on the German actor Heinz Rühmann, which you will find under Ruhmann, Heinz.

(3) Wherever the ae, oe, ue spelling is actually used, even if this is contentious (Arnold Schoenberg), names are alphabetised according to their spelling.

Thanks everybody. I still have to have a look at the external links above. <KF> 15:17, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Though I don't know if this has been discussed or is a problem now or ever will be, should &agrave, &aacute, &aring, etc. also be discussed relative to alphabetizing? Cigarette 16:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps i chose the wrong place for List of people by name#Alphabetizing these names when (without consultation) i formalized my experience on this a few weeks short of a year ago. Despite a link on the third line of the page to the section, its existence seems little known! Suggestions? --Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

POV links

Please see Flag of New Zealand. Here we find two external links to a petition for the replacement of the NZ flag. While it seems POV links are OK (according to the current standard) as long as it's clear that's what they are, surely a link to a political campaign such as this is not acceptable. The site being linked to imparts no further knowledge. It is a single issue campaigning site. By including it in Misplaced Pages we are extending its reach. As such, Misplaced Pages could be viewed as being helpful to the campaign. In the absence of a link to a petition to keep the current flag - thereby 'balancing' the effect of the link in question - I would recommend that links such as these should be discouraged. Are there any other opinions or current policy? Arcturus 16:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:External links: "Pages that are linked to in an external links section should be high content, with information that is not found in the Misplaced Pages article." Based on your description, they don't seem to qualify. —Korath (Talk) 19:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's a continuation of the discussion in the article about the proposed change to the flag, I find the link entirely appropriate. RickK 00:24, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

There is actually a lot of information at www.nzflag.com (the page in question). As a New Zealander (and someone who has not made up his mind on the issue of changing the flag) I think it is important to have a link to this page. If I could find a link to a group against changing the flag I would add that to the article. Google shows that there are 793 pages link to to the site. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 01:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

My biography has been half-inched by the biographee ;o)

I put in the greater part of the effort required to create the David Quantick article.

I have since happened upon the shocking revelation that the biography has been stolen and is now being used under a stringent copyright license! Who has committed this atrocity? DAVID QUANTICK!

OK, I'm kidding a bit... let me explain. He's just written to me to say that he has submitted the biog to the IMDB as his official biog. He then says it dawned on him after the event that this was rather cheeky, and has asked me if that's OK.

Now, I knew that the important thing here was to look at the IMDB's terms of use for material and found this (my bolding):

Copyright

All content included on this site, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, video clips, digital downloads, data compilations, and software, is the property of IMDb or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content on this site is the exclusive property of IMDb and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. All software used on this site is the property of IMDb or its software suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws.

And it seems safe to say that the bio at IMDB will now fall under this.

David has said that if I just give the nod he will ask for it to be taken down. I'm in the position now, aren't I, of having to act according to the terms of the GNU license and ask that he does just that?

This is rather a harsh lesson for me of what it means to submit stuff here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not worried about money, as none is offered. What is now a personal shame for me is that a man I greatly admire is going to get a thumbs down from me. In addition, he works in an industry I could happily use a contact in... and it would be to my advantage to be as accomodating as possible.

So, then... how can I get out of this best? Presumably I could write a similar article for him - perhaps asking him for some more detail to add in - and create a new work in a different style?

Help!

--bodnotbod 01:26, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Probably, you can just ask him to provide a link to the Misplaced Pages article, and explicitly state at the bottom of the article that it is released under the GFDL. He will have to get permission from the IMDB guys to do this, as they will need to add an "unless explicitly stated otherwise" to their TOS. IANAL --Alterego 02:22, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Just release the last version in which you were the sole contributor into the public domain, or release it for use on IMDB (you can do this because you still retain the copyright for that version, not having assigned it to anyone else). Then anyone is free to use it anywhere. Of course, IMDB will still be claiming a copyright which they don't actually have, but you presumably won't care. - Nunh-huh 02:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, that last sounds ideal. I'll go with that if I can. I'll let this sit here a while longer in case anyone raises any objections to that course of action. Thanks very much Nunh-huh. --bodnotbod 03:38, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the revision history, nobody else has yet made a copyrightable contribution to the article. You could relicense it to whomever you want under whatever terms you wish. IMDb's terms wouldn't make me happy-happy if it were my content, though. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, quite. Ask for the GFDL notice and link back to wikipedia. That way you get the credit, wikipedia gets the publicity and perhaps best of all, David Quantick will remember you as that starry-eyed idealist. --fvw* 06:18, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK. I'll get in touch with IMDB and see if I can get any sort of response (of which I am not hopeful). I don't feel comfortable getting into a deep discussion about these things with David Quantick as it would be a gamble, based on no information, that he doesn't simply say "oh, this is putting you to too much trouble, let's leave it." Which he would mean with the politest of intentions, I'm sure, but it would leave me feeling I blew it.

Thanks for the responses so far. I'll keep checking back here whilst I wait for IMDB to get back to me: no breath will be held. --bodnotbod 18:41, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

copy of message to IMDB

Dear Sir/Madam,