Talk:Main Page/"Gay pornography" discussion March 2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gay pornography[edit]

*... that a review for the 2000 gay pornographic video A Young Man's World said its portrayal of fictional middle-aged men was demeaning to actual middle-aged men?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&direction=prev&oldid=481209226

Jeez guys. I left wikipedia a moment ago and my sister arrived and the main page was scrolled down and the words "gay pornography" emblazened on the front page of wikipedia on the screen when we entered the toom and that's the first thing she saw in the DYK section. Its very embarrassing! Must such content really be linked on the main page on weekends? "Not censored" appears to show no respect to parents who desire for their children to learn from wikipedia but ban them because wikipedia advocates such stuff on the front page at peak times and exposed them to it. The argument is that anybody at any time of the week or day in the world may be exposed to it but in my opinion there are certain topics which should not appear on the main page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You want us to ban the "certain topics" that you deem objectionable. As long as Dr. Blofeld isn't embarrassed in front of his sister, who cares what other people and cultures think? —David Levy 18:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Yawn. Hundreds of people killed in Brazzaville, dozens in the US, a gay porn video is somehow more objectionable than real life? Wow. No, okay, so we shouldn't link "objectionable" material at "weekends"? What the hell is this place becoming? (and I don't think you should be letting your sister and her kids into your "toom" by the sounds of things...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
What the hell is this place becoming?
A place where a cartoon episode about an anal probe provokes a firestorm, but a true story of murder and dismemberment is fine and dandy (as you know). —David Levy 18:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a family picnic. The point of an encyclopedia is to expose people to information. If you are fearful of being exposed to new information, or of inadvertently exposing others to new information, don't use encyclopedias. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Didn't we just have this argument last month?--WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't we have this "argument" every month? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The point of an encyclopedia is to expose people to information yes, but certain "information" may be questionable in the same way certain images such as child pornography are inappropriate for the wikicommons for instance which attempts to provide as wide a scope of "encyclopedic" images as possible. Images of child pornography are images same as any other but are clearly inappropriate in the same way that certain topics are inappropriate at least for the front page of wikipedia. OK so child pornography is illegal, but why is this so then? It it because there is some sense of morality behind the decision to make it illegal and that more than one person morally object to it? After all they are merely images, and we should all be open to all images to broaden our "encyclopedic" tastes. Society has values on certain topics and is opinionated on certain issues like gay pornography, there's no no denying that. I endorse the view that we should treat all topics fairly but certain topics push the boundary in which most people would consider acceptable on the front page of an encyclopedia. There is a reason why this conversation appears to have been had many times before is because people have some strong opinions on such topics. I have no objection to coverage of articles on pornographic films or actors on here, even gay or tranny ones, I just think linking to to topics like gay pornography on Saturdays afternoons on the front page of one of the most widely visited sites in the world is inappropriate that's all. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Rewind just a second, Doc. Are you actually complaining not about gay pornography in Wikipedia, but the appearance of the phrase "gay pornographic" on the main page? And you're embarrassed that your sister found out you have looked at a webpage containing the words "gay pornographic"? Do you think use of those words is something that we are lacking a proper "sense of morality" about? FormerIP (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for my repeated use of the phrase "gay pornographic", btw, but it's quite difficult to discuss without saying it. I'll try tho think of a euphemism before I post again in this thread. --FormerIP (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no objections to articles on gay pornography on wikipedia. I acknowledge there are a sizeable number of readers who might want to search for and read those, I support that. I just think it inappropriate to link to such topics directly on the main page of the encyclopedia at times when there are likely to be a maximum number of ill-suited people seeing it, yes. There seems to be an acceptance here that gay pornography is as suitable reading for anybody on a main page as any other encyclopedic topic and I dispute that. And its not just the "kids might see it, hide their eyes" view. Its just certain people myself included think it is not appropriate material for the main page of an encyclopedia based on what is considered socially/commercially acceptable in society. Would you advertise a gay pornography film on daytime television advertisements? Absolutely not. Why is this? Because there is a moral code in which people decide what or what not is appropriate viewing. Why is there a watershed for television? People have a moral code deciding what or what is appropriate for viewing in the face of the viewing population at the time. I support wikipedia's "not censored" approach but I find the endorsement of linking to such articles as in your face and a "we are free to do whatever we wish" approach with little regards to the norms of how people generally view topics. My opinion is that featuring a gay pornography film on the main page at such a time is like advertising a gay porno during the advert breaks on Saturday morning kids television. Oh how cool is it that we can do this. Aren't we cool for our breaking down of social restraints on wikipedia. True revolutionaries.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Images of child pornography are illegal and viewing them promotes an industry that is harmful to children. Advertising pornography in the middle of the day is also illegal, irrespective of whether doing so would actually harm anyone. Merely stating the words "gay porn" is not illegal and does not harm anyone at any time. Concerning your notion that "most people would consider" mentioning gay pornography "[un]acceptable on the front page of an encyclopedia", I highly doubt you have any reliable sources to back up that assertion but are instead merely assuming "most people" share your own values--and your own values are insufficient reasons to censor the main page of an encyclopedia. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
OK if I advertised a gay porno on daytime TV lets say during the break of Loose Women and This Morning and the News. Do you think the viewing public would consider it suitable and appropriate advertising? I don't just think thousands of people would be outraged I know they would get thousands of complaints. I see the linking of such topics on the main page in exactly the same way, its alerting the public to them in the way adverts do on television.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
False analogy. 1) Advertising gay pornos on daytime TV is illegal under US obscenity laws (forgive me for assuming you're American if you're not--yet in many other countries, this isn't even illegal at all, further demolishing your point), as I already said. Stating the words "gay porn" is not, and is in fact protected by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment (unlike actual obscenity). 2) Stating the words "gay porn" is utterly incomparable to graphically advertising it. Daytime TV advertisements of pornographic films, which are a) graphical and b) designed to arouse people and sell a product, are distinct from a) textual information that is b) designed to educate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
And what times would you want such a ban to take effect? Mornings/early afternoons, you say? Assuming you're in the US, that's nighttime in the UK, and early the next day in Australia, when one might presume such topics were "acceptable" in those locations. This is an international project, remember, so there's no way to pick some time period that's going to work everywhere. howcheng {chat} 20:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Its just certain people myself included think it is not appropriate material for the main page of an encyclopedia based on what is considered socially/commercially acceptable in society.
Please define "society".
"Certain people", based on their cultural norms, find the theory of evolution, religious beliefs other than their own, or photographs of unveiled women (or women in general) highly objectionable. Should we ban such content from the main page, or are your moral standards the correct ones? —David Levy 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The point of an encyclopedia is to expose people to information yes, but certain "information" may be questionable
And who decides which information is "questionable"? You?
in the same way certain images such as child pornography are inappropriate for the wikicommons for instance which attempts to provide as wide a scope of "encyclopedic" images as possible
You're comparing the words "gay pornography" with child pornography? Really?
Images of child pornography are images same as any other
No, they aren't. To understand why, please consider how they come to exist.
but are clearly inappropriate in the same way that certain topics are inappropriate at least for the front page of wikipedia.
You truly don't recognize the distinction?
And again, how are we to determine which topics are "inappropriate"? Whose moral standards should we apply? Yours?
Society has values on certain topics and is opinionated on certain issues like gay pornography, there's no no denying that.
