Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Misplaced Pagesns for Decency - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DavidsCrusader (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 17 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:10, 17 August 2005 by DavidsCrusader (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

While it is unorthodox and very uncommon to put a Wikiproject up for deletion, but I believe this project will be more harmful to the project than good. The first point I wish to make is that Misplaced Pages is not censored to minors. That means we will have information that is not sutable to minors and some people. Second, trying to introduce standard to show "offensive" images is introducing POV. What I consider offensive maybe not be to another person and vice versa. Third, the project was created during the WP:IFD nomination of an image used on the article Autofellatio, which has been the subject to many IFD's over photos. Fourth, they are using an image gallery created by a user as a benchmark for images that should be looked at. I believe that the personal gallery should be left alone so either he or others can view the images as they please. We have VFD'ed a Wikiproject before because it was introducing bias into Misplaced Pages. I believe that if this project stands, this could be just the begining of very bad things to come. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The "gallery" in question was the well known list of nude images on Misplaced Pages, not a personal gallery but a collection of all the images the user thought were "dirty". I have removed it as per your objection but the point wasn't to use it as a benchmark, but since he so nicely collected all images of possibly sexual nature, to examine all the images and try to build a standard from such an examination. Agriculture 06:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
While I have no clue why the user in question made the gallery, but it could have been nude images he liked or trying to show some of the various photos on Misplaced Pages. Some of the nudes were from classical paintings (Victorian) and some are the images we see today from Playboy. However, if the images are not in the gallery, then we have no idea if they are around until they show up on WP:IFD. While I thank you for taking notice to my reasoning for deletion and not brushing it aside, I just think that this project might not be needed on Misplaced Pages and from what I see already, problems have arose. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
What problems, other than users calling Project members names? So far the only problem I have seen is from those who oppose the project being unable to keep a grip on civility. If you have other problems, I again urge you to join the project and help us correct them. All viewpoints are both welcome and needed. Agriculture 06:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Whatever these users are doing, they are doing this on their own. I am not encouraging them to do anything, except that I notified people in the Misplaced Pages IRC that the VFD has been opened by me. And the other problems, which I hinted at earlier, was dealing with POV issues. What I might find offensive you might not and vice versa. Plus, this will creat uncivility as we both see now. While you might think that the project is trying to help Misplaced Pages out, the way it was worded and the way it would have been carried out, in my view, would have nothing but harm to it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes

