Wikipedia talk:Hardcore pornography images

Note from the original creator of this page

In working through this fraught subject with my fellow Wikipedians, I (Herostratus) have come across various counterarguments. I address them here. I have divided them -- and this is strictly my own personal ordering -- into those I have found cogent and those I have not.

Uncogent objections

• Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Well, yes, but in and of itself, this is not a cogent point: this page modifies WP:NOTCENSORED, adding a level of detail describing its application in a particular circumstance. Or, if you prefer, detailing an exception. Either way, referring just to the policy alone is circular reasoning. Saying "The Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and this exception [or: any exception] should not be considered, because [cogent reason]" is fine. But just citing the policy alone is like saying "I am against this amendment to the Constitution, because this amendment is not in the Constitution".
• These images are not illegal. Non sequitur; nobody is talking about legality here.
• Wikipedia is not concerned with morality. Non sequitur; nobody is talking about morality here, in the sense of sexual morality and certainly not religious morality.
• Slippery slope -- where do you draw the line? We draw the line here. Some slopes are slippery. Many are not. This one is not especially slippery. It's a specific case. What would be the next step down the slope? I suppose it be would explicit images in articles describing actual human sexuality, right? But in that case 1) the articles have more encyclopedic value, and 2) the behaviors depicted are not as extreme, generally. So that'd be a different argument, with a significantly stronger case supporting the use of images. I consider it very unlikely that such an argument will ever be made, or if it was that it would garner much support. So let's talk about this issue and not worry about things that aren't going to happen.
• OMGTHINKOFTHECHILDREN! is not an argument. Variations such as "It's none of my concern if young people are harmed or not" (yeah it is) and "They see it everywhere anyway" and "Aha! I have dug up an obscure and unreliable reference from a 1953 article by a dentist in Belize that proves that this stuff doesn't harm young people" do not, in my view, cast the people making these assertions in a very good light. I'm putting that as nicely as I can. It could be put a lot less nicely.
• There is no rule prohibiting such images, if this is the only argument, is not especially edifying. It's one thing to say "Such-and-such would be a good thing, but it is prohibited by policy"; but saying "Such-and-such would be a good thing, but there is no rule specifically allowing it" is no way to run a business. If you must have a rule to point to, you have one now: this page. Sure it's only an essay, but essays are pointed to very often in Wikipedia discussions.
• Muhammed and/or the little Vietnamese girl running down the street naked after the napalm attack. Somebody always brings up Muhammed, or the little Vietnamese girl running down the street naked after the napalm attack. I'm not sure why, and I don't know what they have to with anything, but somebody always brings them up. I think it might be something along the lines of "Well, we host those images, so we can/should/must host these images". I guess a reasonable reply would be "Sorry you can't figure out the difference, you have my sympathy".

Cogent objections

• Wikipedia is not censored as a matter of principle and we should stand up for that even if there is a cost. In reply, I would say, this trivializes the struggle against censorship. Thomas Jefferson said "I have sworn eternal enmity... against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man", a statement I applaud and think is as good an expression of anti-censorship principles as any. And let us by all means take a stand to not redact our material in deference to the claims of ignorance, superstition, religion, tyranny, and profit. But hardcore pornography does not ennoble the human spirit. It enslaves, not frees, the mind. It tells a false story about human sexual behavior (and that for the profit of capitalists). It is not for this that we want to expend our supply of goodwill. It is not here that we want to take our stand.
• Exceptions should not be made to the principle that, assuming a subject is notable enough to be covered, it should be covered as fully as possible. In reply, I would say, well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I have laid out my reasoning on the main page. It takes a certain subtlety of mind to make exceptions and distinctions depending on complex circumstances and competing principles, as we are here. It's much easier to cling rigidly to a rule. Easier, but not better. Herostratus (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (with some editing at later dates)

Note on demographic bias

The Wikipedia demographic

OK, a few more points. It's difficult to get this across because of rampant Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The typical Wikipedia editor is a childless single young male, and this is also (one supposes) the target demographic for pornography. Note the relative paucity of women, people with children, and mature people. Possibly at least partly a vicious cycle, as the frat-boy atmosphere that looks with favor on this sort of thing would tend to drive these people away. Herostratus (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Integration of hardcore images

I don't have a complete list of which articles are hardcore-only. Such a list is difficult to compile because many of the articles mix references to real-life sexual activity with pornography-film scenarios. These articles need to have their references rigorously vetted and the real-life and pornography aspects separated. But just take one article, Bukkake, which after vetting some of the refs I think is only verifiably notable as a pornography scenario, and which (at this writing) has two images, I note that this article is not hidden away somewhere. It is two clicks away from the general-interest articles Edo Period and 1979 and Flash and Index of Japan-related articles (L) and LGBT history. And it's two clicks away from several articles of likely interest to young people, these being Anime and List of manga magazines and List of webcomics and List of fictional robots and androids and even Flirting (some flirting!). Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Essay

Please move this to your user space. "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." - WP:ESSAYS I'm not sure if you want people to edit this or not but it does contradict widespread consensus. Cptnono (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but I think it's fine here. Of course anyone can edit it, it's a wiki. However, edits should be improvements. You're free to write your own essay of course. Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand. Since your essay contradicts consensus it is not suitable for the mainspace.Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But essays often offer minority viewpoints. But you're welcome to take it to WP:MFD if you like. I don't think it'd be deleted, but you never know. Herostratus (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between a minority viewpoint and contradicting widespread consensus. If you wish to pull from previous discussions and standards to create such an essay then it would be acceptable. However, you have not done that and instead simply provided your argument. If you move it to a user space essay then it will of course be acceptable. If you chose not to I will take it to MfD but would prefer it if you just respected the policy.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to voluntarily userfy it, so there's your answer. By the way, it's interesting to note that you are advocating for censoring an idea, are you not? Interesting twist. Herostratus (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That was cute. Moving it into your user space is not censorship.Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing in this essay which contradicts consensus or widespread consensus in any way that would suggest it should be deleted. This essay represents (imperfectly, since it is one person's well-written first draft) a viewpoint that is quite common and is worthwhile.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Argh, Help:Options to not see an image

OK. It's perfectly fine (of course) if editors improve this essay by adding various links, and links to essays and policies that contradict or refute this essay are welcome, and if you want to write an essay "Why WP:HARDCORE sucks" or whatever and link to it that's perfectly OK.

