Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May - July 2007) Topic: "Unencyclopedic" (2003) Topic: Trivia (July 2007 - ongoing; partially archived)

RfC on NOTCENSORED

Due to a number of disputes that have arisen over the years involving NOTCENSORED, as well as the above-noted conflict, I am opening a policy RfC on the question below, which as far as I can tell is the crux of the problem. I believe our position on this subtle point needs to be clarified, particularly in light of the Recent foundation resolution on controversial content.

RfC Question

NOTCENSORED is necessary to protect controversial content which makes a clear and unambiguous contribution to an article; This is a given. That being said, does NOTCENSORED also protect controversial content that adds little or no value to the article?

In other words, while there is a strong consensus that controversial images of (say) penises or vaginas are necessary on their namesake pages, or that the cartoons of Muhammad on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy are central to the topic of that article, it is not clear that this same consensus extends to protect images which are merely decorative elements, artistic illustrations, unneeded exemplifications, page fillers, or other material of negligible content value for the article. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples of places where the issue of applying NOTCENSORED to incidental material has arisen (more may be added as the RfC progresses):

• talk:Pregnancy over the use of an art nude image in the lead of the article I don't see how this is an example of "incidental" imagery, considering some photo of a pregnant woman is a pretty important aspect of an article about pregnancy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• talk:Muhammad/Images, over the use of non-representative artwork depicting Muhammad
• talk:Goatse.cx over the inclusion of a screenshot of the original shock site. --Ludwigs2 01:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Again, I don't see how this is an example of "incidental" imagery, considering that it is central to the shock site. I think different issues were at play here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• talk:Arachnophobia over the inclusion of a photo of a spider. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED does not protect incidental material

• Support: Allowing NOTCENSORED to cover trivial material creates a difficult-to-resolve opening for violating NPOV: controversial images can be put on a page merely to be offensive, and held there by using NOTCENSORED to squelch discussion. This sets up the editing environment as a long-term BATTLEGROUND, where multiple editors try to address the issue and run into an endless wall of bureaucratic NOTCENSORED assertions. Wikipedia should not offend its readers with non-contributive controversial material (see wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). We offend where we have to, because we have to, not merely because we want to use that material. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)--Ludwigs2 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Very cautious support. Given the murky definition of "incidental material" I'll support the following concepts: 1. If there is consensus that any content does not have educational value this policy is irrelevant and the content is not protected. 2. Complaints from readers about offensive material should at least be considered, and consistent complaints should require specific justification that the offensive content is truly necessary. Editors must not simply blow off the complaints as "not censored says we can" if there is an indication that a substantial number of readers strongly disapprove, though reader feedback does not override consensus. 3. NOTCENSORED must be clear enough that it cannot be used as a tool to censor talk page discussions of whether controversial content is appropriate. 4. Offensive content should not be used if there is non-offensive content that achieves the same goal. SDY (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia does not seek to include as much offensive material as possible merely because offensive material is permitted in appropriate contexts. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not protected in the name of opposing censorship. --JN466 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support of principle NOTCENSORED should not "protect" any material. The purpose of NOTCENSORED is to provide a policy through which arguments that an image (or prose) should go for reasons of censorship can be squashed immediately. NOTCENSORED is a quick and easy response to a particular argument. it is not in any way an argument for the use of any material, as noted (perhaps in an extreme) by point 9 in the Wikipedia:Image use policy, "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article." Pictures should be evaluated for usage independent of whether they would or would not be censored elsewhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unreserved support. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not censored is often used ideologically as a justification for keeping material that is otherwise of no inherent value, as if any material that we can include, also should be included. This proposal helps clarify that point.Griswaldo (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. NOTCENSORED is not a substitute for editorial judgement. In cases where shocking or provocative images are not necessary for understanding of the subject, there's no need to dogmatically protect them. We should be able to have a rational discussion on what actually improves the article rather than just shouting at each other about censorship. For example, we don't include gruesome images of people's heads blown off in the suicide article. Is this censorship? No, its just good editorial judgement, and such judgement shouldn't be so difficult to defend. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Mostly support per Kaldari, with emphasis on the editorial judgment part. I think Wikipedians, generally speaking, have a reflexive, knee-jerk reaction to exercising editorial judgment, and accusations of censorship are often bandied about unnecessarily. I think offensiveness is a fine consideration when media do little to increase readers' understanding. (This applies whether it is a photo of a random spider on the arachnophobia page; the use of a large number of way-post-death images of Muhammad even when images of Muhammad are rare, relatively speaking, in Islamic art; the use of a graphic photo of a dead person on the suicide page; etc etc etc.) There is no reason to cause offense unnecessarily when readers' benefit is trivially small. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support although in this particular circumstance, that this is specifically about pictures of Muhammed, it galls me to support this because I think the pictures are OK to have. However, as a general rule, it seems that if we have something that 1) is of marginal encyclopedic value and 2) offends a lot of people, then from a business and political perspective it's pointless to include it. Have some perspective, people. (In the particular case of the Muhammed pictures, a case could be made for including them on grounds of principle. But for most cases -- you know, some really offensive gory or sexually extreme or otherwise inflamatory image and so forth, and it's entirely peripheral to the thrust of the article, let's be reasonable.) Herostratus (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support as per Griswaldo. --cc 11:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. One can oppose censorship without condoning gratuitous offence. It is the gratuitousness of the offence that is the problem here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support NOTCENSORED is not an excuse for including irrelevant and trivially related offensive material in any article. In the article Automobile, a picture that contains both an automobile and a naked person deserves no special protection, because pictures of naked people do not add anything to the readers' understanding of automobiles. It does protect "offensive" images when they are not incidental or decorative, including naked bodies in all sorts of medicine-related and sexuality-related articles—but even there, the image(s) chosen should normally be the least-offensive image that conveys the necessary information, not the editors' favorite Playboy centerfold model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. To me, the question is not just, or even primarily an issue of offense to readers per se. To take an instructive example, suppose that one is involved in a research project concerning an aspect of human sexuality. When writing a paper relating the results, and submitting it to a respected journal with academic peer review, would it be a good idea to include an essentially gratuitous collection of sexually explicit photographs taken during the course of the research to "illustrate" it? Such a submission runs a significant risk of not being taken seriously. If the reviewers and the editor do decide to publish the article, the photographs would not be included, in part to avoid making the journal look silly. Similarly, the present treatment of images in Wikipedia's sexology articles makes us look like jokers. Wikipedia's credibility is far too important to fritter it away just to make a point. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. NOTCENSORED is often used frivolously to support POV pushing and intentional breaking of social norms as part of a cultural war. NOTCENSORED is for minimising disruption caused by unreasonable complaints, not for making sure that Wikipedia contains more 'offensive' content than it would without the policy and if nobody were trying to censor it. Hans Adler 12:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support NOTCENSORED is clearly being used to entirely prevent the ability for anyone to support the removal of an image due to offence, even if the value offered by it is extremely limited. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED does protect incidental material