  • Delete Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I disagree with the way these chaps are going about things at the moment, but I don't think their aims are necessarily incompatible with Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 05:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I strongly encourage you to join the project so you can voice your objections to the way things are being done. This project cannot be successful without a wide range of viewpoints and we would value your opinion. Agriculture 06:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think we would see eye to eye, somehow. My concept of decency on Misplaced Pages would be to cease inflicting your moral standards on those of us who are trying to make this into a good encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 09:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors. And everything Zscout said. Redwolf24 05:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The inherent community standard of the current Wiki process is sufficient. If media has already been debated, then the standards have already begun to develop through the wiki mechanisms. If people object to these standards, the wiki software is freely available for their use. Perhaps there should be an alternative to wikipedia for children. Parental Control Software is available for home computers. 05:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (vote by User:Heathhunnicutt)
  • Comment There are alot of unencyclopedic sex related images that get uploaded, porn of all varieties (I should add that in my experience alot of this gets deleted on site), photoshoped naked celebrities, and so on. If these guys are prepared to find the stuff the admins miss and list on them on ifd for the community to debate I don't really see the harm. If the project was to evolve in a different way then I'd reconsider.--nixie 05:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete post-haste. Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors. The last thing we need is a bunch of prudes running reckless through the encyclopedia, putting images up for deletion, and trying to define "community standards of decency" according to what they think it should be. →Raul654 05:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's comments like the above which prove this project should be kept. We're not trying to censor Misplaced Pages for minors, just trying to establish a standard, and provide a place to investiage Florida and other law which might be relevant. It's not a "bunch of prudes running reckless through the encyclopedia, putting images up for deletion, and trying to define "community standards of decency" according to what they think it should be" as the above poster so cleverly stated through personal attack, it's a place for ANY Wikipedian. Agriculture 05:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • That's strange, considering your project's deletion template, which is to be used "for use in highlighting the reason to delete certain images", says "Under Florida Title XLVI, Chapter 847, Section 11, it is a third-degree felony to distribute photographs of sexual acts in such a way that they are available to minors. So, your project isn't here to censor images for the protection of minors, despite the fact that that's *EXACTLY* what it's own template says. →Raul654 06:00, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • Put aside your personal bias for a moment and try to have an open mind. The reason for the template is pretty obvious. If Florida law prohibits certain images, and Misplaced Pages distributes them, Misplaced Pages could be shut down. I don't want this to happen, I suspect you don't either. So the goal is to prevent this from happening. Not to protect minors, to obey Florida law, something Jimbo himself has supported and stated as a minimum standard. Agriculture 06:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Nice attempt to change stories. First, you claim that no, you're not trying to censor images (in violation of policy). Then, when your own project page shoots a gaping hole in your story, you claim that you're only doing it with the best of intentions. I do have an open mind, which is why I am markedly opposed to this blatant power grab and attempt at censorship. That's why everyone else should be, too. I'm for people using good editorial judgement in excluding certain images (which, from my conversation with Jimbo re: the autofellatio image, is pretty much exactly what he has said about the subject); on the other hand, I'm against having "community standards" thrust upon the community by the self-selcted members of your project, who claim to be looking out for Wikipeida's best interests. →Raul654 06:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
            • Please go read the law, the law in particular refers to distribution to minors, or perhaps I have misread it. Our goal isn't to make Misplaced Pages safe for minors, but to bring it into good standing with respect to Florida Law. If Florida Law states certain things about minors, then we will work for it too, but our goal isn't to specifically change things to be safe for minors, but to bring it into good standing with Florida Law. This is no change of story, please go read the law and think about this before making such false accusations. Agriculture 06:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Just because parents refuse to supervise their kids, that does not mean it is our job to do so. The Internet (or Misplaced Pages) is no more an appropriate baby-sitter than is television. -NickGorton 05:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would my user page then be up for deletion since in it I describe that I am gay? There are many people who feel that discussion of LGBT issues is indecent and inappropriate for minors. -NickGorton 06:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not a consensus so I can't say for sure, but my guess would be since there is nothing on Misplaced Pages which supports considering LGBT indecent, and Florida Law doesn't prohibit it, it would not be indecent. Agriculture 06:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: moved long block quote and comment to talk page. Please revert if you think it belonged here. --Tony Sidaway 06:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Then I suggest you join the project to help us come up with a good standard, rather than deleting it because you think there should be no standard. I quote Florida Title XLVI Chapter 847 Section 11, see below in appropriate section. This worries me, if Misplaced Pages (being hosted in Florida) isn't careful, it could be shutdown, the project in question is attempting to find a standard through consensus to prevent this law from shutting Misplaced Pages down. Please try to put away your personal bias for a moment and instead of attacking this effort, join it. Agriculture 06:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
..deleting it because you think there should be no standard. It's not the case that there is no standard. The standard used at the moment to determine what goes into Misplaced Pages are the standards of the WIkipedia community - every time someone edits an article, votes in VfD, or comments on a talk page that standard is used, refined, and strengthened, in a way akin to the Common Law legal system. No, it's not perfect, and variation is inevitable, but overall it works pretty well and the majority of users are happy with it. These same users - as the voting here shows - do not wish it to be superceded by some explicitly-written policy document, formulated according to a small group's personal morals and forever surrounded by argument and ill-feeling (as this debate has shown it would be). Essentially, the feeling is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", along with a healthy dose of anti-censorship instincts. PeteVerdon 09:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Your POV seems to be clouding your abilities to judge the situation. Is the WikiProject (or any WikiProject for that matter) an exclusive club? Then whose to say the project won't support your "sensibilities"? It's a project for helping to bring Misplaced Pages in line with Florida Law, and to help determine if the current standards are good enough. How does it hurt to have a place to discuss this? How does censoring a group working to help Misplaced Pages help anyone? You're making judgements about the characters of a new group with completely open membership. Agriculture 06:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for making legal threats. Zoe 06:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no legal threat. None of us are threating legal action, we're pointing out existing law which Misplaced Pages has demanded we follow. We're seeking to bring things into good standing with law not to attempt to sue Misplaced Pages. It isn't a legal threat to point out that Misplaced Pages needs to follow criminal law, and then attempt to help it do so. Agriculture 06:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Fact of the Day: I saw penises and vaginas in Health class, which is funded by the government, which Florida is part of. Oh shit, they gotta shut themselves down. Flood it with Tubgirl images and Delete. -- A Link to the Past 06:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is it so hard for people who claim to be against censorship to have an open mind? Photos of Penises and Vaginas are not indecent, and no one is claiming they are. The point is that we need to determine what violates the law and where the standard should be, not to try to delete everything on Misplaced Pages. Join us, share your views in a constructive manner and help us figure it out. Agriculture 06:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • These are used for educational purposes. Shut up, kthx. And the images you reference, outside of Autofellatio, are not linked to any page and added by the same person, indicating that they should be deleted for unneeded images, but not indecency. We point out that this site is not censored for minors, and these images are used for educational purposes, nothing else. -- A Link to the Past 06:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • I lodge formal protest at your continued rudeness. Used for educational or otherwise, Florida Law clearly states intent has no bearing. This is why this project is important, because the law says intent is not a valid defense. Agriculture 06:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Freaking prudes, get out of my country! Can't I go one day without seeing you dolts? The government funds educational programs which provide nudity to the children for educational purposes. We do the exact same thing, and we're Nazi baby raping Satanists. Go back to WP:PRUDE, kthxbai. -- A Link to the Past 06:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
            • It's not prudish to follow the law. Furthermore I note that your personal attack is a violation of Misplaced Pages Policy, and I encourage you to stop making them before I must ask a moderator to help mediate this. Agriculture 06:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
              • I apologize for pointing out the obviouse fact that you are a prude, but when you do not even acknowledge that I pointed out that the GOVERNMENT (that you seem to worship above all else) has allowed nudity to be exposed to the eyes of children as young as 12. So, until you stop avoiding the argument at hand, you're a prude. -- A Link to the Past 06:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
                • No actually that isn't true, and you did more than call me a prude as you will note. I have no problem with nudity, and the state of Florida appears not to have a problem with it either. It has a problem with hardcore pornography, which is very different from nudity. Please read the full text of the article in question and the law before responding, as I think it will aid you in your understanding. Agriculture 06:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
                  • So, wait. Schools use images depicting breasts, vaginas, penises and even sex, and that makes it educational. But when it's something not funded by the government that's doing nothing different, it's some kind of evil act. Perhaps - work with me here - Florida would care about the doings of Misplaced Pages because it's not a governmental-funded organization like the school system is? -- A Link to the Past 07:06, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
                    • Look, I'm trying to work with you here, but you aren't even reading my comments. Let me try this as clearly as possible
                      1. Penises, Vaginas, Breasts not hardcore pornography, easily decent in both schools and Misplaced Pages.
                      2. Images of Explicit Sexual Acts such as intercourse or other similar things possibly hardcore pornography and possibly indecent in both schools and Misplaced Pages.
                      3. More time and discussion required as to exactly how to classify and how to come into line with law, thus purpose of the project. Agriculture 07:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • In Soviet Russia, Misplaced Pages autofellates you! Delete creation scientists, prudes and jesus freaks for great justice. Comrade Raul654 said it best. Comrade Raul654, we sallute you! Vodka! Da! Project2501a 06:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT — Linnwood 06:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that Misplaced Pages is not something which follows Florida Law, or that Misplaced Pages is not for encouraging discussions to form a consensus? Agriculture 06:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors — Linnwood 07:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Where does it say you have to respond to every vote? Zoe 06:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • I feel the noted reasons for the vote are invalid and the user is not informed of the facts, I am trying to help this discussion by spending time talking about it. Talking and discussing is not prohibited. Agriculture 06:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
          • You are, in fact, not spreading facts, but falsehoods. Nothing on Misplaced Pages can be shown to be obscene under the standards laid down by the Supreme Court, to wit - that which appeals only “to a prurient interest,” shows “patently offensive sexual conduct” and "lacks serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.” Clearly, the photo in question in the IFD has serious scientific value in the context of autofellatio, showing that the act is indeed physically possible by humans. There is nothing patently offensive about autofellatio, nor can the photo be shown to appeal only to prurient interests. It is an encyclopedic photo which belongs in an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 07:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