But please, not Help:Options to not see an image. Besides being mostly complete bollocks (and flat-out insulting in a number of places), it's completely out of context to link to it here.

What the page says, basically, is "If you are computer programmer, and you somehow know the file names of all the images that you don't want to see, here's what you can do"

[Redacted: an extended rant ripping Help:Options to not see an image to shreds. It was all true (and funny), but still a rant and not necessarily kind to the editors who worked on that page. It's in the history.] Herostratus (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, look. I'm not saying Help:Options to not see an image shouldn't exist. It's a help page, and (although it needs an extensive rewrite) it's possible that the number of people who have found it useful is not necessarily zero, and it belongs in with our other help pages.

But linking to it in this context is basically to say "Hey, here's a practical solution to this problem described in this essay!". And that's not true. And if it's not true, we shouldn't do it. Herostratus (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The game's afoot

Naturally, it's expected that this page will come under attack. An editor blanked a large part of the first section, and we'll likely see more of this, and I guess it doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

Again, improvements to the essay are welcome. Creating counter-essays and linking to them from here is welcome. However, hostile and destructive edits are not welcome, not part of way essays are generally handled here at the Wikipedia, and not in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia. I don't go messing with your essays, you know.

I reverted the edit, and if any fair-minded editors (you don't have to agree with the thrust of the essay) want to keep an eye on this page, that'd be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Porn is misogynistic" is absolutely a polemic statement that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If you want this to be "your essay", I can help you userfy it. Gigs (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the essay doesn't say "porn is misogynistic", it says "many of these images are misogynistic". It's a polemic statement, but it's also a reasonable assertion that is supported by a number of scholars and erudite people. This doesn't necessarily make it true, but it does make it reasonable to make the assertion. See, for example, Bukkake, which IIRC has a whole section on assertions that it's misogynistic. It would have nothing to do with the Wikipedia if we didn't host these images. But we do. So it has plenty to do with Wikipedia. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL. You should have said something at the MfD, Gigs. Oh well. It isn't your essay, HS, since it is the main space. Sucks to be you, huh? I am currently debating with myself what to add to it. I would love to see it be open and honest about the dispute (both viewpoints) since it has such a good name but the scope is crap. Although I like such images I can even make an argument for when they should not be allowed. But a blanket statement that does not pull from any consensus (I still argue that it full-on disregards it) and instead is just personal arguments is problematic. Not problematic enough to delete according to some people (even the founder ignores policy!) but enough to edit.Cptnono (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts on your essay

I have been following the comments on this essay for a while, and I thought I should share my views. I fully agree with the sentiment of this essay, but have to disagree on some minor points. I want to address your three main points that you make.

• The cost to Wikipedia's reputation - This is a valid point. Although, I think most people living in free societies abhor censorship in any form, I don't think what you are suggesting necessarily constitutes censorship. Links can always be provided to outside sources for questionable materials. I think where the Mohammad image comparisons fail is that those who object to the prophet's images are a small minority. On the other hand, pornographic images are considered objectionable by most cultures of the world, especially in places where children have free access to them. I think, as a society, we have to be very careful about how we treat free speech on the internet. In this age, anybody with access to a computer has a free and anonymous forum to slander with impunity, post pornographic or disturbing materials where anyone can see them, etc, while in the past most people only had access to major media outlets, where people and organizations can be held accountable for what they say and do - both legally and economically. So, resources like Wikipedia are in many ways a double-edged sword. I think the Wikipedia community has to decide how much it will adhere to principle even when that principle flies in the face of common sense, reasonableness, and the established values of human society.
• Children can see it. - This is the strongest point of the three. As you know, most schools, public institutions, and many companies install web filtering software to block pornographic and other types of content. Wikipedia has presented a bit of a conundrum. Nobody wants to block Wikipedia, because of its great value and access to information. But for most schools, giving children access to pornographic materials is simply not an option. I think if things continue as they are, we are going to find more schools and public institutions having no choice but to block Wikipedia as a whole. Most web filters can block based on the URL, but with constant new pages being added and titles being changed, it is difficult to catch everything. One thing that might be useful is placing a banner on pages that discuss pornographic topics. This is already done on the Japanese version of Wikipedia. Web filtering software can pick up these banners and block based on that. While nobody likes the idea of censoring content, it is preferable to blocking Wikipedia altogether. Therefore, I think you can argue that including these types of images in articles can actually have the effect of restricting free access to information, which is Wikipedia's main goal.
• The images are misogynistic and degrading to women - I think this is your weakest point. The images that I have seen are fairly accurate depictions of the pornographic materials they attempt to describe. If anything, you might be able to argue that the original pornographic materials are degrading to women, but I don't think there is any clear consensus here, as there are many women who do not find it degrading.

Jrobinjapan (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Islam is at 1.5 billion worldwide or something huge like that. Not all Muslims take offence but enough think it should be prohibited for the most part. It is at least a substantial minority if measured against the world population. A "small minority" seems a little off to the point that I could see it being offensive to Muslims (no offence here, of course). Pornographic images are not considered objectionable for consenting adults throughout much of the world. Some countries don't even care about age while some countries go even farther by allowing prostitution (again for both consenting adults and those who are underage depending on where it is) So your perception of human society might be ore based on your environment and personal beliefs. You think we have to be careful and the community agrees. Hell, I even agree. However, the community has allowed for it if done properly. That is what is wrong with this essay. This essay does not touch on how and when these images can be appropriate but instead is a soapbox that disregards multiple aspects. If this is to be an essay in the mainspace it should clearly point to firm reasoning and not the two others listed that you seem to agree are not exactly inline with how things are supposed to be working around here.Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but I think you need to consider the audience. If you look at the users of the English Wikipedia, the percentage of Muslims, while not insignificant, is indeed quite small. By the way, I'm not arguing either way on whether Mohammad's images should be shown or not on the English Wikipedia. (If you look at the Arabic version of the Muhammad page, you will see no pictures of the prophet, which I think we can all agree is reasonable.)