Please define "society". Are you under the impression that every culture in the world shares your values? —David Levy 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are some restrictions on what featured articles are permitted to hit the front page based on exactly the same judgement unless I'm mistaken. Not at any time to I consider the linkage of such topics on the main page of an encyclopedic acceptable but to me it appears even more in your face on the weekend. Not a false analogy as the gay pornography link directly links to discussion of a topic which discusses material generally considered obscene otherwise it would be advertised in the mainstream. It needn't contain graphic images to be considered inappropriate, it is the reading material of a topic generally considered obscene which is ill-suited to be directly linked on the main page. Certain topics David are taboo, almost universally so, you can't deny that, whether some gays waving colored flags fully support them or not. Again there is proof that such topics are not considered appropriate in mainstream media by the decisions which are made to not feature them and it comes down to a moral code. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Stating the words "gay pornography" is not obscene. An encyclopedia page on the topic is not obscene, though it may discuss material that IS obscene. The way you get to anything obscene requires at least three steps: clicking on the link on the main page, then clicking on the sources the article provides, and then from there possibly finding a link or reference to obscene material. If you don't want to view obscene material, it's quite simple: don't view it. No one is pushing obscenity in your face. The only thing they're pushing in your face are two words--"gay porn"--and while it's unfortunate you are offended by those two words, they're not legally obscene, they're not factually obscene, and as part of "society" (whatever you define that as), they're not going away. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
It links directly on the main page to material discussing a topic generally considered obscene by society which clearly is considered so because otherwise it would be advertised and promoted in daily mainstream culture. Yes, society is a generalisation and there are obviously thousands of people who watch and enjoy gay pornography and very familiar with them. But general taboos do exist, there's no denying that. Should we as an encyclopedia make a judgement morally on individual people and activities which go on in the world? Absolutely not. I don't want wikipedia to be censored. I just think there are certain topics which stand out as ill-suited to appearing on a main page. That's my opinion, in the same way it is the opinion of media executives and govenrments who decide not to advertise pornography on daytime telvision and on billboards in the streets. They make such decisions for a reason. If gay pornography or any other "taboo" topic is generally and not harmful to anybody, why don't they endorse it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that dose of sanity Prototime. This discussion has many bad aspects. Firstly, I'm not American. Every cultural reference here is purely American. (The daytime TV programs and all that.) That highlights a fundamental problem. This is a global encyclopaedia. Every post that put this argument in an American context is of no relevance to me, or 95% of the world's population. Do the Americans posting here actually realise that? Secondly, it was just words. "Gay pornographic". There is absolutely nothing wrong with those words, in any context. They are just words. What they may link to might be questionable. I don't know. I can't be bothered looking. Do you see my point yet? Only someone wanting to look at "Gay pornographic" material would bother looking, and there's nothing wrong with that. As the good doctor above says, Wikipedia is not censored. Thirdly, the rest of the sentence where those two scary words are mentioned is actually quite negative. It's hardly a celebration of or promotion of gay porn at all. So let's be blunt. Gay porn exists. It's legal for consenting adults to access it in much of the world. To ban even mentioning here it would definitely be censorship. And we don't do that. (Well, not much anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Am I wrong though HiLo48 in thinking there are some restrictions on what featured articles are permitted to hit the front page based on exactly the same judgement?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're wrong. (See my reply below.) —David Levy 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there are some restrictions on what featured articles are permitted to hit the front page based on exactly the same judgement unless I'm mistaken.
You're mistaken. Our featured article director has stated that he decided against making the Jenna Jameson article TFA — not because its content is objectionable, but because he doesn't want to deal with complaints to that effect. (Users have commented that he's scheduled articles more likely to draw such criticism, so we don't quite understand this decision and aren't certain that it still stands.)
The only other featured article disqualified from TFA contention was Wikipedia, which subsquently lost its FA status.
Certain topics David are taboo, almost universally so, you can't deny that, whether some gays waving colored flags fully support them or not.
Telling words. —David Levy 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
But I ask David why then people would complain about Jenna Jameson being on the main page in a featured article? After all, they don't have to click the article and can avoid it as pornography exists right? Why do you think so many people would complain and think it inappropriate is the point I'm trying to make.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Because some people wish to restrict the main page's content according to their personal standards (though few equate gay rights activism with pornography).
As I've commented previously, such complaints generally seem to stem more from the perception that a subject is trivial or unimportant than from anything else (hence the controversy when a Pokémon-related article appears). A word or concept perceived as "naughty" helps to stir up the sentiment.
And when the TFA blurb refers to real-life murder and dismemberment, no one says a word about protecting children from "inappropriate" content.David Levy 21:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I'd agree with you that personal standards can interfere with a lot in the information world and that wikipedia is revolutionary because it attempts to rid of society's prejudices. Maybe its a 21st century norm to make it acceptable to discuss gay pornography as you eat your lunch, at least on the Internet, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would rather not be exposed to it. even if you don't click the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course you aren't. Likewise, many people don't wish to be exposed to the theory of evolution, religious beliefs other than their own, persons of mixed race, photographs of unveiled women (or women in general), and countless other things. Fortunately, Wikipedia forces no one to visit its main page. —David Levy 21:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"That's my opinion, in the same way it is the opinion of media executives and govenrments who decide not to advertise pornography on daytime telvision and on billboards in the streets. They make such decisions for a reason. If gay pornography or any other "taboo" topic is generally and not harmful to anybody, why don't they endorse it?"

Your definition of "obscene" is grossly incorrect. Since media executives and government officials--in the United States, mind you, and this is an international encyclopedia--have decided not to endorse tobacco advertisements, does that make a link to tobacco "obscene"? Would you argue with equal zeal against a link to the tobacco article being placed on the main page? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
They make decisions based on what they perceive is harmful to people. Tobacco is known to cause lung cancer. Is anal intercourse between two males the same as somebody enhaling some cigarette smoke? Why do you think they make Obscenity laws which makes it illegal to promote such subjects on mainstream daytime TV if it isn't considered a "harmful" topic. And its not just "arousing imagery" which is forbidden from mainstream media distribution such topics as a whole are generally avoided in mainstream daytime TV are they not? If so, why are they avoided? This is the point I'm trying to make, You cannot hide the fact that taboos exist in society which people, generally make decisions together and agree are not suitable. As I say I view an article appearing on the main about a gay pornographic film in the same way I would think about hearing it in a radio advert or TV advert, even without graphic imagery.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I find that attitude strange. Tipping the Velvet was a rather popular TV programme from the BBC, and I don't recall anyone objecting the the BBC's promotion of it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I must say I am utterly shocked that this complaint is coming from someone who's been involved with Wikipedia for six years and made more than 400,000 contributions to the project. This is somewhat worrying, to be honest. That someone who is so involved in the project can be so ignorant of basic policies and guidelines on censorship. This isn't even of the Human Centipede or the South Park episode level -- those were featured in the most prominent spot on the Main Page for twenty-four hours. We are talking about a phrase at the bottom of a section that is below the fold on most people's computers. And, as you see, almost no one has come to your defense. So, how about instead of complaining about how you or your sister are so sheltered in this 21st-century world that you can't even handle two damn words and just get over it. More embarrassing to the project than these two simple words is that we have someone contributing to a global encyclopedia as much as you do with these kinds of views. -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
What amuses me greater Tariqabjotu is how many people fully support the promotion of gay pornography on the main page of wikipedia with quite some passion and the lengths they will go to defend it. |Not to mention the need they feel to insult me because I feel that such content stands out on the main page. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
There was no promotion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Featuring articles on the main page DYK or featured is promoting it as a topic because it alerts the readers to it and says "look here, here's this article". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"Inviting people to read about x" ≠ "promoting x". —David Levy 22:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"The promotion of gay pornography"? By that logic, are we currently "promoting" Ponzi schemes? —David Levy 22:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've got some confessing to do. Previously, I've been a bit of a floating-voter when it comes to gay pornography. Didn't really know whether I was into it or not. In fact, because it's existence is so rarely mentioned by anyone and it is so difficult to find online, I wasn't even really aware of it. But all that has changed in the last few hours, since Wikipedia began promoting it so aggressively on the main page. In fact, I don't know why I'm even typing this. I have better things to do now.