            • You are perhaps right that the image in question is valid, but there is a truly real question to be raised. Does that truly have scientific value? Maybe, maybe not. No current standard exists, a large part of the purpose of the WikiProject is to establish this standard. There is no falsehood spread, only Misplaced Pages Guidelines, Florida Law, Misplaced Pages Standards, and a place to discuss and find consensus. Agriculture 07:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 07:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The key phrase in all this is "lacks serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value". Misplaced Pages continuously flushes out material that isn't encyclopedic. Anything that adds significantly to an article is of literary value, which protects Misplaced Pages under the Miller Test for obscenity. As for the Wikiproject, I don't mind having watchdog groups around, so I vote keep, but what they should be watching for are images which can't ever have a place in an encyclopedia and nominating them at IFD. --Titoxd 08:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; this project can never be NPOV. I smell WP:Point; would you be happy if the servers were moved out of Florida? Lectonar 08:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Kill it with fire --Ryan Delaney 08:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
We're all out of fire, will Weapons of Mass Destruction do? :D Project2501a 09:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
No; then we would be in danger of being invaded Lectonar
  • Strong Delete - A forum for discussion of policies or other forms of free speech obviously have no place on Misplaced Pages. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Agriculture 08:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - based on the belief that letting this project die a natural death after being defeated in anything it attempts is more productive and less divisive than blowing it up into a gigantic VfD debate which invites glorious martyrdom for the Defenders of All That Is Good And Decent In The World, Including Fluffy Bunnies (tm). FCYTravis 08:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP--MONGO 08:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Misplaced Pages does not need it's own misguided version of the PTC. Gateman1997 08:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Consider the effect of this policy on users uploading material, which maybe is legal, legitimate etc..., they may be intimidated by the scope, complexity and process involved in moderation. Digital Thief 08:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep however misguided. They need a working definition of 'decency' before I could really comment. I believe in (almost) total free speech (which is more important than how many penis pics we can cram into autofellatio), but free-speech needs to cut both ways. Shall we censor the prudes as they burn the flag of the first amendment? Lord, save us from the tyranny of liberals! An important exploration of the borders of Misplaced Pages:Profanity and 'WP not censored' could be made here. --Doc (?) 08:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Scientific images are alright, however why have a porno photo of sexual acts when a illustration would do just fine? For the user below, this Wikiproject helps to deal with those images. Banes 08:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't feed the trolls, nothing to see here, move along please. Pilatus 08:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
And ban the originator of the project for his penis-waving invocation of Florida law. Pilatus 15:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. People are free to take the matter to Misplaced Pages Policies if they feel the need to do so. Rama 08:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Reasons listed above in response to User: Doc glasgow. --A. J. Luxton 09:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I understand that the proposers of this project are acting in good faith, but I think they're sadly misguided. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a compendium of human knowledge, and the fact that some of that knowledge makes some people uncomfortable does not mean it shouldn't be included. Nobody should be able to control what others can and can't see here, provided it's well-written factual information, regardless of the subject. "Think of the children!!1!" is something of a smokescreen; the world at large isn't padded, brightly-coloured and child-safe, neither is the Web, neither is Misplaced Pages - that's what parents are for. In any case, I think the idea that children will somehow be damaged by accidently seeing an article on some bizarre sexual practice is false - in my (admittedly limited) experience they're more likely to fail to understand what's being described, be bored and go somewhere else, or find the whole thing screamingly funny. But that's another debate that shouldn't be cluttering up this page. Finally, whether it's actually the case or not, this project have done themselves no favours by choosing a name that sounds like yet another of the rabid Christian-fundamentalist censorship groups that seem to be popping up all over the US these days. It should be deleted, but in a civil manner. PeteVerdon 09:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors, and is edited from outside Florida too. If Wikipedians want to protect the wee 'uns, they can do it as private persons. — JIP | Talk 09:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete While the debates around this "project" could be fun, I think it is just not worth keeping. Also, while there are - in my opinion - points that could be debated about such images, most certainly WP will not censor itself just because parents hold funny ideas about what their children should see or not, and then expect other people to do their job for them. That is not even worth debating about. -- AlexR 09:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Allow those concenred with the minuteae (sp) of Florida Law to discuss possible violations and take actions within the 'pedia framework. If they or their actions show that being located n Florida is a major hazard, we'll have to move the 'peia somewhere(s) else. (Distribution is probably going to happen anyway.) Rich Farmbrough 09:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This whole tyranny of the "shove potentially offensive material in their faces" school of thought is really extreme, to take it to the level of VfDing a project meant to counter that. I don't know how much I like the idea of the project, but I do think we need to make certain articles a bit less bluntly offensive to the vast majority of the world's population. There's a fair balance between prudishness and offensiveness we can find that will satisfy most people. I figure having a project like this might help even things out. Everyking 10:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Misplaced Pages truly was an immoral and illegal hellbin of indecency, then the state of Florida would have already raised issue. Foppish troublemaking. And, my shaky grip of geography notwithstanding, isn't Florida in the United States of America, which has a Supreme Court holding the view that work containing potentially explicit images is only obscene if when "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"? If this this page remains, then the terrorists have already won. Proto t c 10:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. POV pushing clubs shouldn't be allowed whatsoever. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This sort of project is probably acceptable for userspace where extreme POV is tolerated. Userfy if anyone is willing to take it in. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking at the comments further, I have to agree with Geogre (I always agree with Geogre's keep votes) and Scimitar. I also find Everyking's argument reasonable. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete See below -Harmil 10:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
To quote the page in question:
Wikiproject Wikipedians for Decency was started 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 Additionally since relevant sections of Florida Law have been located
This makes it quite clear that the goal is to impose a POV on Misplaced Pages, and that the laws of Florida are a secondary concern. A project which set as its goal the investigation of state, federal and international law on Misplaced Pages would be welcome, but this is not that project. -Harmil 10:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. 1. censoring the (perceived) censors is ... inconsistent? ironic? 2. driving people who support this underground and removing a central point for debate will accomplish precisely nothing. 3. I believe that there should be some standard of decency - mind you, the particular standard I'm likely to argue for is very permissive, so it will probably upset many Wikipedians for Decency, but it is not all-permissive (just my two cents: explicit images should be included but only when they actually make a significant contribution to an article; also nudes and body parts are generally ok). I think both sides are overreacting. ObsidianOrder 11:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. The key issue here is not censorship, but the policies this project runs afoul of: Neutral point of view, No legal threats, and Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. The stated goal of the project is to "promote standards of decency" (read: promote a point of view); it is insinuated that Misplaced Pages or its editors are in violation of Florida law; if allowed to proceed, the project may have a chilling effect. In addition, it seems likely to encourage bad faith editing; indeed, it already appears poised for a witch hunt of some kind.
  2. Refusing to accept a project of this nature may help to limit disruption by its members.
  3. I agree. However, in my opinion, it's only necessary to confine "indecent" material to the specific articles where it must be addressed. If someone looks up a "questionable" topic, they should find all the information Misplaced Pages has available, including relevant images. Such a standard can be upheld without the oversight of an unpopular project.
‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 12:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - if there are problems with the issue of explicit images (which there may well be), then they should be dealt with in the same way as any other policy issue. A Wikiproject is not the way to go about it. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I'm sure someon can respond by creating a wikiproject for lack of censorship and I like to be able to keep track of the sides.Geni 11:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep See EveryKing's comments --Ryan Norton 11:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - As above, not censored for minors. Institutions such as schools and colleges have filtering software on their proxy servers which will automagickally block any pages they deem uncouth based on content, and parents should have more sense than to bollock their kid if they are reading encyclopaedia articles on body parts and the amazing array of things one can do with them. This is a non-issue that is being made a problem. --Veratien 12:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep on principle. Of all possible avenues for discussion, VfD is probably the least productive—though it's the most productive in terms of guaranteeing input. Refuse to vote on merits of the project. Not in bad faith, whether it's fundamentally compatible with Misplaced Pages obviously disputed → not VfD's business yet. Polls are evil. JRM · Talk 12:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP - This vfd is an attempt to silence. Those discussing on this page have no Admin authority or other powers. The page was simply created because Jimbo Wales believed that File:Autofellatio 2.jpg was not a vision for Wiki and we agreed and wanted to use the powers of persuasion to change. --Noitall 12:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: the fact that Jimbo Wales dislikes the autofellatio image is not really relevant. Jimbo is just another editor, and while his opinion is interesting Misplaced Pages is not a dictatorship or Jimbo's private fiefdom. --Ngb 16:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think this project is going to accomplish much, but it has a right to exist. If the actions of its members are disruptive or violate WP policy, they'll be dealt with. Carbonite | Talk 12:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but certainly not in this form. Expand scope and move to a NPOV name. Maybe Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Image review - We sure could use some people who would look after the inclusion guidelines for images on content and legal matters. But fighting only for "decency", whatever that is, is too limited and misguided. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If some people feel they see a problem (any problem) with wikipedia and want to address it by organising and discussing it through a WikiProject, then I'm more than fine with that. Shanes 13:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: We don't need to be debating the purpose of the page when deciding whether the page can be kept or not. That people don't want to join it is unsurprising, but that's not the question. Did the "delete" people also wish to delete Schoolwatch, m:inclusionists, or m:deletionists, with their calls to action and vote? Weren't all three of those similarly "trying to dictate" the content of the project? Weren't all three mobilizing votes? I would support deleting this page if all future party pages were similarly deleted, and all extant and operative ones were. Schoolwatch, in particular, has generated more name calling and bad feelings than anything I've seen. This one tells people to vote their consciences and looks for alternatives so that information is kept. For this people want to fly into hysterics? Sheesh. Kill all political party pages on Misplaced Pages, or leave this one alone. Geogre 13:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT and pretty much everything above. Existing procedures and policies for content, disputes and deletion should suffice. --IByte 11:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disagreeing with what you say, defending to the death your right to say it. Cheers! -- BDAbramson 13:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Strong Delete. I have trouble seeing where this fits. There are many reasons to delete something, none of which need a new special project. And having looked closer, it is even worse than I thought.--Apyule 13:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The attempts at censorship is insulting. horseboy 13:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If some people disapprove of explicit images on Misplaced Pages, and want to organize themselves, it's their freaking business. Strong keep; move to a personal page at worst. - Mike Rosoft 13:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There a lot of sensitive articles and images on Misplaced Pages, but there's no need for censoring them. --Madchester 13:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