On the other hand, I think we can also agree that an overwhelmingly large percentage of the English speaking world's cultures do not approve of allowing children to view pornographic images. I agree with Cptnono that it could use some cleaning up to acknowledge more of Wikipedia's basic policies, however. And since this is not a user page essay, I think he should be able to edit it to make it better. Since it seems that we agree there is common ground here, let's find it. Jrobinjapan (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the first place to look is "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The problem with this essay is that it assumes that pornography cannot be treated in an encyclopedic manner. Other strong arguments for not using certain images can be based on Florida law and that came up in the recent concerns over at commons and here with Jimbo Wales drawing frustration. This is even easier to write an anti-hardcore essay on when adding "hardcore". Of course "hardcore" as laid out in this essay is not "hardcore" as laid out in Florida state law. So if the essay is retitled "No hardcore images", I would be happy to ad all sorts of reasoning. But one user's soapbox does contradict consensus (the reasoning provided is not the reason the community is concerned with these images) and it makes it to broad of an essay to be workable since it is then an attempt at writing an (as of now) unattainable guideline.

So first step: Retitle. Second step: Use Reasoning that actually has some (even minority some) support.Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, would you agree that images are not necessary in an encyclopedic treatment of pornographic topics, for the most part? I've never seen an encyclopedic reference (other that ones clearly labeled as intended for adults) that show such images. I can't speak for everyone, but most of the examples that have been pointed out so far have, to my sensibilities, detracted from, rather than added to the articles. There was not a single case where the images clarified beyond what was written in the article. I mean, a guy sucking his dick is a guy sucking his dick, you don't really need an image to illustrate it, wouldn't you agree? Jrobinjapan (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all agreed. Everyone reads an article differently. One editor here had tons of stats on it but I don't recall who it was. Some people only look at the image and the lead. Others check every source. Being on the internet adds a dimension to it. Learning disabilities add another. Images are more than just decoration. We do not need them anywhere with that logic so strike them from everything then. We do not need depictions of oranges, wooden spoons, or Tic Tacs. Since Wikipedia does not remove images simply because they hurt people's feelings then yes: we certainly should have some explicit images. Keys to doing it right include not overdoing it, making sure it is inline with state laws (releases, concerns with age, and so on), and making sure they are not overly distracting from the text with unrelated material. Cptnono (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of responses to some earlier comments. Regarding "I think most people living in free societies abhor censorship in any form, I don't think what you are suggesting necessarily constitutes censorship." It doesn't just "not necessarily constitute censorship", it absolutely doesn't constitute censorship. Censorship is editorial control by an external entity. When people speak of censorship, they are first of all mainly talking about state censorship. This can take two forms, prior restraint - when the state has a Censor's Office and material cannot legally be published without their OK - or post priori censorship, where you can publish whatever you want but are liable to be arrested afterwards. Obviously this does not apply to the situation we are talking about.

Then there is censorship by non-state entities. In the old days, every American movie had to be approved by the Hays Office, which was set up by the movie studios. The Hays Office wasn't an arm of the state, but without their approval no theater in America would show your movie, and no studio would make if they thought it wouldn't get the OK from the Hays Office. The state wasn't involved, but the state allowed this to happen, even though it was a gross violation of antitrust laws. And in fact the Hays Office was set up to appease the state and head off any possible formal state censorship. (The rating system we have now is a remnant of this system, and like the Hays Office it would absolutely be illegal collusion normally, but special legislation has been passed to allow this.) The Comics Code is a similar example.

Then there are weaker forms of external control, like informal censorship, local censorship, and boycotts. If all the bookstores in my county refuse to carry works by Trotsky, that could - maybe - be seen as in informal form of censorship, even though there's no overt collusion. If my public library refused to carry works by Trotsky for political reasons, that is arguably censorship (the library is an arm of the state); but if they don't carry them just because no one wants them, it's not. Intent would be key in this case. Then boycotts - if an organized group agitates for people not to buy my newspaper unless it drops the "Trotsky Says" column, that's an outside entity trying to influence editorial content. It's debatable whether any of these rise to the level of "censorship", and it partly depends on the effectiveness of the effor - if I can get my Trotsky in the next county or in the next town's library, can we really say that censorship is in effect.

But if an individual bookstore or theater or whatever decides they don't want to sell a given work, that's not censorship. If I decide not to carry the "Trotsky Says" column in my newspaper, that's not censorship. That's just editoral judgement. Because there is no outside entity exercising control.

And that is the situation we have here. We are not talking about censorship here. Look, the Britannica doesn't host porn. Are they "censored"? Of course not. They are exercising editoral judgement. I think it'd be silly to say "The Brittanica is censored". The Great Chinese Encyclopedia (or whatever they have) is censored, and that's totally different, and to say "The Great Chinese Encyclopedia is censored, and the Brittanica is censored, and the two conditions are similar enough that we can use the same word" is silly.

In fact, our policy "Wikipedia is not censored" is badly misnamed. (In a narrow sense, the Wikipedia is censored, because the State of Florida won't let use host certain material - child porn, direct incitements to crime, deliberate fraud. There's no prior restraint (no Censor's Office) but we'd be liable to being shut down and whoever is legally responsible to arrest. We can host libel, but are liable to civil action in that case, which the state allows, so effectively we are censored from that too. (Not that we want to host any of these things, of course.)

But WP:NOTCENSORED isn't talking about that. It's about editorial control. The core sentence of the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy is the last: "...'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content", so it really should be renamed to something like "Wikipedia contains 'objectionable' content" or, since it's part of WP:NOT, maybe "Wikipedia is not edited to remove 'objectionable' content" or something like that. And the shortcut could be WP:OBJECTIONABLE. It's a little less concise, but on the other hand more accurate. Maybe I'll bring this up. Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you there. When I say "not necessarily censorship", I'm using a broader meaning of the term, as it is used on WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm all for more editorial control on Wikipedia. Jrobinjapan (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

---

As to the "misogynist" point - another editor brought this up also. The images are accurate (I think), but so? They just accurately portray misogyny. That "...there are many women who do not find it degrading" is probably true, and it depends on the individual picture. One could argue whether (some of) the images are misogynist in intent or effect, and there's no true right answer, I guess, but at least a reasonably strong argument could be made that they are (and citations to this effect could be included).

However, the argument is valuable from a political perspective. Most Wikipedian's don't have children (see chart in a section above) and many of these (and some that do) don't give a rat's ass about kids. (I just recently saw the following statement on an editor's talk page - actually, Cptnono who has commented here - "The children are of no concern to me", and you see that from time to time (although Cptnono's brutal frankness is unusually... bracing).