So, whilst the idea that merely mention of the phrase "gay pornographic" could irreparably corrupt the morals of multiple English-speaking countries may sound absolutely ridiculous, I'm here to shake you all out of your sorry complacency. We may well have finally broken society with our stupidity. Our only saving grace may be that it is Sunday tomorrow, so most people don't have to get up for work anyway. Hopefully it will have worn off by Monday.
DYK has rotated now, by the way. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
So you would not argue with equal zeal against a link on the main page to the tobacco article. Then clearly, your own values are the ones dictating your opinion, not "society's" values, or else you wouldn't selectively apply the "censorship standard" established by the media and government officials to only topics you personally disagree with being on the main page. I think that's all anyone in this conversation needs to know to reject your reasoning. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Truth be told I couldn't really care less about either tobacco or gay pornography! They exist and have reliable sources written about them. Yes, the discussion of gay pornographic films on my web screen whilst eating lunch strikes me as a little alarming, but not exactly going to have be tearing my hair out. I really just wanted to see if anybody was really into that sort of material appearing on the main page and its told me a lot. It seems everybody is perfectly happy to eat their lunch and read about gay porn! Thanks guys!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Not me! As far as I'm concerned, you can forget lunch from now on... FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Really? That's not the impression I'm getting here. The impression I've got from everybody here is that they find it perfectly normal to read about gay pornography during dinner and its as normal at that hour as drinking a cup of tea and perish the thought I might find it inappropriate reading.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you must have missed my post above. I won't be eating lunch from now on, because I will be busy. FormerIP (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • How old is this sister that Dr. Blofeld is trying to protect? If she's old enough to be able to read and understand the DYK hook, which read "... that a review for the 2000 gay pornographic video A Young Man's World said its portrayal of fictional middle-aged men was demeaning to actual middle-aged men?", my guess is that she is already well aware of the existence of gay porn. --Orlady (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
She's 30 and is of the same opinion as me that it stands out as inappropriate viewing at that time of day and as a teacher she remarked that would be very embarrassing for a parent to walk into the room and see their kid looking at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)*
What should said parent be embarrassed of except their own inadequate parenting skills? If there are certain things they don't want their child to know, for whatever reason, then allowing that child to access an uncensored encyclopedia freely is probably a bad idea. If you're implying this might happen at school - because your sister is a teacher - then that would still be a concern for said parent to raise with their child's teachers. It is not our concern, we are not substitute parents. (e • nn • en!) 01:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ask any parent if they are happy with their kids reading about or watching gay pornography. Do you really they would unaminously all go "oh yes, I find my child gay websites and films every day to watch", I'm proud of reading about it, as its so normal in society now. Everybody here seems to think it a suitable domestic topic.

My sister was astounded that wikipedia had an article about gay pornography on the front page of the site. She said "and its an encyclopedia? Weird." her exact words. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And she wasn't upset by the Murder of Julia Martha Thomas article on the main page? Weird! Garion96 (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Either a child is young enough that they should not be allowed unsupervised use of the internet, or it is old enough that it should be aware that homosexuality exists, and that some adults of any sexuality look at pornography occasionally. There is no such thing as child.wikipedia.org; this is an adult site. Any parent should make sure that a child of adequate age is aware of such a thing as pornography: that is not the same as seeking out examples of it for them. As a teacher, I would never direct a class of younger children to Wikipedia unless it is a page I have checked and cached. Kevin McE (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I still reserve the right not to feel nauseous at dinner time, which seeing that article on the main page did.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Then do not look at Wikipedia at dinner time. Wikipedia regularly features gross topics on its Main Page, for example fornicating insects or insects feasting on excrement, which I found far more nauseous than anything related to human sexuality. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The consensus here seems to be that, while it is unfortunate that the two words "gay pornographic" offends you, such offense is unreasonable in the context of this encyclopedia. While you may desire not to be disgusted at dinner time, you do not reserve the right to impose an unreasonable standard of what is "disgusting" on the rest of Wikipedia's users. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As everybody here seems to strongly support the appearance of gay pornographic films on here at any hour of the week, I strongly urge you to write a notice at the top of the main page in that "if you have come to complain about the inappropriateness of pornographic related content on the main page there is a wide consensus that such content is supported. Please do not waste your time or anybody elses in requesting that such content be banned from the main page." No doubts somebody else will complain again and again about this sort of content so to avoid going round in circles you need to clarify this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your repeated failure to distinguish between the appearance of gay pornography, and the appearance of reference to gay pornography does not reflect well on you. I'm sure many more would object to explicit instances of the genre on the main page, but this is simply mature acknowledgement that such a thing exists. OTD yesterday referred to a prostitution service as well: that was neither an advertisement nor an encouragement. Kevin McE (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
So should we also include everything else that people complain about that shows up on the main page in this disclaimer? GB fan 15:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Fine then. You continue to abuse the editors who complain about such issues on the main page then and turn up in force to bully and insult them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you are referring to me in that post, but I don't think I have abused, bullied or insulted any editors. I just asked if you think we should include all the other things that people might complain about in the disclaimer. I would really like your opinion on that. GB fan 15:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It came across as sarcastic. I don't know, I don't hang about here much. Why not look into the issues you find yourself frequently having to defend or discuss and make them very clear to anybody complaining again what the policy is on it. There are certainly some issues which keep cropping up again and again and you said so above. So why not make the most frequent ones clear in a disclaimer? It would save a lot of time wasting (and editor disrspect for showing concerns about certain things)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I apologize then, I was not my intention to come across as sarcastic. I don't hang around here much either and don't defend the stuff that is on the main page. I think this is my fourth or fifth edit to this page in the last 3 months and 3 of them are in the last hour. GB fan 16:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if you want some more context on Dr. Blofeld's position, see his comment from my talk page. Frankly, I don't see any point in expending further energy on trying to convince him. This DYK item has been off the Main Page for nearly twenty-four hours and the clear consensus, with Dr. Blofeld being the sole objector, is that what was on the Main Page for those few hours was appropriate. Further, as is quite apparent, Dr. Blofeld is not open to being convinced and the root of his distaste toward gay pornography the words "gay pornographic" are deep-seated. So, what can be gained from continuing this discussion? -- tariqabjotu 18:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm also surprised at Dr. Blofeld's continuing position (and a little disappointed to read what he left on Tariqabjotu's talk page), but have a small question for clarification. He continually states "at any time of day" or "over dinner", "peak times" etc. I thought this was English Wikipedia so are we to protect our children in the UK while the children in the US are "exposed" to this? Or protect the US kids while the Australian children "suffer"? I don't get it. In any case, it's one thing to object to a link on the main page to something inaccurate, or biased but simply to object on the lines of "one doesn't like it" is counter to what this whole encyclopaedia thing is about... (for what it's worth, I don't like murder or animal cruelty or manufactured boy bands, but am happy for Wikipedia to educate people about these topics, I don't see links on the main page being some attempt to "advocate" the existence of a topic). After his "six years" at the project, I'm slightly confused why Dr. Blofeld would show this website (over a meal) to people who are so easily offended. I can't imagine what would have happened if Cartman or GC lane were on the main page in all their glory (for the full 24 hours, not just a 6-hour slot)... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Why are you disappointed by my comments to Tariq? Because he claims to follow Islamic values yet hypocritically insults me for even questioning the subject of gay pornoography appearing directly linked on the front page of a website as big as wikipedia? Somehow you all seem to agree that such content appearing on the main page is agreeable with everybody, so featuring Jenna Jameson shouldn't be a problem as everybody who matters here supports it on the main page. If you prevent her article from being the featured article of the day then this is surely an injustice to the free encyclopedia concept. The resistance here has clearly shown you are well-equipped to deal with complaints so why won't it hit the main page? If you really want to know the reason why I've continued here is because I'm astounded by the heavy-handed response on this and complete lack of understanding that anybody might be offended by the subject of gay pornography appearing on the main page of the website and denial that a lot of people don't like reading or even hearing about it. The tone of all of your remarks practically scolds me for even having the nerve to question it, so there is little point in having a Talk:main page when editors gang up in this way. If I'd simply got a response, "Yes some people are offended by it but general consensus is that we permit such articles at all hours of the day and there's little we can do about it" it would basically been end of conversation, especially as I don't exactly feel strongly about the subject and only made a comment because my sister did and laughed at wikipedia over it. My continued comments here have basically been utter disgust that you could all deny that it is a controversial topic and nobody has any right to question it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Doc, you have the right to question it, but other editors don't necessarily have an obligation to recognise your complaint.