So you want to censor people discussing images and Wiki instead? --Noitall 13:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, while this project will never go anywhere (we loves our free speech around here), there is no reason to delete it. This is not a personal attack on anyone, and people can honestly hold these views consistent with a NPOV, it is not fair to call it POV pushing. NoSeptember 13:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and censor this profound and shocking indecency. Won't somebody think of the children? — Trilobite (Talk) 13:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Whereas I am inclined to think of these people as right wing prudes wearing Leviticus Bible quote T shirts, we should give them some more time. They could help stop vandals uploading goatse and the like. I don't agree on censorship, but if they're just keeping wiki on the right side of the law, then that's OK. But I'd rather Jimbo just moved the servers to some island with no laws of any kind, try England.- Hahnchen 14:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: I do not consider myself a prude, but such images as the autofellatio are entirely unnecessary for Misplaced Pages and adds little to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if you all allow these images to come to Misplaced Pages en masse, Misplaced Pages will be censored anyways by existing internet censors, such as those that exist for certain countries and those that exist for corporations. Misplaced Pages will be put on the same level as porno sites, which should never happen. Also, lest we forget overtly-violent images. Why don't we upload some MPG's from certain websites showing various ways of death (woman hit by a train, man blown up, etc)? By the logic of certain members here, those should be allowed as well.
The world isn't ready for some of these images. Don't shove them down their throats (which is, ironic to this argument, POV). --tomf688 14:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, it's about time we started enforcing "no VFD of wikipedia: namespace". I don't think it's a good idea to use VFD to discuss policy, it's overloaded enough as is. Should we warn the nominator, and close this discussion, say in hmm, 24 hours? Kim Bruning 14:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Very Speedy Delete Everytime you people lose, you change the rules.. I didn't see you object before the votes were counted--172.130.8.51 14:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Who is "you people"? Kim didn't even vote before this point. Besides, it probably won't be deleted anyways because there isn't a large enough majority. --tomf688 14:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. There are some good points raised by this, but the use of legal threats is disruptive to the mission of the wiki. Sdedeo 14:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Misplaced Pages having its own Taliban Ministry Of Vice And Virtue would destroy Misplaced Pages as we know it. It would be far less damaging to simply IP ban Florida, or the entire US if necessary. Better to lose a limb than die from gangrene. 194.216.55.225
  • Delete for all the reasons give above -Splash 14:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, since VFD has no jurisdiction here. — Dan | Talk 14:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is no purpose for this WikiProject. Any image that is to be removed will undergo IfD like any other, and the community will decide there. Standards are personal: an attempt to force a person's standards on the community would be rejected anyway. This seems to me an attempt to encourage a group of people to adopt a common standard, which is fine, except that they can do nothing about it. So basically, if you want to stick this on your User Page as a "I will begin an IfD for Images that don't meet these criteria", feel free. But since your criteria will be ignored by the rest of the community, this Project is a waste of time. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:38:57, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyone has a POV. Schoolwatch, for example, is dedicated to pushing every school in existence into Misplaced Pages. Regardless of our personal feelings, let's try to remember that this isn't article-space, thus POV isn't so important. Even if you view them as nutty-nutty-nutbars, they certainly have a right to strive for the unatainable, since clearly there will never be a consensus to censor Misplaced Pages. I'm at work, so I don't use the random article button. I'd recommend that they don't, either. Incidentally, all of the "We'll put porn on every page just to piss you guys off" responses seem a trifle moronic, and border on trolling. Take a deep breath and try to remember nobody will die either way.--Scimitar 14:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
While the project itself is not in article space, its purpose is to make POV changes in the main or image namespaces. This is different from promoting a point of view that all schools should be included: the school articles are NPOV, while the decency-adjusted articles would be biased in favor of a particular standard. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete due to incredibly dangerous precedent this project would set. Perceptions of decency are only useful when everyone is equally offended. --Several Times 14:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with a POV wikiproject, if there are people who want to discuss a subject in a POV way. If they write a policy on that subject, however, it should not be accepted unless it is discussed and by the wikipedia-wide community, and has reached consensus. (Which I hope it will not.) Eugene van der Pijll 14:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Arguments about suppression seem valid enough. VfD isn't the place to argue about the views of people. Sam Vimes 15:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, while I do not personally support the aims of this Wikiproject, I believe it is better to allow this kind of thing to operate in the open than to force it underground. Misplaced Pages has transformed in the last couple years from a small town into a large city; as Geni recently pointed out on the mailing list, you have to expect political parties to form. Trying to suppress one just makes it worse, and increases animosity. Better to have the aims of the group out in the open; openness is good. Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP. We are not here to vote on whether we agree with the aims of the project, but whether the project page can and should be deleted. These are two entirely different issues and must be treated as such. Just because we don't like this WikiProject and because it is our POV that it could be harmful to Misplaced Pages does not give us the right to delete its page. It is one thing to oppose this project and its actions and another to censor those who disagree with us. BDAbramson sums this up perfectly with his quote above: "Disagreeing with what you say, defending to the death your right to say it." --Canderson7 15:41, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Week keep -- I would vote delete if I could be persuaded that censoring this project wouldn't be just as wrong as the project's plans to censor other parts of Misplaced Pages. --Ngb 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, who will determine what is decent...? Don't think so. BillyCreamCorn 16:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is merely a misguided and irrational attempt to force a POV down our collective throats, against WP:POINT and Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors. This is just a pipe dream that will eventually -- and hopefully -- be abandoned, IMO. However, let's keep in mind that VfDing this page isn't how to go about dealing with this waste of resources and otherwise good editors; succinctly put, VfD articles, not the projects. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 16:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. However, I'd like to see the name of the project change to something less prima facie POV, and the project's supporters really should explain their reasons for the project much more thoroughly. See my comments on the project's talk page for details on what I'm getting at. - Haunti 16:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP as a protection of free speech and as a means of complying with applicable law. Many decry what they call the "censorship" goals of the projec, yet removing this project page would be attempting to silence the viewpoint of the project participants. Also, many delete votes take issue with the concept of determining what is decent, or deciding who gets to determien what is decent. This not a new concept, nor was it introduced by this project or these Wikipedians. We must understand that it is US and Florida law which mandate decency. As with any other law, citizens/corporations/groups have a responsibility to determine how the law applies to them and to abide by the law. The project members are trying to comply with that law. If you find the law ambiguous or not to your liking, then your disagreement is primarily with the legal system. Just because some members of Misplaced Pages happen to believe society would be better off without these laws, or with amended versions of the laws, that does not change current reality. As tempting as it may be to glorify the internet as some borderless utopia, the fact is that this project is not above or outside of the law. Johntex 17:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    don't you think that would be a better argument if there was such a law?--172.130.8.51 17:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you claiming there are no laws pertaining to indecency on the books today, or that none of them apply to Misplaced Pages, or something else? Johntex 17:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Although I agree with all the Voltaire sentiments expressed above, as I read the project page, its aims are to develop and then enforce a policy that will have been determined by a small group of like-minded moral stentorians. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to go beyond free speech. It is one thing to deplore nudity; another to take actions to enfocre your POV. Dottore So 18:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. In theory their basic idea is not wrong or anti POV, but this should be part of an expansion or modification of the current vague Florida reference on the WP:NOT policy. Creating a cabal to "police" articles is not acceptable within the WP:NPOV guidelines.Gateman1997 18:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Im fairly new to Wiki-stuff and so far I love most of it! But I was shocked by some of the things on here, I just clicked on the Autofellatio image linked above and I cant beleive such filth is allowed on here. Im also worried about the pornography, especially big-bust ones, which is on here, not only because children are watching but because as someone said, the law could shut down Misplaced Pages (and take away this valuable resource) and because we will probably be blocked by many libraries! Ive heard that a lot of poor people can only read the internet at libraries so I take it that all you voting delete would want to strip poor people of the right to read wikipedia just so you can get your jollies seeing a man fellate himself! Lets set some standards people and let Misplaced Pages live! :) -DavidsCrusader 18:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • comment the picture autofellatio was vandalsim, it would have been deleted even if there wasn't a self proclaimed morality council, no one has threatened to block wiki from any libraries, and no one has threatend and legal action--172.130.8.51 18:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It's called due dilligence. Just because no one has filed suit doesn't mean you can ignore the law. - Haunti 19:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Just so I can put your statement into context, are you a lawyer in the state of Florida? Your advice regarding due dilligence made me wonder. If not, what do you base your advice on? - Tεxτurε 19:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I'm not a lawyer in Florida, and I'm not offering legal advice. I'm a Wikipedian who doesn't want our beloved site to get shut down by potential lawsuits. If you care to read my comments on the Project's talk page, you'll see that I, like you, don't like where the Project is currently headed. However, it's irresponsible to ignore the possible implications of having potentially illegal materials on WP. That's pretty self-evident, and you shouldn't require a lawyer to advise you to not break the law. For all I know, I'm using the term "due diligence" incorrectly (I'm not in law school quite yet, ask me again in a couple of years). However, it's simply common sense to make every effort to avoid breaking the law, even if it's a stupidly moralistic one like the Decency Law in Florida. - Haunti 19:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This "WikiProject" appears to be a project to impose a systemic bias upon Misplaced Pages. It therefore appears to be inherently in violation of the NPOV core principle. Its stated goals also appear to be in violation of WP:NOT. --FOo 18:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If you want a "keep wikipedia legal" project create that. Wynler 19:17:39, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • Delete this flys in the face of the very openness that allows even humble AOL anons like myself to participate--205.188.116.12 19:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. WP:NOT is clear on the issue that this encyclopedia is not censored for minors. Florida law is subject to the judgment of the United States Supreme Court that an obscene work is "taken as a whole". That means Misplaced Pages as a whole. One or two raunchy images, usually deleted if they have no legitimate use in the encyclopedia, could never trump the incredible and manifest usefullness of this work as a reference. I believe the originators of this Wikiproject are well-meaning but they misinterpret both the Florida and federal obscenity laws and the project is all too susceptible to being used as a tool to enforce a small group's view of what is "decent". Incidentially, nothing in this vote should be construed as provision of legal services related to Florida law.--Briangotts (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Point of Interest 1