After all, young people can't vote, don't make big donations, don't edit encyclopedias that much (an those that do are self-selected cohort of unusual characteristics), and I guess from a Ayn Rand type perspective (and I think we have a high percentage of libertarians and Randians and so forth here, relative to the general population) I suppose that children, being weak, are actively contemptible.

But with women it's different. There are so many of them, for one thing - they're everywhere nowadays, doubtless to the dismay of some - and they won't necessarily shut up about this stuff (again, to the dismay...). And they vote, and write letters, and edit encyclopedias, and some of them are right there in your classroom or office or even your home. In short, they're a lot harder to blow off.

And actually I think a lot of this is backlash to that: "One of you people may have gotten that internship/promotion/plum assignment/A+ grade/etc that rightfully belongs to my kind of people, but at the end of the day you're still just meat, OK?" I can't prove this, but you have to wonder. And I don't like it very much. Herostratus (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that because an images portrays misogyny, that the intent of the article is itself misogynistic. There are many articles that cover topics, where the topics being covered are offensive to some readers and editors, but does that mean Wikipedia should not include them? I understand if you want to make it a political point, but that is not the impression I got reading the essay. Perhaps consider something like, "Some people may find some of these images to be offensive and misogynistic" and explain more why that is bad for Wikipedia, instead of saying "Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women". Your statement as it stands seems to imply that the images are undeniably misogynistic and degrading to any woman who sees them. This is a somewhat contentious statement (since it can not be proved with evidence) and more of an appeal to emotion that lessens the persuasiveness of your argument in my opinion. Jrobinjapan (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm well. You may be right, I don't know. Let's get some more input and see where it goes. Herostratus (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Misogynistic section

I have attempted to make the misogyny section a little more reasonable. As you note, Wikipedia shouldn't take a position in the war between the sexes. The old wording did exactly that! I hope this change is more agreeable to you. Gigs (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gigs, Gigs, Gigs. You blanked the section and voted to userfy the essay. I'm having a hard time accepting you as a friend of the essay who is only interested in making it more cogent and persuasive. Let me ask you a question: are you in general agreement with the thrust of this essay, or not? And if not, why are you editing it?

You blanked the section earlier on the grounds that it was "polemical" (as well as "not really really related to the Wikipedia", which is ridiculous). Well of course it's polemical. The only questions are, is it good polemics, and does it use fair arguments. It does use fair arguments - this is not to say it's necessarily true, but that it's reasonable to say it's true, see the work of Gail Dines etc etc. As to whether it's good or not: your proposed changes weaken the thrust of the argument and muddy the terms, so they are no improvement.

We are not talking about "pornographic genres" in general, just about a specific subset. I am not talking about softcore pornography or pornography in general, and if we water down the text to give that impression, we are opening the section to objections like "Well, what's wrong with Playboy? I think the human body is beautiful" and so forth. But we are not talking about the beauty of the human body, we are talking about images of women being abused (in some cases, and the essay does say "many" and not "all"). We need to be as precise as possible in our terms.

We don't need to water it down with weasel words such as "Many consider" the images to be misogynistic etc. They are misogynistic, in the opinion of this essay. That's something that cannot be proven or disproven, and the reader can either accept that or not. But the essay is entitled to make its point forcefully. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus: you are doing great work here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I do consider myself a friend of this essay. I would love to see all of these images off of Wikipedia as much as you do. But, as I mentioned earlier, I think the over-generalization on the misogynist point hurts the persuasiveness of the essay. Critical thinkers (which I like to think most Wikipedia editors are) have an innate aversion to things which they perceive as over-generalization and appeals to emotion. They then tend to disregard other, perfectly valid points. If your intent is to appeal to emotion, then great, but I think you are going to turn off a lot of people who would otherwise be inclined to join your cause. This is just my feeling, and I may be wrong, so I'm not going to forcefully change it myself. However, I do hope that you consider what I have written. Either way, I thank you for your hard work on the essay. Jrobinjapan (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. Let's cogitate on it some more, and maybe some other readers will have suggestions. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus, I agree with large parts of this essay. My recommendation to userfy was based on your reluctance to let anyone else edit it. If the essay were titled "images in obscure misogynistic porn subgenre articles" then it would be clear. (I'm not actually recommending such a mouthful as a title). But that's not what you've titled it. You've asserted that our coverage of hardcore porn is "mostly about obscure sub-genres of pornography", and then you go on to claim that those sub-genres are misogynistic. By extension you are calling "most" of our coverage of hard core porn misogynistic.

You claim to paint with a narrow brush, and you literally do if the reader ignores the title, carefully reads the non-bold intro, and rejects your assertion that most of our coverage is of obscure misogynistic subgenres. That's a lot to ask, don't you think? If you want this to be an essay about misogynistic sub-genres, then lets make that more clear. Gigs (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have a complete list of what articles are just about pornography and which are about real sexual activities (which may also be seen in pornography). I don't have this list because sorting these out, which I'm trying to do, is very time-consuming. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The disclaimer

I've asked for the disclaimer to be amended to address a valid point here. Wikipedia_talk:Content_disclaimer#Edit_request:_mention_sexuality_explicitly Gigs (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I rather wish you hadn't used the wording that you did in your proposal there (which was to add "sexual acts" to the list.) To explain why I think this, consider two images:

• Image A
  Image A
• Image B
  Image B

(Sorry, I see that Image B is on the "bad image list" - which also tells us something I think - and the readier will have to click the link to see it.)

I think that most people, on seeing the term "sexual acts", will be put in mind of Image A. But that is not what I'm talking about in this essay, I am talking about Image B and like images.

Comparing Image A to Image B in the context of the three main points raised in the essay, I think that:

• Image A has considerably more encyclopedic value (because it depicts a common-real life event that is highly notable). And at the same time it exacts a lower cost - it is less likely to alienate people, partly because it is so notable, and also for other reasons.
• While I am not a child psychologist, I would think that Image A would be much less harmful. (I am not considering here the question of very young people (who presumably aren't interested in the Wikipedia anyway), nor am I saying that Image B is necessarily entirely unharmful.) If the images raise in the mind of (say) a twelve-year-old person the question (perhaps preconsciously) "Is this what grown-ups do, and will I likely be expected to do this when my own sexuality flowers?"), then the answer to the question for Image A is "yes" while for Image B it is "no", and there is a big difference between handing out truth and handing out falsehood on this important issue at this delicate developmental stage.
• And Image A is not at all misogynist, while Image B is, or at least a reasonable argument can be made that it is.