Is it OK if I make the personal prediction that nothing useful is likely to come from any further comments about this? --FormerIP (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem, it appears, is that you're inexplicably interpreting "Many types of material offend some people; we don't suppress content on that basis." to mean "No one but you could possibly find this objectionable.". —David Levy 20:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah but I didn't get "Many types of material offend some people; we don't suppress content on that basis." I got: 1] You want us to ban the "certain topics" that you deem objectionable. As long as Dr. Blofeld isn't embarrassed in front of his sister, who cares what other people and cultures think? 2] Yawn. Hundreds of people killed in Brazzaville, dozens in the US, a gay porn video is somehow more objectionable than real life? Wow. No, okay, so we shouldn't link "objectionable" material at "weekends"? What the hell is this place becoming? 3] This is an encyclopedia, not a family picnic. 4] Don't we have this "argument" every month? None of your responses accepted that some people might find it ill suited or an offensive subject but you were rather rude in your response. If you really want to help people out on this page try to be a little more helpful and constructive with your comments instead of sarcastically slating people for raising issues eh? Yes, an article about gay pornography on the front page of wikipedia is hardly worth the fuss, but my sister now regards wikipedia as a joke encyclopedia for hosting such content, which is why I raised it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
To Dr Blofeld, no idea where anyone said you couldn't question it. I think the general consensus in response to your disgust was that many people are disgusted by many things. Anal probes and Gropecunt Lane have featured (i.e. featured) on the main page for a whole day, sure they were controversial and had debate but their subject matter was dealt with encyclopaedically. Just as this 6-hour one line link deals with the subject matter encyclopaedically. Of course, if you disagree, then you should nominate the article for deletion. Once again, what "hours of the day" (and what day, where in the world?) would you prefer this kind of information to exist? Would you be okay with heterosexual sex solicitation being linked to on the main page? Would you be okay with a murderer appearing on the main page? I'm still confused. I have some level of curiosity that you wouldn't have objected with such vehemence to these subjects, but find this minor link to a minor article so incredibly and indescribably undesirable. If you sister finds this website "a joke" based on a link to an encyclopaedic article about a piece of modern culture that you and her clearly don't agree with then that's a real shame, but I find it odd that someone shows their sister the Wikipedia main page over dinner, expecting it to be squeaky clean despite the Cartman and Gropish lane in recent history. To each their own. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't show her. I left the computer on the main page and hadn't even noticed the article but I got the door to let her in as she came around for dinner and we walked back into the room and the first thing she saw on the screen was something about middle aged men and gay pornography in the DYK section and she laughed and looked at me strangely. I told her its the recently created articles on wikipedia and she found it more of a joke than offensive that wikipedia would host such content on a Saturday afternoon and an embarrassment. She was so degrading about wikipedia that it angered me, that's why I brought it up. And no she is not a nasty a-hole either but will undoubtedly let all of her mates know about what wikipedia accepts. But I think if anybody in my Christian family had seen it they'd have actually been shocked, yes well as many other people I can think of who are not even Christians who'd have thought it ill suited encyclopedic material and have lumped even coverage of it in the same category as us hosting pornographic images themselves. Overeacting, ignorant of reality? Possibly. Of course I've seen the whole range of articles this website attracts in my experience on here and that we accept them, but what she said really made me think wikipedia is unnecessarily sending out a bad message on its main page. And its not as if I'm the only one here who is critical of DYKs and the seemingly strange choices and carelessly written and sourced entries and hooks that frequently appear. OK, you have a point, many people here believe hosting it is not negative at all and radical and cool. Point taken. But I'm certain I'm not the first or last person to complain about such content being exposed on the main page. You have a point I guess that we should be completely neutral about such topics and leave religious beliefs or prejudices out of our way of thinking but all I'm saying is that its not something you see regularly and to me and my sister obviously it stands out big time on the front page of an encyclopedia, even if just for 6 hours even if there was nothing obscene or offensive about the hook. Its just not the first time people look at DYK as a sample of wikipedia and some of the content on it at times seems to show the site at its worst and I really am not referring to the article solely, believe me. I think its a shame as we get some real gems coming in but they're lumped together with ones which you often find you shaking your head over as an utter embarrassment. I try to respect everybody's contributions to the project and frequently reward people with barnstars for their good work but there are just some articles i think which are best not put on the main page. Unfair of me, or an invalid outlook given wikipedia's neutral, free content approach, but its the way I feel and the way I'm sure others on here view certain articles we accept at times. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
For one thing, you still haven't told me when would have been acceptable since your dinner time wasn't. You didn't answer the following: "Would you be okay with heterosexual sex solicitation being linked to on the main page? Would you be okay with a murderer appearing on the main page?" You also poorly and unjustifiably paraphrase me; I didn't say it was "radical and cool" to host information about all things, including those things you and you sister may find displeasing. The point of an encyclopaedia is to cover all topics with neutrality and excellence. I don't like some of the religious pages here, and find a great deal of them personally offensive, but I also accept that some sections of society believe in them and believe them to be correct and proper. So I'm happy to see those kind of articles up for reasonable debate, and would always encourage an open mind to both editors and readers. I'm not sure why this article is any different. Perhaps your sister should know that in the nearly four million articles here, we're bound to have (and proud to have) some "minority interest" and perhaps you could help her to understand that part of the amazing project we have is that these minorities can be given justifiable prominence should the quality of the articles be sufficient. If you no longer believe this is our goal, perhaps this project is no longer something appropriate for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
My goal on wikipedia these days is improving quality. Something I'm sure you all value greatly. William Burges is currently at GAR which I enjoyed working with KJP on. I believe that we can build a high quality content encyclopedia in which we can greatly improve how people perceive us, but a lot of content we host prevents us from doing this. I am not a prude, a strong Christian or unaccepting of either homoexuality or pornography, but yes I happen to believe that certain topics such as us hosting references to any pornographic content at any time of the day on the front page is inappropriate. I think there is a time and place for it and its not something I personally want to see on wikipedia. I understand the problem is that different people will be offended by different things and its impossible to please everybody and that we should try to be as aneutral as possible and that some people are excited by the idea of us hosting articles about pornographic films on the front page for all to see. But some content and I'm not just referring to this a lot of people find embarrassing on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
" but yes I happen to believe that certain topics such as us hosting references to any pornographic content at any time of the day on the front page is inappropriate" classic, just as "whether some gays waving colored flags fully support them or not." is too. -> "Yes, gays are welcome, but they have to drink their beer in the basement". Your words are telling, Dr Blofeld, all too telling. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
That's not what I said was it? I was not talking solely about gay pornographic content I was talking about any pornographic content heterosexual, tranny or whatever. And neither was I saying that articles about LGBT people or issues content shouldn't hit the main page. I just think any pornography is ill-suited to the main page of wikipedia full stop. Subjects like murder, crime, rape etc are covered in mainstream media. Articles about pornography I rarely see appearing in the daily mainstream media on TV or on the news websites and this is why it strikes me as unusual that wikipedia does. And please don't come up with some smart alec remark about WP:NOTNEWS or something. You ask me why I consider discussion of pornographic content ill-suited to the mainpage of wikipedia. For the exact same reason why the television or newspapers think it ill-suited. Wikipedia is not a news outlet, no, but the free content thing is used as an excuse to host some very questionable articles and I'm not just talking about pornographic related content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Many tabloid newspapers and magazines tend to have subjects such as those regularly complained about here on #their# front pages on a regular basis.