Note the number of personal attacks leveled at the supposed character of the members of the project. I don't feel such is appropriate in this discussion. Agriculture 06:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Another point of interest: Agriculture, I don't feel it's appropriate to post an aggressive rejoinder under every single vote you disagree with. It's not necessary, or customary, or well-regarded. Bishonen | talk 07:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
If you feel I have been aggressive and uncivil, please point out how and I will rectify it, I am merely trying to point out that a lot of people don't seem to have perused all the documents in question and don't seem to even understand the clearly stated purpose of the WikiProject. Agriculture 07:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Certain users are continually deleting my comments to misrepresent my views on this page. I request they be made to stop. Agriculture 07:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not feel it appropriate for Agriculture to try to engage in debate with every person voting delete. I'll assume good faith but notice how many trolls do just that? Please do not hound those who vote different than you, especially at VfD. Thanks, Redwolf24 07:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I will cut it down then as you request. I feel the users below have not even read the article in question and are rallying to enforce a POV on Misplaced Pages. I qualify this by pointing out that if one reads the article in question, most of the objections below don't make much sense in context as they object to things not proposed. I will cease editing for tonight but reserve the right to restore any deleted comments. Agriculture 07:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
They're rallying to enforce a POV on wikipedia, well aren't you rallying to enfore YOURS? By the way my intent is by no means to sound hostile and I'm not trying to start a fight. Respectfully, Redwolf24 07:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm simply rallying to try and preserve a page where people can discuss all POV's and try to come to a NPOV decision on decency as Misplaced Pages Standards, Guidelines, and Florida Law define it. How is that POV? Their POV is that "anyone wanting to discuss standards of decency must be prudes and shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages". Agriculture 07:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The first stated purpose of this project is to "coordinate and promote standards of decency on Misplaced Pages", which means that its primary goal is censorship, which is not permitted on WikiPedia. The title of the project supports this interpretation, as what is "decent" is intrinsically POV. As it is now, the legal arguments are secondary to the project. If someone were to create a project which focused only on the legal aspects and not on the decency aspects, my feelings might be different. ManoaChild 20:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Mmmhmm, I'm not gonna retort as I'm not interested in an arguement. Now allow me to move this to the bottom as the top should always be the votes. Redwolf24 07:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Applicable Florida Law