• Support NOTCENSORED indicates that issues related to religion are not considered, and shields substantive images and less substantive images alike. That shield does not create license: the images may be removed for any number of reasons, but they should never be held to a higher standard than images in other articles. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and takes no notice of religious objections in its editorial policies.—Kww(talk) 01:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support I would argue that none of the listed examples are incidental material, the Goatse one especially. If it is an image of the specific subject, then it needs to be included for illustration. The Goatse image is of the specific subject of the website, I see no logical reason why it should be excluded. The pregnancy debate is a bit more iffy, but it is obviously true that a nude photograph more clearly shows what pregnancy looks like than a person who has clothes covering her body. And, as for Muhammad, what exactly is non-representative of images of Muhammad made by historic Muslim artists? I'm actually surprised there's so few images of Muhammad in that article, in comparison to, say, the article on Jesus. Silverseren^C 01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per KWW and Silver seren above. Additionally: All "incidental material" should simply be judged by existing policy which already covers numerous reasons to include or remove any type of content on Wikipedia. NOTCENSORED does not, nor (in my recollection) ever has invalidated WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:NOTE, WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:BLP or any other part of WP:NOT (or various other policies and guidelines I may have missed). Proper application of all only leaves content that is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED (anything else automagically would be "prohibited" by the other policies). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have added a comment here[1] that indicates the true scope of these questions, because we must apply the answers uniformly. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support To the extent that the reason for wanting to remove the "incidental" material is based on offensiveness, WP:NOTCENSORED does apply. Offensiveness is not relevant, the question should be does the inclusion contribute to the article, or would the article be as good without the image (discounting any arguments to the effect that removal of offensiveness will make the article better. Monty₈₄₅ 02:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support This change, which seems to be specifically targeting medieval Islamic art from Persia and the Arab world, is unjustified. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support if incidental material is being discussed for removal, it should be based on the merits of whether or not it it improves the article, not whether or not it's too offensive. For example, a picture of a dead woman impaled through her perineum shouldn't be removed from the article on women because it's offensive, but because it doesn't illustrate the subject very well; the article on women describes what living women are and do, so pictures living, healthy women better supplement the article. Conversely, the same picture could fit quite well in the article on the Rape of Nanking, because that could illustrate the events there quite well even though it's incidental (it's just one small part of the entire event, and wouldn't have any more significance than any number of other images). Removing it just because someone says it's offensive would be disruptive because the Rape of Nanking happened, and it's certainly representative of the events. It could be removed for any number of other reasons (quality, another image better supporting the surrounding text, or copyright issues, to name three), but removing it just for being "offensive" is not a valid one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I know the picture you are referring to, and I agree with you. But the image is not incidental in rape of Nanking, and is not mere decoration; like certain images of the holocaust, it is an iconic image used by historians to show what happened. It has precedent in reliable sources covering the topic. What we are talking about are images that do not have such precedent, and do not reflect the typical illustration approach in reliable sources. --JN466 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support With the way it currently reads NOTCENSORED simply allows disclussion of positions that purposefully paint something as being offensive where no offense is. If something can be disproven on a separate policy NOTCENSORED doesn't even come into play since it goes off the policy that it violates. Something strictly removed because a group has considered it offensive is not meritous and leads to censorship of many articles for specific gains of groups in all spectrums. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per kww, SilverSeren and Mathsci. I would add that the entire question is flawed, as it relies on multiple POVs: First that the material is trivial. Second that it is offensive. The result is the circular argument that the material is trivial because it is offensive, and it is offensive because it is trivial. This proposal is an attempt at neutering WP:NOTCENSORED in violation of WP:NPOV. Resolute 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- NOTCENSORED does (properly) apply to "incidental" material. To censor something is to remove it because some people find it offensive or otherwise objectionable, and I think it is right that Wikipedia would not be swayed by such feelings even if the material is incidental. There might be other reasons to remove "incidental" material -- but we shouldn't do so in deference to a desire for censorship. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- Although I would support this position because of the proposer of the RFC, NOTCENSORED does and should apply to "trivial images". If an image is really "trivial" or "incidental" images, it should be removed, regardless. However, the images in question are not "incidental", and this would increase the edit wars on the article-that-should-not-be-named. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is the key to the problem. You are wrong. Wikipedia abounds with trivial, uninformative images, that dress up pages, and say nothing that isn't covered in the text. See the lead image of ADHD. Generally, they're not a problem, often they make the article more appealing. But if you think an image can be removed simply on the basis that it adds nothing to the readers' understanding, we're on different projects. I defy you to remove the lead image of ADHD on the basis that it is trivial. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• 'Support It is and should remain a basic principle that applies to all WP content, The attempt to remove so-called incidental material from its protection is an excellent illustration of the slippery slope in action: try to find opportunities for gradually removing the protection. Many have been proposed, and the only safe course is to reject every one of them. As pointed out above, his is a particularly poorly thought out one, because of the additional slipperiness of the words used. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The proposal appears to be "Wikipedia is not censored, except when it is." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so remove any content if it's truly unencyclopedic, whether images or text or whatever. But be prepared to be reverted, defend your actions on the talk page, and accept consensus whether or not it's on your side. If somebody in that conversation invokes NOTCENSORED spuriously, say so. This is the process we have now, and I see no reason to change it. Lagrange613 17:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support with reservations As the WMF term "least astonishment" is a teeny bit vague, and I think that is the key issue. Collect (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support . If a policy restricts content, in my view, it should only do so to preserve truth (not to sound too grandiose). No number of sources calling some piece of media "incidental" to a given topic will conclusively establish it as "incidental." If we rewrite NOTCENSORED to explicitly not protect so-called "incidental" media, we will, in effect, condone OR.Divergentgrad (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• SupportI don't see the alternative as workable as it relies too much on an agreement about what is incidental. Not censored and irrelevant should be two different inquiries, although, they can under certain contextual circumstances inform one another. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support this. The main argument of the opposition seems to be that the current reading is too vulnerable to wikilawyering by POV pushers, however I fear that phrasing such as "little or no value" is much more vulnerable by far. JORGENEV 00:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support more or less. It doesn't protect irrelevant material (like random penis vandalism), but "it's offensive" is a very weak argument for removing a relevant image. The point for NOTCENSORED is to remove the hecklers veto not just limit it to close cases. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Support per kww. Hobit (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. There should be no incidental material on Wikipedia anyway; anything that is here should be here for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.166.50 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• NOTCENSORED protects all our content in principle without exception. however, that does not imply that a casuistic approach is ruled out; rather, it is (should be) recommended to balance out our competing values in response to every single case. that includes the appropriate representation of the topic "as such" in the article and the (known) reader-expectations as well as our longstanding principles & pillars & practices as (curatorial) community. trying to define an abstract device (as proposed here) to combat the problem will not help; value conflicts are not forcefully & reasonable addressable in this way, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Not censored applies equally to all content. Images that add no value to articles should be (and normally are) removed for being irrelevant, regardless of whether anybody finds it offensive or not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your first sentence is a simple statement of the status quo. Your second is false. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Purely decorative materials should generally be removed, whether offensive or not. Material that adds non-redundant educational value should generally be included, whether offensive or not. It may be the case that the value provided is small (or "incidental"), but it may be value that no substitute image or text could as capably provide. The layout of images, and distribution of images among articles, should also be driven primarily by the desire to inform. If there are multiple choices for an image, and some are equally (or more) informative while also being less offensive to some readers, there's no reason not to prefer the less offensive one. Dcoetzee 02:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your first sentence addresses purely decorative material but this proposal is about material related to the topic, but of little or no educational value. Rainbows and butterflies illustrating Happiness would be purely decorative, because they're not related to the topic. The lead image of ADHD is related to the topic but has no educational value so is incidental. Try to remove that image from ADHD purely on the basis that it is of no educational value. So, though WP:IUP says images should improve the readers' understanding of the topic, in practice it is ignored all over the project, and such images constantly receive local support for retention, because they look nice. No one's really bothered by that lead image at ADHD. I mention it because it undermines your assertion that "we don't/shouldn't have incidental images."