'My impression is' (from the few occasions when I have looked at it) Conservapedia has such topics as homosexuality on the main page as a permanent feature.

See my comments (variously in the archives) about vanilla main page and non-office/library/notional child-safe versions of the main page. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Gay marriage" is an issue in many countries these days. That means it gains frequent mention in the media. Dr Blofeld, can you cope with that? Similarly, when an arrest is made in the relevant area, news bulletins typically say the words "child pornography". It must horrify you. Don't you get it? Simply saying or writing the words "gay pornography" does not expose anyone to gay porn, any more than a news broadcast saying "child pornography" forces them to see that unsavoury stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Horrify. No. Turn my stomach. Yes. Gay marriage appears to be pretty harmless and the thought of it doesn't cause one to feel nauseous. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't cause you to feel nauseous. Others believe that it violates the sanctity of marriage and ultimately will lead to their societies' downfall.
And as strongly as I disagree with that belief, it's one to which those individuals are entitled. Likewise, people are entitled to believe that pornography is sinful, that the theory of evolution is blasphemous, that miscegenation is an atrocity, that eating shellfish is an abomination, that photographing women is disrespectful, or that anyone operating a website during the Sabbath deserves to be stoned to death.
Just don't expect Wikipedia's main page content to be restricted accordingly. If you want to avoid encountering material that you deem "objectionable", please look elsewhere (or create a new website whose content reflects your values). —David Levy 00:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Dr B, if I were you, I would be incredibly embarrassed if my sister found out that I was so spooked by the words "gay pornography" that I actually complained about it! APL (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Spooked? No, she considers wikipedia a joke website for hosting such content, laughable. I want wikipedia to be a website which everybody will treat with a little more respect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to get a rounded picture here, what else would your sister like to see removed? Or is it just the articles about gay pornography? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia would offend a lot of people in the attempt to gain your sister's respect. APL (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Editors should not discriminate against legitimate Wikipedia articles appearing on the main page merely because of one or more users' personal disgust with a topic. If a topic is sufficiently encyclopedic to be included in Wikipedia, then it's sufficiently encyclopedic to be highlighted on the main page. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


Dr. Blofeld, is it that only gay pornography offends you, or any pornography? You seem to be only concerned about "gay pornography" since you keep repeating that phrase, and that phrase only, over and over. 69.62.243.126 (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


Break[edit]

So, Blofeld, we have news today that credit card details have been hacked off a porn site — can ITN cover that, or is even mentioning porn on the main page still too much for you? Strange Passerby (talkcont) 12:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, you really misunderstand me don't you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Only as much as you want others to misunderstand you, because you've been sending so many mixed signals. Is it "gay pornography" you have an issue with? Just "pornography"? You've conflicted yourself over that. I'm sure others will spot other incidents. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
And per my question above, I'd like to understand what other articles Blofeld's sister thinks we shouldn't "host", or is it just the articles about "gay pornography"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I have no issues with pornography at all in general, although I'm sure like many men I find the very thought of gay pornography as such very distasteful, but that's normal. But I just don't think Wikipedia's main page is really the place for porn films in any shape or form. The internet is plagued with it as it is. Wikipedia's main page should be exemplary of our best content and I would rather see DYK replaced with better quality recently passed Good articles. If the good article recently passed is a porn film or actor, heterosexual or gay, however, then I would reluctantly support it appearing on the main page as I would any other as the article is obviously of good quality and there are unlikely to be many of them in relation to those on more traditional subjects. But low quality articles on gay porn films as examples of the progress of wikipedia are hardly a shining example are they? But I stick by my belief that the viewing public will make judgements about wikipedia by what's on its main page, in the same way my sister did. Nuff said. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I cheerfully await empirical evidence to support your belief, and I submit to you that the only people who would be as passionate about the issue would be but a fractional section of the general public. Even now, as far as I can tell, you are the only one continuing to press this issue.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
"As I said, I have no issues with pornography at all in general, although I'm sure like many men I find the very thought of gay pornography as such very distasteful, but that's normal." No, Dr. Blofeld, finding the very thought of gay pornography distasteful is not "normal"; it's homophobic--and homophobia is an insufficient reason to censor content on the main page. Wikipedia is an inclusive community, and does not discriminate among its content based on sexual orientation. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No it isn't, not at all. You either have a taste for watching gay pornography or you don't based on your sexual orientation unless you're Charlie Sheen... You are basically saying that all men find gay pornography tasteful and anybody who doesn't is homophobic which is utter nonsense. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Dr B, I don't know if you realize this, but clicking that link would not have actually delivered you gay pornography and forced you to watch it. It would have brought you to an encyclopedia article about that subject.
This is probably an insulting thing for me to explain, but the only way I can understand your last post is to assume you don't understand this. APL (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I have clicked on the article actually since you posted it at the top on here and I would have to agree there is nothing obscene or graphic in its text and its not worth complaining about, yes. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Irrespective of whether finding gay pornography itself distasteful is homophobic, if you find repugnant the mere thought of its existence, as prompted by a reference to the topic, that IS homophobic. And again, homophobia is an insufficient reason to discriminate among and censor Wikipedia content on the main page. Wikipedia is an inclusive community, both in content and in viewership, and as the consensus in this conversation shows, Wikpedia's inclusiveness will not be sacrificed merely to satisfy personal prejudices. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to say with my snarky comment above. As a straight guy I can totally understand why sitting down and watching a movie of two guys going at it would not be entirely pleasant. But Doctor B's assertion that there's some sort of innate biologically-justified reason for being repulsed by the mere words "Gay Pornography" is laughable. APL (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. The words "gay pornography" themselves do not offend me, it is what it actually is and the "thought" of it which creates a rather disturbing picture in my mind. I attach images in my mind to words I read and associate certain things with them. I suppose you think that's abnormal too to associate certain images with certain words.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you not attach disturbing images to the word "murder"? You haven't explained why it's okay for us to display it on the main page. By your logic, doesn't that "promote" murder? —David Levy 11:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If you told me "the girl was drowned in a bath of blood". Yeah that's disturbing. If gruesome details of a murder are published yeah, but the word "murder" doesn't seem vulgar to me. The Gropecunt Lane article BTW I think is fantastic and I believe is encyclopedic. Perhaps I would view people who think that inappropriate for the main page in the same way people would view me for thinking article on gay pornographic films are inappropriate for the TFA. I understand that anybody who complains about the main page rarely gets anywhere but as I say I don't like people belittling wikipedia and was the only reason I really complained, although I think the time it appeared had a great deal to do with it. Yes it might be nighttime in Australia but by far most of our readers are American and English and it would have been Saturday afternoon for the English and Saturday morning for the Americans. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If you told me "the girl was drowned in a bath of blood". Yeah that's disturbing. If gruesome details of a murder are published yeah, but the word "murder" doesn't seem vulgar to me.