847.011 Prohibition of certain acts in connection with obscene, lewd, etc., materials; penalty.--

(1)(a) Any person who knowingly sells, lends, gives away, distributes, transmits, shows, or transmutes, or offers to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, or transmute, or has in his or her possession, custody, or control with intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise in any manner, any obscene book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument for obscene use, or purporting to be for obscene use or purpose; or who knowingly designs, copies, draws, photographs, poses for, writes, prints, publishes, or in any manner whatsoever manufactures or prepares any such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character; or who knowingly writes, prints, publishes, or utters, or causes to be written, printed, published, or uttered, any advertisement or notice of any kind, giving information, directly or indirectly, stating, or purporting to state, where, how, of whom, or by what means any, or what purports to be any, such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character can be purchased, obtained, or had; or who in any manner knowingly hires, employs, uses, or permits any person knowingly to do or assist in doing any act or thing mentioned above, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of a violation of this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) The knowing possession by any person of three or more identical or similar materials, matters, articles, or things coming within the provisions of paragraph (a) is prima facie evidence of the violation of said paragraph.

(2) A person who knowingly has in his or her possession, custody, or control any obscene book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, film, any sticker, decal, emblem or other device attached to a motor vehicle containing obscene descriptions, photographs, or depictions, any figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument for obscene use, or purporting to be for obscene use or purpose, without intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of violating this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. In any prosecution for such possession, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove the absence of such intent. ...