In addition, Image B does not even portray a "sexual act", really. After thoroughly vetting the references at Bukkake, I determined that there is no reliable source indicating that people engage in this activity voluntarily in real life at all, especially in heterosexual groups. So it is depicting an image that effectively occurs only in fiction, and so we are looking at actors or models or imaginary persons. I don't think that performances of actors following a script on a sound stage are really "sexual acts" in the usual sense, any more than the activities of an actor playing Superman on a sound stage are really "heroic acts".

(N.B.: though I have used Bukkake throughout in the examples, there are several other articles and images to which all this applies.)

So your proposed addition to the disclaimer doesn't really address the issue raised in that section of the essay, and I wouldn't support making any significant change to that section if your proposed addition is adopted.

Now Gigs, let me ask you again: what is your actual attitude to the essay? I know you don't like the third main point, but what about the first two points - are you in general agreement, or not? Herostratus (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that we put ourselves and our users in a very strange situation by being not censored in general. Schools can't really block Wikipedia since it's so useful, but we have content that would go far beyond the standards of a normal encyclopedia. I think that's a worthy problem to think about, and I agree that there hasn't particularly been serious discourse on it because we have tended to take a hard line on not being censored.

I don't agree with you that picture B is less encyclopedic. Sexual acts in general are difficult to explain in words, and both pictures significantly add to the understanding of the readers who might be unfamiliar. In some ways picture B is has more encyclopedic value, because of the relative obscurity of the act in English speaking nations, it is far more likely that someone would be familiar with the missionary position vs bukkake. The image is more likely to be offensive than the other, but we've never let potential offensiveness stop us from hosting images with encyclopedic value before.

On the subject of misogyny, some people argue that all pornography is misogynistic. You, in general, aren't. But what makes you right and them wrong? You've drawn a line in the sand, and I assert that it's a mostly arbitrary one. This was the motive behind my most recent edit. I wasn't trying to "water down" your essay, I was trying to make it more applicable to a wider audience. It is, after all, named "hardcore images", a very general name that includes your Picture A, and indeed, any penetration. If it's really about a certain few subgenres then that could be clearer. If it's not, then widen the scope.

My proposed addition to the disclaimer isn't really meant to satisfy you (though I hoped you might find it a step in the right direction), it's meant to satisfy me. You've raised a good point here with regard to it, and I think it's something that's good for Wikipedia to mention in the disclaimer that our potentially offensive content includes depictions of sexual acts.

Regarding your doubt that people voluntarily engage in bukkake; If you mean the highly organized events with large numbers of people, I agree, that's something that only happens pornographic films, just as banging the random pizza delivery guy is a film cliche as well. If you mean on a smaller scale with 2 or 3 people, I'm sure that happens all the time every day, in a fully voluntary manner, and that some women find it enjoyable. Gigs (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking our lead from reliable sources

I believe there is another way this topic can be approached. We have very strong policies that tell us that our content should reflect coverage in the best, most reputable sources, and exclude original research. That is understood as a basic principle of Wikipedia. No one appears to have any problem with this. Of course we sometimes get editors arguing that most reliable sources are biased, prejudiced, or motivated by ideological hostility towards whatever person or topic has taken their fancy, but on the whole we give such editors short shrift. We point them to NPOV policy, which calls upon us to represent viewpoints in proportion to their published prevalence in reliable sources.

How we approach the task of illustrating our articles should, in principle, be no different. We should take our cues on how to illustrate our work from the sources we cite in our article. If our illustration practice differs sharply from that in the cited sources, then we are not reflecting our sources. It is fully analogous to presenting an argument that is not present in the sources.

Now, in my experience reliable published sources discussing hardcore pornography do not include illustrations. We don't need to ask why they take that editorial decision, just like we don't need to ask why all our sources are agreed about the validity of a scientific argument. But we should note the fact.

I wrote and researched Creampie (sexual act). None of the sources I cited had a picture of a creampie; not a drawing, not a photograph. This is very different from an article like sexual positions, where reliably published sex manuals do present illustrations (usually drawings) of sexual positions, or medical textbooks, which include high-quality anatomical photographs of all parts of the human body.

If someone argues that all these reliable sources eschewing illustrations of things like bukkake, creampies, Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) or goatse are biased and prejudiced, and points to NOTCENSORED, we should give them the same answer that we give editors who argue that the writing in all reliable sources is biased.

That is not what happens at present. NOTCENSORED trumps everything, and no one even thinks of consulting published sources to help decide whether or not to include a given image. In my view, that is a problem. --JN466 04:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal. However, would that guidance have lead us to not publish the Rorschach test ink blots? Or paintings of Muhammad? Reverse engineered lock designs? Often coverage is done a certain way for political reasons or other reasons that Wikipedia should not necessarily be bound by (but that we should consider and discuss). If it could be narrowly construed to apply to just the field of sexuality, that may be workable. Gigs (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never really properly looked into the Rorschach controversy. Were we the first to publish the images? I thought we weren't. But if we were, or had been, the first to publish them, then we'd have been, in a sense, a primary source for that content (which we don't want to be). I am pretty sure there are other publications showing images of Muhammad; I am not sure about reverse-engineered locks. But the sentence "Often coverage is done a certain way for political reasons or other reasons that Wikipedia should not necessarily be bound by (but that we should consider and discuss)" is interesting, because editors often argue that way on talk pages about textual content. Yet we don't usually accept that argument (and editors who persist with that line of argument in their editing usually get sanctioned quickly). There's an interesting dichotomy here: while we bind editors to closely map and follow the judgment of reliable sources in editorial decisions relating to text -- at least in theory --, we freely reject the validity of editorial decisions made by reliable sources when it comes to illustrations, aspiring to be different from published sources. I find that striking.