And the words "gay pornographic" do? The DYK item didn't contain wording along the lines of "the man was showered in semen". Just "gay pornographic". You're complaining about the phrase "gay pornographic".
And I'll remind you that TFA for 2 March (appearing in the page's most prominent location for 24 hours) contained the sentence "Webster dismembered the body, boiled the flesh off the bones, and threw most of it into the River Thames, allegedly offering the fat to neighbours as dripping and lard." And no one complained at Talk:Main Page (including you).
But how dare we mention the phrase "gay pornographic"?! —David Levy 12:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
See my comment below. Would we or would be not accept an article about a gay pornographic film as a TFA? The consensus amongst those who decide the TFA appears to me that pornographic-related content is likely to cause to many complaints. So yes there does appear to be a "how dare we mention pornography on the main page and that pornographic subject matter is far more controversial than any murder description.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Would we or would be not accept an article about a gay pornographic film as a TFA?
I don't know. Raul has scheduled several articles that people expected him to reject (some of which seemed more likely to generate complaints than Jenna Jameson is), so his current stance is unclear. He's commented that nothing is set in stone, and when I requested Jenna Jameson as TFA, he seemed open to the idea. (I later withdrew the request due to concerns that the article required significant maintenance.)
I reiterate that Raul's historical reluctance to schedule the article is not based on a determination that the subject of pornography is inappropriate for inclusion on the main page. It's purely matter of convenience. (Raul has said so himself.) As I noted at User talk:Tariqabjotu, you're portraying his desire to avoid being confronted by villagers with torches and pitchforks as evidence that the hypothetical mob's position is legitimate.
And frankly, what Raul decides has no bearing on DYK. For reasons of practicality, we need a featured article director (whose judgement isn't sacrosanct and sometimes draws disagreement).
The consensus amongst those who decide the TFA appears to me that pornographic-related content is likely to cause to many complaints.
Why are you referring to one person's opinion as "consensus"?
So yes there does appear to be a "how dare we mention pornography on the main page and that pornographic subject matter is far more controversial than any murder description.
Why, in your view, is murder is a more appropriate subject for the main page?
You've mentioned religious condemnation of homosexuality. Does that not also apply to murder? Are you suggesting that gay pornography is worse than murder?
Do you honestly find the words "gay pornographic" more upsetting than a statement that someone "dismembered the body, boiled the flesh off the bones, and threw most of it into the River Thames, allegedly offering the fat to neighbours as dripping and lard"? —David Levy 14:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If Raul wasn't highly respected for his choices and knowledge of what people generally find acceptable or examples of our best content he would not have been made FA director. Put Jenna Jameson at TFA and if nobody complains, great. Pornography is universally accepted on the front page of one of the world's biggest websites. I personally think that statement is graphically stimulating and interesting as opposed to the thought of gay pornography being "stimulating", yes, although I accept that some people would be horrified and shocked by it. But I also acknowledge that some men may find the subject of gay pornography "stimulating" and see its coverage on the front page of wikipedia as something liberating in terms of their rights.Perhaps you are right that we should have absolutely no concerns about any content as long as it is sourced to reliable source, which that gay porno is, for neutrality purposes. But if articles about pornography are currently barred from appearing as TFA there is something clearly holding us back. Evidently it is worry about what people will think and complaints. If we are truly be neutral in approach, then we should accept an article on Jenna Jameson or any gay film as a TFA as we cannot be responsible that some people may be offended? If I have a point and you would agree, perhaps its time for a "petition" that the community want to see pornography articles as the TFA as there seems to be a universal approval of them here. As I say I am less concerned about pornography being an offensive topic than I am worrying about what the front page of wikipedia tells us people about the project and DYK often being an example of our worst work, even if admit to finding the subject of gay pornography unpleasant. If there is universal or almost universal support for pornography on the front page of wikipedia and most people will not think any less of wikipedia because of it then I will support it out of respect for the general view on the matter. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If Raul wasn't highly respected for his choices and knowledge of what people generally find acceptable or examples of our best content he would not have been made FA director. Put Jenna Jameson at TFA and if nobody complains, great. Pornography is universally accepted on the front page of one of the world's biggest websites.
No one asserts that the subject is "universally accepted". Again, people complain when an article about a video game appears as TFA.
I personally think that statement is graphically stimulating and interesting
And you want us to restrict our main page content in accordance with what you "personally think".
To me, it seems bizarre to suggest that the phrase "gay pornographic" is more "unpleasant" than an account of someone killing a person, dismembering the body, boiling the flesh off the bones, throwing most of the remains into a river, and allegedly offering the fat to neighbors for cooking.
But maybe it's just me. I fully respect your right to feel differently. I merely don't agree that this should determine what appears on the main page.
as opposed to the thought of gay pornography being "stimulating", yes,
If you want people to stop accusing you of homophobia, you might want to stop writing stuff like that.
although I accept that some people would be horrified and shocked by it.
So why is it okay to display it on the main page? Because you aren't?
But I also acknowledge that some men may find the subject of gay pornography "stimulating" and see its coverage on the front page of wikipedia as something liberating in terms of their rights.
The point is that people's personal opinions of the subjects (positive or negative) are irrelevant.
Perhaps you are right that we should have absolutely no concerns about any content as long as it is sourced to reliable source, which that gay porno is, for neutrality purposes. But if articles about pornography are currently barred from appearing as TFA there is something clearly holding us back.
And that's Raul's understandable desire to avoid having to deal with complaints. But the main page's sections other than TFA are neither his responsibility nor his burden.
Evidently it is worry about what people will think and complaints. If we are truly be neutral in approach, then we should accept an article on Jenna Jameson or any gay film as a TFA as we cannot be responsible that some people may be offended?