You left out the part that in order to be obscene the work must be such that: "Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Certainly as a whole Misplaced Pages has literary merit and aside from the most obviously unencyclopedic stuff, virtually all part of Misplaced Pages have literary, artistic and/or scientific value. Dragons flight 07:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't appear to be part of Florida law, and so doesn't apply. Plus the whole isn't necessarily what should be taken into account, the parts are important too. Agriculture 07:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
It is in Section 001 where they define "obscene". Dragons flight 07:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
It's also the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of obscene. Which makes it apply, any state law to the contrary notwithstanding. FCYTravis 07:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I agree then, but I think we need to discuss how to determine if the images on Misplaced Pages have these values which protect them. That is what the project is for, discussion. Agriculture 07:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The images on Misplaced Pages have these values because they are on Misplaced Pages - all of the potentially objectionable images that we display are in the context of articles that are meant to inform users of physiological, biological, sociological, or historical facts, and are therefore at least of literary or scientific value. -- BDAbramson 12:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Wow! That's some pretty messed up legislation. I'm glad that I don't live in Florida. --Apyule 07:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You've mentioned several times that that section says you can't distribute such images to minors. For the record, the section that discusses minors, section 012 , says "It is unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, rent, or loan for monetary consideration to a minor: (a) Any picture... which depicts nudity or sexual conduct". Since we are neither selling, renting nor loaning for monetary consideration, the section doesn't apply. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 13:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You forgot this part: lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise in any manner,...the law applies absolutely.--MONGO 14:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Asbestos was talking about Section 12, the one specifically about minors. That does not include the text you have in italics, and furthermore contains the requirement that the material be "harmful to minors", which is defined in Section 1 with the usual "no serious value" etc of the standard obscenity definition. PeteVerdon 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Point of interest 2

User:Agriculture has indicated on Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion that he/she doesn't think that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and that "most bodies" hold this same view, though when asked to point to proof of his claim, he resues to do so. Just something worth pointing out. Zoe 07:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Vote for deletion. Useless ideology is worthless, to conform with Florida law it'd be possible to just block all incoming IP traffic from Florida. Lullabye Muse 08:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

An amusing but highly unlikely outcome. :p However, this 'Florida Law' problem could be rectifed by moving the servers to Switzerland... :p --Veratien 12:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Point of interest 3

Repeatedly, I see that some suggest moving the servers out of Florida...unfortunately most states have similar legislation regarding these issues. Everyone needs to take a step back and recognize that the people attempting to start this project are not your enemies...we all enjoy the benefits of a free Misplaced Pages. The purpose of this project was to establish some baseline from which to both adhere to written law and ensure that Misplaced Pages becomes the most respected source of information on the web. There are some, such as myself that feel that some items in Misplaced Pages are not encyclopedic and possibly violate applicable laws. We may be right and we may be wrong. Censorship of this project is a double standard.--MONGO 10:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

OMG isn't it about time the south tries to cede the union again? common, we won't stop you this time, I promise--Mr.Anon, goes to the VFD 13:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Is Montana in the south...maybe compared to Canada. Read some history...more guns+more men=victory, in almost every instance.--MONGO 13:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that worked out well, anyway.. what's Montana have to do with Florida? and what makes you think AOL stands for Canada On Line?--172.130.8.51 13:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

A good point. Jimbo Wales, I recall, deleted the Autofelliato image stating that it had no absolutely no place on Misplaced Pages. Anyway, as said before, this project aims to set a standard for what belongs and what does not. At the same time, it would be nice to keep with Florida Law. P.S. Peace everyone, why is this debate so violent? Banes 10:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What about moving the servers to Tuvalu or Antarctica ? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


I think moving the servers to Antarctica would be cool, ha ha, get it? cool. Giggle giggle snort;(Please ignore that weak attempt at humor.) Moving along, IByte, you must put your vote above this where the other votes are. Banes 11:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete as potentially harmful to the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages. Pornographic images can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis without an organized censorship campaign. Haikupoet 20:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Point of Interest 4

Regardless of what the outcome is, I suggest that the result of this vote be treated as Delete, the number of personal attacks leveled above and the extreme bias against discussion exhibited by a number of the voters indicates even if the result is No consensus or Keep, they will see to it that no real discussion can be had, and disrupt any attempts at dialog. Note the user who has "signed up" for the project with the outrageous comment that objectionable content needs to be placed on every page. This kind of disruptive attitude will just result in a lot of useless work by project members at attempting to discuss while countless acts of vandalism are committed by those who disagree with the discussion because it is after all the wrong kind of free speech for Misplaced Pages. As such save us all a lot work and stress and Speedy Delete. Agriculture 15:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The Project endorses the removal of educational images. Why do you think it's being mocked? -- A Link to the Past 15:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
No, it endorses discussion. We're being mocked because people have no respect for civility in discussion. But then this is Misplaced Pages, being civil is against Misplaced Pages Policy. Agriculture 16:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Discussion is not policy, discussion is merely discussion. Agriculture 16:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, no to you, you do have the right to be an overt bible thumper, you do not have the right make that into policy, removing a policy of censorship, is no more a form of censorship, then removing a persons 'right' to own slaves, is civil rights violation--172.130.8.51 16:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
So, like, it wouldn't be a problem for a project to endorse racism on Misplaced Pages? This needs not any discussion; there is no logical dispute that an image like Autofellatio is not educational. -- A Link to the Past 16:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Seems like your opinion consists of "My POV is NPOV, all others are irrelevant and no logical dispute can be made but mine." Agriculture 16:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
It is. If you had a logical dispute, it would have been presented. You're stumbling over what you say, and your argument is constantly changing to suit it ("well, okay, educational images are protected, but I say they're not educational!"). It just seems you're on a crusade to put your personal opinion on decency into articles. Should we delete Sex, Anal sex and Oral sex? -- A Link to the Past 16:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
As a note, I'm taking advice I've been given and not feeding the troll. Agriculture 16:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Trolling =/= Trying to uphold Wikipedian policy. And, by the way, stating the fact that your argument lacks logic is not trolling, either. -- A Link to the Past 16:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Look here, Link to the Past, why is a color photograph of a man sucking his own penis more educational than a simple drawing. Educational? I was never taught how to do that in school! Must have gone to the wrong place...grumble grumble.. Anyway guys, please stop calling each other trolls because that is in itself trolling. Peace Out! Banes 18:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

See speedy keep above

Ok, let's actually stop vfding the wikipedia: namespace, as per original policy.

I'd like to close this vfd and warn the nominator, within the next 24 hours. Any objections?