I hadn't really thought to apply what I proposed above to other contexts than the one we're discussing here, but we should ponder what our job is – to reflect published sources, or do something published sources don't do – and if it is the latter, then we should think about why we want to be different. --JN466 03:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We were not the first to publish any of those images. However, their display was not a normal part of coverage, and I think a test like you propose would have given a lot of ammo to those with a heavy COI who wanted to censor them. Gigs (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If they weren't a part of normal coverage in reliable sources, then yes, it probably would have. But by the same token, our including them then was technically a NPOV violation, as NPOV is not established by Wikipedians, but by reliable sources ... --JN466 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a stretch. Gigs (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. I don't know which position I would have taken if I had participated in those discussions at the time. I have no intention of proposing this as a WP-wide principle, but do feel it would help to consider this line of thought in discussions of pornographic illustrations. There should at least be some sorts of precedents in reliable sources for the types of images we include. We always have the option to add a Commons link to more graphic illustrations; that's an approach I would favour in the cock and ball torture article, for example. --JN466 10:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. Another point - we don't generally use fair-use unfree images in pornography articles. Most of the pornography images (and some non-pornography sexual images too) are the work of User:Seedfeeder, and are entirely his conception of the illustrated activity. They're probably mostly more or less accurate, although in at least one case Gokkun this is disputed. (But there is a policy or guideline somewhere addressing the veracity of original drawings, although I can't find it right now, and it does give some leeway if the image may be assumed to be probably accurate, I think.) Herostratus (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I do see that the opening of WP:RS is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." The people writing this policy were thinking about text, but it seems it would also apply to images, would it not? Interesting. Herostratus (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus, don't you think images like on Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) make a very good case for widening this past solely misogynistic genre images? If not, why not? Gigs (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Without checking the article in detail, this appears to be a real-life practice (it is also in pornography). If this is true, it wouldn't fall under this essay. Herostratus (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER. Things are going to be different here. Is Encyclopedia Britannica going to entries on these practices in the first place? If you want the entries gone altogether I would understand the argument. And funny enough, the Tea Bag page actually does have an RS (only 1, though) that shows an image.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus, it's becoming increasingly obvious that this essay is just a coatrack to argue against a specific image on the Bukkake article. You now claim it only applies to misogynistic sub-genres that don't happen in real life. If you really cared about all those other arguments you made above about protecting children from fringe sexual practices and encyclopedic cost, then you'd apply them equally to the images on the cock and ball torture article. Gigs (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Bukkake, there are few other similar cases. Only a few, I think, but as I said I don't have a complete list at this time. I agree that the images in cock-and-ball torture etc. are also possibly worth discussing, and perhaps I'll have something to say about them in 2011. But they are entirely different case from what is addressed in this essay (assuming that cock-and-ball torture is indeed a practice that is reliably sourced as occurring in populations at a notable level - I haven't vetted the refs). I prefer to define my terms as precisely as possible, and to work on precisely defined issues, one at a time. Herostratus (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not counting me and Cptnono, only two other editors (I think) have weighed in on the "misogyny" issue. Both think it should be removed or altered. I'd like to hear from more voices before making a major change in the section. Herostratus (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My position on it is a little more subtle than that. If you intend this to only apply to Bukkake and "a few others" (as yet unidentified) that are misogynistic, primarily porn, genres, then I think you should at a minimum rename the essay to something more specific (like "Misogynistic porn genre images"). If not, then expand it to actually give a position on hardcore image issues in general, and loosen up your control a little so that other editors can actually collaborate on it so that it represents more than the position a minority of one. Gigs (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If others cannot edit this then it is time to move it into the userspace.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments on your proposal

I can see that you have given this topic a lot of thought, and have sincere and genuine concern for what is in the best interests of Wikipedia. You've even gone to the trouble of documenting and commenting on what you anticipate most of the disagreement with your position will be.

As I worked to try to do something similar to this, with roughly the same motivations in 2006 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines I can sympathize with your position a great deal.

I think you are going about it the wrong way.

To start with you called the project "Wikipedia:Hardcore images" -- but then, immediately say "Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography" and then immediately try to define with "Hardcore pornography" is a fairly well-defined phrase".

Of course, you've jumped immediately from "Hardcore Images" to "Hardcore Pornography" in one fell swoop.

The first issue is that what we are talking about here really is self-censorship. What images do we wish to choose to leave out of Wikipedia for various reasons? That kind of voluntary self-censorship and restraint do we as a community desire out of the interest of keeping Wikipedia on the goal of being an encyclopedia, rather than other things?

The images that we choose to not be in Wikipedia cold vary broadly, and are not limited to what you call "pornography". That potentially includes images that do or could offend readers for wide variety of prospective reasons. It could challenge their views of morality or ethics, their political views, their religious views, or any number of other aspects of their life. "Pornography" frankly, is lowest on the list of possible reasons. Certainly graphics violence such as rape and murder would be worse. Blasphemy would be worse.

Next -- You use the term Pornography as if we all agree or understand the definition. You give a definition, and tell us that it is "well-defined". Of course we all use the same definition that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart used in Miller vs California. That is "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it." In fact, the only standard we have all (in the U.S.) agreed upon on for that is the Miller Test. That is a convenient standard, since Wikipedia servers are in the State of Florida, and bound by Florida state and U.S. federal laws (and hence, the Miller test.)

So, us self-censoring the broad range of potentially offense images on Wikipedia to focus only on "Pornography featuring sexual penetration and other sexuality explicit acts". "Explicit" is further defined as "very specific, clear, or detailed" and as "containing material that might be deemed offensive or graphic" is 'not okay.

The narrowing of your definition from the legal standard (Miller test) that we all agree on, to a narrower standard that is extremely subjective, and based on a specific list of content -- rather than on the context that a given image is used -- is not acceptable. Not at all. Not a little bit.

Using such a prospective subjective standard, we limit ourselves to the lowest common denominator. (and given a world with religions that require their women to be completely covered from head to toe) that common denominator is pretty low.)

One persons subjective opinion may be that because they personally find an image to be "erotic" or "arousing" in nature, that is is therefore "pornography" will not fly on Wikipedia.

An image that is directly related to the topic of the article it is in and illustrates the topic well (accurately) and benefits the article from an educational or encylopedic perspective should, as long it does not violate the law, be allowed in an article in Wikipedia. We should not give strong consideration to whether an image will be controversial, or whether it will offend "some" people, or whether "children" might see it. When given a choice of two or more images for an article that are equally good, of course, choosing an image that is less likely to offend or be controversial should be done.