That's my view. But then, I'm not the one who has to handle the complaints. —David Levy 01:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow. This is a valid, serious topic of discussion? I thought we had to turn our clocks forward an hour, not back 40 years. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Blofeld, you seem to have started a discussion you no longer wish to finish. Your statements clearly indicate that you wish for a more censored version of the main page, you're happy to accept murder and American football and religion, but (due to personal taste) object to a reference to "gay pornography". You then go on to intimate that DYKs are sometimes detrimental to the project. I think we can accept that DYKs are sometimes not so brilliant as to be GAs or FAs. Naturally. But your way of this, to push this particular minority topic to the basement, where it shouldn't exist on the main page in case it upsets your sister, is frankly unbelievable. Perhaps this project is no longer your kind of thing, and certainly not your sisters'. I'd hate to think we'd lost a couple of readers but I'd hate it even more if we decided to base our main page content on the opinions of an outdated and bigoted minority. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. The censorship crusaders never stop do they?. Well, at least no Catholics complained about Birth control movement in the United States being on the Main Page yesterday. That's an improvement I suppose. And for the record, I look forward to the day when Jenna Jameson is today's featured article. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

OK Prototime and everybody here, if gay pornography is widely accepted, should an article on Randy van der Schmut or Sweaty Boatmen 29 (pardon my Leslie Nielsen joke) ever be promoted to FA do you honestly think Raul would feature it on the main page of wikipedia? No. Why not? That's my point. And above all this discussion has illustrated that nobody could care less about DYK but care a great deal about TFA. Obviously there are people who would agree with me but are fearful of being perceived as a homophobe. I have no objections to most LGBT related content appearing on the main page if its encyclopedic and well sourced but pornography is over stepping the mark. That said, if there was an article with seemingly encyclopedic merit like History of pornography or History of Gay pornography or something, I'd support it, just not articles on commodities of pornography themselves, although I'm sure a lot of people here would be lying if they thought the idea of having The Devil in Miss Jones as TFA wouldn't be cool because it would be rather radical to do so. You could probably get that on the main page as an expanded DYK but it wouldn't make TFA. Seems like double standards to me and I believe the same standards of subject matter should apply to DYK. Above all I think the fact that one person complained about it in DYK when likely hundreds would at TFA according to the Jenna Jameson thing illustrates to me that most of our viewers ignore DYK and either look at the TFA or news or search for what they want. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW if wikipedia isn't censored, it is true that all articles about porn stars don't feature filmographies in them like actors? Because the ones I've seen never have filmographies. Seems like censorship to me. Or is it because actors like Ron Jeremy have appeared in 431,500 films and might strain the wiki servers? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Ron Jeremy would be an outside example and, yes, the number of films he has been in would be a server strain issue. I don't see your point there. So would the works with Lata Mangeshkar. She doesn't have a filmography section either. As for pornographic actors that do: Erik Rhodes, Paul Thomas, Chris Steele, Adam Killian, ect, ect, ect. SilverserenC 13:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My point? I see some double standards that's what. One of our current hooks is "that the 1955 film Teaserama featured a man in drag as "gender sabotage" against the prevailing sexual norms of the time?" which could be seen as offensive to transsexuals. I suppose there are a massive ranges of topics some people will be offended and that can't be helped..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's really offensive, since it isn't saying that transexualism is gender sabotage, it is the actor saying that his role in the movie was an example of that. People can find the time to be offended at any number of things. But so lng as we are representing information neutrally and in a manner that is meant to increase one's knowledge about the world, I don't see the issue. SilverserenC 14:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As in he was sabotaging the perceived normal gender roles through acting in a fully sensual manner. The source explains it quite well (I knew this would end up here...) Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The most sensible view I've seen. I agree, and everybody has certain topics they think what the heck? is this doing on the main page or are really questionable as articles..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I think you're looking at this in the wrong light, with a mind towards the main page being an advertisement. But Wikipedia is an academic tool, and academics should be unbiased so as to keep social and cultural mores from corrupting the truth. An advertisement is a business tool, a business minded approach to an academic tool can very easily tailor reality to suit certain needs (such as removing offensive content on the main page to increase profit) at the expense of preserving the truth. And a business minded approach is just one example among many that can corrupt the unbiased academic state that we'd all like to keep Wikipedia in. So would you agree that you have a bias on seeing the statement 'gay pornography?' I can clearly see the words offend you, but if every single person's offended sensibilities are to be edited out, does that not corrupt the academic truth by reinforcing those sensibilities in an academic environment? - Jesse Vriens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.160.154 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well its just a cover, but a lot of people are concerned about the quality of the front page so much that they tried to oust DYK not too long ago.. Fortunately articles of this sort don't appear on the front page that often anyway. But I asked Raul the FA director and said he draws the line with hardcore pornography-related content and said he admits its subjective but that's his view. But there is clearly a reason why he draws the line at hardcore pornographic related content, likely the very same reason I questioned the coverage of the article on the main page with DYK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You didn't question the coverage of the article 'because it was related to hardcore pornography', you questioned the coverage of the article because 'seeing the words "gay pornography" made you feel nauseous at dinner time'. If you're going to lie, at least lie in a place where you don't have direct evidence contradicting you a few paragraphs above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.127.240 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
As I've noted repeatedly, Raul has stated that his decision stems not from a determination that the content in question is inherently inappropriate, but from a concern that he'll be inundated with complaints to that effect (and a desire to avoid the aggravation). This, of course, has no bearing on the main page's other sections (which are neither his responsibility nor his burden). —David Levy 01:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Again you're missing the point of why I complained. If Raul himself loves hardcore pornography and would love to see it on the main page but merely doesn't want to deal with complaints it doesn't matter. My point was that there are thousands of people, not just me who find articles about hardcore gay pornography on the front page of one of the web's biggest encyclopedia inappropriate. My point was that if I am the only one who finds the topic distastful and lacking sensibility to appear on the front page, why would the FA director forbid such content appearing himself if nobody would complain about it. The fact is scores of people would complain but you've frequently implied throughout this discussion I am the only one who disagrees with it. Just because few people clearly give a shit what appears in DYK doesn't mean that a lot of people wouldn't agree that a line has to be drawn over what is featured on the main page, especially as TFA. The bottom line is I'm right that its a controversial subject for many people but none of you could admit it because you are all so obsessed with the idea of political correctness and radicalism and insistence that we should accept any topic under the sun, not to mention fearful of saying anything remotely against "LGBT rights" for fear of offending anyway, that you are blind to how a lot of people will see wikipedia because of it. At least I have the cajones to stand up and state that I disagree with it, because I care what the majority of people think about wikipedia and want it to attract as many quality editors as possible. And I'm not the only person here who believes that the main page should be exemplary of our best content and that DYK is badly in need of reform with something better. And if I'm wrong in my belief that such articles will be seen in a bad light by thousands of people and will ward off a lot of potential contributors, try putting the exact same article at the TFA and we'll see what happens. If the directorial decision is that pornography is out of bounds in TFA I want you to acknowledge why this is the case, whether you are open minded on the case or not. If the articles contain no pornographic images or lurid details then that makes it alright? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Again you're missing the point of why I complained. If Raul himself loves hardcore pornography and would love to see it on the main page but merely doesn't want to deal with complaints it doesn't matter. My point was that there are thousands of people, not just me who find articles about hardcore gay pornography on the front page of one of the web's biggest encyclopedia inappropriate. My point was that if I am the only one who finds the topic distastful and lacking sensibility to appear on the front page, why would the FA director forbid such content appearing himself if nobody would complain about it. The fact is scores of people would complain but you've frequently implied throughout this discussion I am the only one who disagrees with it.
You're either missing my point or pretending to. (I'm trying to assume good faith on your part, but you're making it difficult.)
Again, no one asserts that you're the only one who finds such content objectionable. Please stop attacking that straw man.
The point is that these objections aren't a valid reason to suppress encyclopedic content.