Kim Bruning 14:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean delete the project or close this page? Banes 14:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Kim means that she wants to close the VfD, and yes, Kim, I object. There is no rule that says that you cannot VfD the wikipedia: namespace. See . Sdedeo 14:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are a whole bunch of objections up above, labelled as delete votes. I don't recall a policy that says WP: space is somehow out of scope to VfD. -Splash 14:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    Support the closure of this Vfd...nominator even stated that Vfd's in WikiProjects namespaces is unusual....I propose the section regarding tagging of "indecent" articles and images be eliminated along with the template that goes with it.--MONGO 14:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course you can VfD a WikiProject or a page in the Misplaced Pages: namespace. The nominator has broken no rules. This is manifestly not a speedy keep. David | Talk 14:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Kim, this project needs to be punched in the face. Punch! -- A Link to the Past 14:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this may be an important vote which should continue. Note that the nomination policy says "pages in Misplaced Pages namespace... can be nominated for deletion on VfD, and can be deleted as such. However, this is relatively rare." ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
*Nod* while it's possible to delete pages in the Misplaced Pages: project space, it often ends up as a majority vote on the policy, project, or proposal stated. "Misplaced Pages is not a democracy" , and having VFD as a backdoor like this is probably not a very good idea. I suggest moving this discussion (copying it to the page) to the relevant talk page for the wikiproject itself. Would that be ok? Kim Bruning 14:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I feel that this would not be okay. As you can see, there is a lot of controversy in this, and many see it as a very legitimate vote (which it is). It seems to me that the vote here is not on whether material is appropriate for children (policy is quite clear on that), but rather the intent of the Project, as it should be. I oppose closing the VfD before it is complete. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:59:24, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • How can a majority of 4 people? be enough to overide a majority of delete votes, numbering in the dozens?? obviously, all the poeple who voted delete thought they could vote, same for the people who voted keep, pulling the plug now simply says, too bad, keep wins on a technicality--172.130.8.51 15:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
No, don't close this. The chance has passed now. If you want to make it clear Misplaced Pages: nominations shouldn't be allowed on grounds of degenerating into majority votes on policy (which is fine by itself) have that written up as an explicit guideline so we can refer to it. Technically closing it would be fine since it's quite obvious this is not getting any form of consensus that could matter, but you're setting yourself up for accusations of pushing through your opinion on something (in this case, the nonviability of VfD for policy discussions). Best avoid that by either giving this its five days, or convincing Jimbo to do it for you. Anything short of that is going to be unproductive. Well, even more unproductive, I mean. JRM · Talk 15:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think VFD should be where we decide policy, so I certainly wouldn't object to this VFD being closed. I hate this particular project and it's aims but I respect it's right for the community to shoot the idea down, on the project page. -- Joolz 15:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that there is a difference between the examples cited by the people on the VfD talk page and this VfD. Which is, we are not here deleting or attempting to change a Misplaced Pages policy. If WP:VfD or WP:POINT was up for deletion, of course the nomination would be removed. I suppose this VfD is about policy (suitable for children), but the debate here seems more about enforcement of a policy than changing a policy. I dunno, I just feel that closing it now is going to be counterproductive. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:59:02, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
    I'd suggest that this isn't a VfD about a policy. It's a VfD about the use of a Misplaced Pages collaboration mechanism (namely, a WikiProject) for a purpose diametrically opposed to a Misplaced Pages core policy It's like "WikiProject Imposing An Anti-Sex POV". Should we next allow "WikiProject Inserting Systemic Bias" and "WikiProject NPOV-is-Satan"? --FOo 19:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The consensus is that that this is a legit VfD and it should be allowed to run its course. I can't see where you have consensus for speedy keey. Pilatus 15:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - I do not feel the admins have the right to suppress discussion which is clearly ongoing and has a point to it, and I feel that closing this VfD could well be construed as suppressing discussion. Rob Church 16:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Not as harmless as it seems

I suspect the deletions are mainly due to the title containing a personal attack. Violetriga also refers to WP:POINT. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Neither of which apply if the Misplaced Pages: prefix really does make something exempt from deletion, regardless of POV, as was implied on this page--172.130.8.51 15:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
While I have seen some people voting keep because of it's spot in the Misplaced Pages space, I remember that a Wikiproject dealing with either some type of Jewish bias (not sure which one) was deleted via thia process. Plus, in my own defense, this and voting keep for the autofellatio image is the only thing I have done in this recent debate over Decency vs Censorship. I have not deleted pages or anything to that relating to this at all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
As of now, the votes stand at Keep 28 votes. Delete 38 votes. I think that is about right, I may have missed a vote. Banes 15:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I counted 49 votes. -- A Link to the Past 20:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Point of Interest 5

I have been looking around and reading and I beleive our group has been infiltrated by outsiders who have attempted to show crazy views in order to discredit us, strawmen arguments. Look at User:Brodo on it he says that MONGO who is here with WfD is just a "neofascist sockpuppet". I would like it to be noted that the moral relativists AKA those for deleting this on this page are resorting to such nasty and uncouth tactics to win their arguments, this is notlike Misplaced Pages! -DavidsCrusader 19:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • perhaps you want to make it more exclusive, maybe you can set up a second council to determine if someone is moral enough to be a part of your group, that should make it look less like you're trying to force a very narrow viewpoint on other people--205.188.116.12 19:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
People going against the 'Don't be a dick' aspect of the Misplaced Pages:Policy_trifecta shouldn't undermine the reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, nor be used to support the reasoned arguments, again, on either side. It should be an irrelevance. KeithD (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd be careful tossing around terms like "moral relativists" on Misplaced Pages. If you believe that adhering to the NPOV policy is tantamount to moral relativism I'd think about finding somewhere else to spend your time. Oh, and by the way, I think if you knew me you'd probably be pretty quick to accuse me of being a "moral relativist" (ie - someone who doesn't see it necessary to oppose his viewpoints on others). And yet, I'm one of the strongest supporters of keeping the WfD project and not deleting it (yet). I'd hazard that it's exactly the kind of attitude you're presenting here that makes most users hesitant to support WfD. In other words, please tone it down a notch. - Haunti 20:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I am about 99% sure that the statement on User:Brodo is a joke. My guess is that both of them edited the George W. Bush article, and that Brodo was accused of using MONGO as a sockpuppet. That said (I speak only for myself here, but I'm sure it applies to others), I don't care who's doing the standard-creation. I oppose it anyway. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 20:03:05, 2005-08-17 (UTC)