A good example of this would be the article on sexual intercourse showing a real picture of a male and female (or more controversially, but just as appropriately two males having sexual intercourse.) Such photos would not inherently be pornography (although I suspect you would insist otherwise.) If used in the context of this encyclopedia, accurate, and tasteful. Showing a naked body is not erotica or pornography in an educational context. Showing one of the most common biological processes that we as humans experience is not pornography either. Yes, it could be "controversial". It could be controversial because the man is black and the woman is white. It could be controversial because the image *does not* show them using a condom. It could be controversial because the image *does* show them using a condom. It could be controversial because the man is "old" and the woman looks very "young". It could be controversial because it is two men. It could be controversial because the woman is on top, and not in the missionary position. It could be controversial because they are not married. It could be controversial because they *are* married, but not to one another. It could be controversial because they are married to one another, but they were having coitus for the benefit of the photo, and not to conceive children. There are numerous other reasons (as diverse as the diversity of humanity interacts with politics, religion and science.)

We at Wikipedia try to cut through all of that and warn people ahead of time that they could see controversial things in Wikipedia. We try to focus on our goal. What is our goal? Do we as editors know or remember that? Open and free access to the sum of human knowledge?

If we were in China, or Russia, we would have to accept the censorship (of all types of content, not just prospective erotic content), limiting that vision of "open and free and human knowledge" to some degree that was acceptable within those cultures and political structures. We do face the political reality and limitations of where Wikipedia *is* located. We do not have to limit ourselves based fear of controversy or bad public relations.

Out goal is to accumulate all of human knowledge and make it free and easily accessible. To stay on that task, we can't limit ourselves to trying to please and appease the specific moral tenets of every (or most, or the largest) religious groups.

You have gone to great lengths to pose this argument as something other than about censorship. But what it really is, at it's core, is an attempt to set up guidelines for Wikipedia editors to self-censor images that you or others subjectively describe as "Pornography".

To address your three main points:

• There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to host these images. These few images are among the most contentious materials hosted on the Wikipedia, degrade the Wikipedia's reputation, create a political vulnerability for the Wikipedia, and drive away customers (including women; Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help).

We are not a business. Our goal is to accurately document human knowledge, not to drive up market share or broaden the diversity of our audience. It is about factually accurate coverage of *all* notable topics. It is what it is. We should not change it to get more women, or minimize political vulnerability. So, is your proposal be to limit some forms of contentious material(content) in order to gain more "customers"? Sort of an approach that although we had less documentation of the sum of human knowledge, since more of humanity read it, it would be more useful overall?

• It is not a good thing for young people to be viewing these images. Other images on the Wikipedia may also be problematic, but these images are especially problematic since they depict extreme sexual situations, and they depict events that occur in pornography but not (at a verifiably notable level) in real life. A picture being worth a thousand words, this point may be lost on impressionable viewers.

You state an opinion that it is not a good thing for younger people to see controversial content. How do you know that? Perhaps growing up with a sense of reality, rather than being "protected" is better? Maybe reality better prepares one for life than fantasy? Perhaps children exposed to other humans who are also naked will help them grow up with an attitude that nakedness is a normal condition, and live a life finding nothing erotic about someone who is naked? What it boils down to, is that it is not our job in Wikipedia to project others from reality. We are talking about images here, not a car speeding in our direction. It is in fact, our job to accurately document reality. Should someone protect others? The reason that we have laws, and parents and counselors and Priests and Imam's is to seek guidance from others through our travels in life. None of those are our role.

If we wish to limit ourselves in some way, I suggest that we do it in the way we already are. We have laws in effect already regarding certain types of images, and defining what things are, in fact, obscene or not. We have a plethora of Wikipedia policies to insure our content is on task. That is, on a notable topic, with details in the article limited to the context of that topic, with content that is as accurate as possible, and images that support that topic and the applicable content on that topic. We have sensible editors that generally follow our community guidelines, and when given a choice of options in an article on content, choose the least potentially offensive content, rather than the more offensive.

• Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women, and this is by intentional design (since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women). While it may be appropriate to display images depicting the degradation of women in certain historical or sociological contexts, its not appropriate to use them in what is a least a borderline "fanboy" context. In the war between the sexes, the Wikipedia should not be taking sides.

As a feminist, I am fine with misogynistic images when used in the correct context within Wikipedia. I am fine if it accurately depicts the topic as it is or has been in real life. Documenting misogyny helps to eliminate it, not to propagate it. If we should not be "taking sides" then we should focus on factual accuracy. Personally, I *do* take sides. Exposing bad things to the sunshine of reality is the best way to get others to recognize the truth of it. Jews do not want to hide and pretend that the Genocide of WWII never happened, they want to document every detail of the reality of that tragedy. We would not make editorial decision to eliminate references to Genocide in order to protect the victims. We don't need to make it a difficult issue. We are here to accurately document the sum of human knowledge.

You said: "I applaud and think is as good an expression of anti-censorship principles as any. And let us by all means take a stand to not redact our material in deference to the claims of ignorance, superstition, religion, tyranny, and profit. But hardcore pornography does not ennoble the human spirit. It enslaves, not frees, the mind. It tells a false story about human sexual behavior (and that for the profit of capitalists). It is not for this that we want to expend our supply of goodwill."

Well, I applaud you! I doubt many people would disagree with your words, and share your good-hearted intent -- as I do. We want to tell the true story of sexuality and sexual behavior, and not a false story. We want the capability to boldy document and describe human sexual behavior accurately, and in proper perspective. We don't wish to be limited by moralistic and life sheltered individuals who oppose any form of acknowledgment that sexuality exists. We should have no problem with any type of explicit sexual images within Wikipedia, as long as it is educational, and on the specific topic, and benefits the article by helping people to understand that topic better. As long as we are careful to make sure that those images are not, in fact, obscene, and are valuable to the article, that should be enough. Atom (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. This is quite long response and It's hard to digest it all. I do see some sophistry here, though: I talk about about images of women being degraded for amusement, and your response is "Perhaps children exposed to other humans who are also naked will help them grow up with an attitude that nakedness is a normal condition". We are not talking about anatomy pictures or the beauty of the naked human body here, and changing the subject in this way is not helpful.

We are not handwaving and talking vaguely of objectionableness in general. We wouldn't do that, because of course different people have different standards. We are talking about images which are problematic for specific, well-defined reasons.

Look. The river of sexual development is fed by many streams. And it is not fully understood. So we should be most conservative about the possibility of polluting any of those streams. This is our responsibility as adults. Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your last sentence seems more abstract. Of course we adults should all have s sense of responsibility. There are certainly a set of images which don't really have a need to be on Wikipedia. The ones of those that are sexually explicit should be the least of our concerns. Images that display graphic violence are much more offensive and damaging to all involved. Pictures of human skin are just that.