Our main page contains a great deal of material that people find objectionable. You want us to ban subjects that you find objectionable (while retaining the rest). —David Levy 19:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Good work everyone. Someone raises a topic others disagree with. Respond with strawman and ad hominem attacks. Keep up the good work, wouldn't expect any more from Wikipedia. --86.17.90.136 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • What strawman and ad hominem attacks? What is your problem?--WaltCip (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • It is ironic (and hypocritical) that they would repsond with an ad hominem of their own. Resolute 17:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A modicum of editorial judgment and common sense is not the equivalent of censorship. We can easily start splitting hairs and diverting this thread into a the "anti-LGBT rights" territory, but the core of the matter is that a product, a career, a statement that labels itself pornographic has in fact included itself into a sensitive category. There might just be a reason (good taste, for instance) to exclude that entire category from the main page - just as it is relegated to a minor part in society itself, and not, as a rule, advertised all over the place. I personally don't take a moral issue with the presence of such hooks on the main page, but I am saying that Dr. Blofeld is at the very least right to point out the paradox: producing something that you yourself unquestionably market as porn relegates the product to the margin of society; on wikipedia, it gets to be on the main page. That, I believe, is the object of this debate. The rest is fluffy rhetoric. Dahn (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Finally somebody who actually understands what I'm saying!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
We understand what you're saying. Most of us simply disagree. —David Levy 19:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Saying that a "modicum of editorial judgment and common sense" is not the same as "censorship"--in the context of keeping references to valid Wikipedia articles off of the main page due to the subject matter of those pages--is a distinction without a difference, and is itself "fluffy rhetoric." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Saying that banishing hard core porn, technicolor vomit etc. to other pages isn't censorship, but banishing two words would be censorship, is also a distinction without a difference; several of our policies dissolve into nonsense on close examination. Of course we have a line we won't cross; see WP:CENSORMAIN, and of course there is no simple answer to whose rules we will use. But I'm puzzled by using the two words as a test case; I wonder if Dr. Blofeld's sister saw the Main Page on March 4 and saw a thumbnail-size picture of File:Courbet Sleep.jpg? Art LaPella (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
And before you tell me "but that's art", that's another distinction without a difference! Art LaPella (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
And how shocking for you the person complaining about gay pornography on the main page actually started that very article on it, this and also started the article on Am Sklavenmarkt. As I say I have no problems with us having content on it but avoid linking to articles about hardcore pornography, gay or otherwise on the main page for sensibility reasons.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "LGBT rights" is a red herring — one introduced to the discussion by Dr. Blofeld.
And I agree with Prototime that you're drawing a distinction without a difference. "We don't censor, but let's decide what things should be omitted purely because people find them objectionable." is nonsensical.
In terms of societal perception, it's true that pornography is a sensitive topic. So is murder. And yet, we frequently cover the subject of murder on the main page. Surely, murderers have acted in a manner placing them in "the margin of society". Surely, pornographic film actors aren't more controversial than suicide bombers are. —David Levy 19:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think, in summary, Blofeld is calling "I just don't like it". There doesn't seem to be much more gained from further discussion here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
In summary Blofeld is saying that he "has no problem with pornography or articles about it on wikipedia but common sense would be to avoid linking to articles about hardcore pornography, gay or otherwise on the main page for sensibility reasons. Otherwise this sort of thing will continue to happen every month...."♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer it if Wikipedia didn't link to overtly religious articles on the main page for sensibility reasons. Particularly at "lunchtime", of course. Perhaps you could supply a timetable of when it would be appropriate to feature "Blofeld & Blofeld's-sister"-safe material on the main page? In the meantime, it's probably worth avoiding Wikipedia's main page over lunch at the weekend, it may contain scenes of "mild peril" and subjects you may find uncomfortable. After all, it's an encyclopaedia and it covers the spectrum, not just the few colours you decide are right and proper for consumption at mealtimes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps an article on Views of gay pornography in Islam or Christianity could be a compromise then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
A compromise with what? Sure, write those articles, but it seems clear by now it wouldn't change your opinion, you (and your sister) have a rigid and constrained framework of what should be contained in a global encyclopaedia and what should be used on the main page (and what should be consigned to the "cellar" because it, although it exists, and although it's not illegal etc, you don't like to see it over lunch). As I said before, there's little point in pursuing this; you and your sister "didn't like" a link to a benign article about a subject matter you and she found distasteful. Hopefully, one day, you and she will get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps embracing such topics more regularly on the main page of wikipedia would make people less surprised/shocked with it and get everybody used to thinking of gay pornography as lightly as they would drink a cup of tea.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Dahn summarizes Dr Blofeld's argument as I understand it. So I am confident that I have not been misunderstanding it as Dr B seems to think. However, It contains certain premises that I disagree with.
First is the premise that categories can be clearly identified as either "sensitive categories" or "not-sensitive categories". (To be clear, By denying this premise I'm not saying that there are "Grey areas" at the middle of a well defined continuum between sensitive and not-sensitive, I'm saying that it defies categorization! If you introduced a third "Sensitive to some readers" category almost everything would fall into it and you would be left with only a small sliver of Wikipedia's most banal articles and the banality itself would offend somebody. ) This is an side-effect of Wikipedia's strong, if not always successful, attempts to have a neutral point of view. Choosing or defining a particular, specific, point of view or moral code, would, of course, make this problem easily solvable.
Second is the premise that that it is a "paradox" that things that are "on the margin" of society "Get to be" on the mainpage. I don't think that's a paradox, I thought the mainpage's mission would to call attention to articles that the user would not necessarily look up on their own.
Third is the premise that the very existence of pornography is on the "margins of society". I don't think that's true at all. The existence of porn is openly acknowledged in many general consumption entertainment products and even the nightly news. APL (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The existence of porn is of course openly acknowledged but you rarely see an "erotic" film on terrestrial TV let alone a hardcore pornographic film, much less a gay porno!! Gay pornography at least on television appears to be reserved entirely for "special" X-rated channels. If it was not at the margins of society we'd be seeing them every day on terrestrial TV in the evening film slots coexisting alongside regular movies. The truth is that yes pornography is evidently extremely popular with a significant percentage of the population and is a multi billion dollar industry but current social/commercial values evidently still don't see it as suitable for the mainstream and such films are excluded from all regular film channels for a reason. Maybe this reason is wrong, but it is impossible to deny that we are purposefully barred from such topics in the mainstream media because decisions are ultimately made about whether people will find it tasteless or disgusting or morally wrong or whatever. An article about a pornographic film is not exactly the same as hosting pornographic material itself but the topic did stand out to me on the main page as I'm not used to seeing the topic of "gay pornography" as such appearing at such a time in the day. Perhaps there are people here who watch gay pornography throughout the day and it is extremely normal to them and think it suited to the main page of the encyclopedia which is fair enough. I don't think it is suitable, personally, but at least give me some respect to state why I think so without telling me I'm essentially wrong to even question it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Your comments appear to be a confusing mish-mash of two different points. As you yourself admit, we didn't actual show any gay pornography on the main page. Therefore all the discussion about how gay pornography as with most pornograpy isn't showin on terrestrial TV is somewhat moot. The fact that you apparently have trouble telling the difference between us showing gay pornography and mentioning doesn't give much weight to your comments. I don't know how things are where you live, but here in NZ, pornography including gay pornography may be mentioned on the news and in other non-fictional shows like documentaries on terrestrial TV at times where children are expected to be watching. What you're less likely to see it a graphic descriptions like how "Webster dismembered the body, boiled the flesh off the bones, and threw most of it into the River Thames, allegedly offering the fat to neighbours as dripping and lard" or the numerous photos of dead people we've shown in TFP throughout the years. (When photos of dead people are shown, they will usually come with a warning before they are shown.) It may be where you live such graphic descriptions and photos are normally considered fine even at times suitable for children but mentioning gay pornography is something taboo which can only be done on X-rated channels, but this definitely isn't the case everywhere in the world. Actually from your comments I quite doubt your description is accurate as per my statement at the beginning. Edit: Of course per your clarification of your 'times' comment, it sounds like we don't actually matter here in NZ because we only make up a small percentage of wikipedia readers, but I digress. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. The film above sounds like a fairly mainstream gay pornographical film so I presume is fine in most or all countries where such material isn't routinely banned. Meanwhile The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) and Cannibal Holocaust both of which have a rather tortured history including in countries where the 'offending' film is likely fine were both (according to their talk pages) mentioned on the main page one as DYK and one as TFA. It doesn't sound like Baise-moi or A Serbian Film both of which have similar problems to the aforementioned films have been on the main page yet, but would you be complaining so loudly if they had been? As with others I remain unclear if you would be so concerned if we'd mentioned a non-gay pornographical film (as I'm quite sure we must have done so before, although I also suspect we've done so for gay pornography). Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)