In my view the primary thing we should avoid is people learning about sexuality (which happens throughout the human lifespan) getting an unrealistic idea about sexuality. The problem with pornography in general, is that the people involved and the frequency of the acts involved are not representative of most people, or most human behavior. As for women being degraded for amusement, as a feminist, of course I agree they should be avoided, generally speaking. I think that accurately documenting history and how people have been misogynistic in the past is the best way to combat it in the future. So, for instance, although I abhor the sexual act now called Bukkake, documenting that a sex act intentionally intended to humiliate and degrade women exists and existed is important. That said, I am not sure how people learning that nudity is normal and healthy is connected to degrading women. Clearly images and artwork of human nudity abound in normal day to day life. Sadomasochistic images of non-consensual rape and bondage do not abound, and I can't see that such an image has a useful place within Wikipedia.

Part of the issue is moralists and ultra conservative religious types who classify anything that causes them or anyone else to be sexual aroused to be immoral, and therefore, pornography, and therefore, not useful regardless of any other context that image might have. What we can agree on, I think, is that we should never add an image to Wikipedia with the specific intent of causing sexual arousal. An image should be added to an article solely because it adds to the understanding of the specific topic of that article. If an image works well to help an article be understood, but also happens to be found to be arousing by some person, that is a personal issue, and not incorrect editing within Wikipedia. Otherwise, something as simple as an image of Mary Jane shoes would be omitted.

What I dislike the most about what you have written is your use of the term "hardcore pornography" and "pornography" as if the terms were clear and we all understood and agreed on what those terms meant. In fact, they are relative terms, and one image can be wholly appropriate in one context, and pornographic in a different context. The terms "sexually explicit" and "obscene" are better defined individually and within the law and would be more useful to use. As we could lay down 100 sexually explicit images on the table, and sort them by our subjective opinion of how graphic they are, from very low to very high, and try to draw a line on where the images were "too sexually explicit" for Wikipedia, you and I, (and many others) would likely agree that image #1 was fine for Wikipedia, and image #100 was to explicit for Wikipedia, and probably nothing else -- certainly not on where the line should be. For any kind of proposal on sexually explicit images within Wikipedia to succeed, it needs to be as objective as possible, and push away subjective criteria. As the term "pornography" itself is entirely subjective, it is not a term that will ever be useful for this purpose. The other factor is that the context in how an image is used is important. Without the context, there is no way to classify an image as being anything other than sexually explicit. And there is nothing wrong with something being sexually explicit. Atom (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Userfy

This edit is exactly why I proposed userfying this months ago.[1] HS is not allowing others to contribute so this belongs in their user space.Cptnono (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Herostratus; Hostile edits to essays are not welcome. Write your own essay." I'm confused. This project is in user space. The edits I made I felt were positive and constructive, addressing the issues discussed while removing the feel that it was just one persons personal opinion. Are you trying to say that you own the article and no changes can me made except by you, or with your approval? If you want to move this to your talk page, then please feel free to express yourself. But in a project space it belongs to all of Wikipedia.

Also, I am not sure why you would consider those edits to be "hostile". I will try another edit that is more gentle. I hope that it does not step on your toes. Atom (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view this page is utterly ridiculous. It is not for Wikipedia to be claiming pornography is misogynistic; in fact it's not even for Wikipedia to be appearing to suggest that. Egg Centric (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently that is the essayists personal opinion, and not a consensus of editors. Atom (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, therefore userfy at the least. And it simply must be noted that this essay is in fact a polemic, it isn't just, or even primarily, about Wikipedia. Egg Centric (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the Wikipedia is not censored policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy."

If the issue were black and white, then there would be people for and people against. Non of us seem to be, in fact, for censoring Wikipedia. We all, for the most part, seem to be against images that are not appropriate for a given article. By policy, Wikipedia is neutral on images that have explicit sexuality. If the image is appropriate for the topic of an article, it may be acceptable. If the image is not appropriate for the topic of an article, then it may not be acceptable. The term used in this essay, hardcore pornography is subjective, and is used in the context by the primary essayist to mean "sexually explicit images that I don't like". As every editor can not like an image for their own personal reasons, it is not a term that can be useful to us. Perhaps some editors would like life to be easier, and have a very easy rule that no sexually explicit images may be used in Wikipedia. That is, however, not in alignment with current Wikipedia policy. To succeed in limiting images that are not in the best interests of WIkipedia, and yet not censor, we need objective criteria. This means there can be no hard and fast rule, that each and every image must be judged by the editors of a given article as to whether the image benefits an article or not. Whether the image is on topic or not is objective. Whether the image is sexually explicit or not is not a factor. Whether the activity and the image truly represent real life (versus fantasy/erotica/entertainment) seems to be a valid argument. Other objective and more concrete criteria could and should be proposed. But, the first thing that should go in this essay is the term hardcore pornography. I don't see any easy way to discuss a subjective term that varies bt context, generally in an objective and concrete way. Atom (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

HS has just axed more contributions.[2] The essay was kept when the first deletion discussion came up. I think people were appalled since they assumed the request for deletion was some sort of censorship. "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." (WP:ESSAYS ) applies and HS has made it clear that the essay is locked down.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

People. For starters, please stop making hostile edits to the page. Of course this is public space. We welcome discussions and edits intended to refine, strengthen, and improve the essay. However, this is not what is happening here. These are edits designed to attack and weaken the essay. This is no more acceptable than blanking the page would be. This would apply to any essay. You cannot edit WP:DICK to say "Actually, it's OK to be a dick" or whatever. So cut it out.

Instead write your own essay or something. You are welcome and indeed encouraged to write whatever you want, and are welcome and indeed encouraged to add a link to it on this page.

It's just an essay. Why are you so hostile to its existence? My experience is: people who cannot abide any expression of any view contrary to their own are people who are troubled by a quiet fear that they are terribly wrong. Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is counter to consensus and possibly confusing to new editors (not enough to be deleted apparently, although I still believe much of the votes to keep were knee jerk based). I believe it is also first stages of an attempt to change policy and since I find the premise ridiculous, I would prefer a better channel with more visibility so that the community could remind you of that. But my "hostility" towards it has nothing to do with you not allowing other editors to edit it. That alone is reason to userfy it even if I thought this essay was fantastic. Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of other editors are welcome to edit it. Just not you. Herostratus (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)