Problems arise when such an image is also controversial, depending on who's being offended or harmed of course. Sufferers were offended by a picture of a little boy playing up in class as the lead image of ADHD. After long discussion this totally, totally, totally uninformative offensive image was retained, but as a major concession to the feelings of patients, it was moved down the page. This is the kind of behaviour the proposal is aimed at addressing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

To clarify Ludwigs2's questions, as the results will need to be applied uniformly, here is a short list of other articles that this will apply to:

• Further examples consistent with the reasonings for Muhammad (use of non-representative artwork depicting each): Jesus, Moses,Josiah, Adam_and_Eve, John_the_Baptist, Mary_(mother_of_Jesus), Noah's Ark, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Buddha, Buddhism, Abraham, Laozi, Taoism, and many similar articles where the visual depictions were (a) created long after the death of the person or (b) is of a deity and is also not truly representative.

This makes the questions more representative of the impact. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, most of those other articles you're talking about have images which are independently notable, and those images are a part of how those people are perceived. Muhammad is unusual in that there isn't a rich artistic tradition of depiction, and the images we're using for the article are fairly obscure. Including a couple isn't ridiculous, there is an artistic history there, but it's nothing like Orthodox icons or the fact that a

disproportionate number of paintings of women with babies are Madonna and Child. One size does not fit all. SDY (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Metropolitan Museum of Art disagrees with you. So does the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Guess which I find more notable? Your opinion, or theirs? And if we were to judge by policies and guidelines, which would I *have* to choose as a more reliable source - you or them? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

At any rate, this is exactly what I didn't want to do, which is make this RfC a complete rehash of the Muhammad debate. I completely disagree with you, but this isn't the time or place for that discussion. SDY (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It IS the Muhammad debate - and that's not my fault: he wrote it, not me. Did you even read his RfC? It asks (paraphrased, but accurately), "since the images are of no value, shouldn't we change wp:censor so we can remove them?" Did you also fail to notice he is the one who brought up that article? Again, that wasn't me. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Side note (question): You disagree that those two museums (and others, I am sure) have stances on the matter more valid than yours? Is that honestly what you are trying to say? If so, please point me to your notable history book on the matter or something similar. If not, then the question is irrelevant, and I am not sure what you are disagreeing with and would appreciate clarification. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• None of the examples that Ludwigs2 gives are incidental. And please don't modify a RfC after it has started; see moving the goal posts. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Images of the Prophet Muhammad appearing in illuminated manuscripts from Persia and the Arab world are prized items in the Islamic collections of major international museums, such as the Pergamon Museum, the British Library, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Kunsthistorisches Museum, the Hermitage, St Petersburg and the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Jayen466 could have seen the Shahnameh on display at the Fitzwilliam Museum in 2010-2011 with the second plate from this celebrated manuscript containing a veiled image of the Prophet Muhhamad. [2] I am not sure this particular image from the British Library could be described as deeply shocking, unrepresentative or uneducational. The four caliphs who had their names erased from the manuscript might have been shocked. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, such images are prized for their rarity. None of these museums assert that pictures like this hang in mosques or people's homes, are a customary illustration in Islamic texts, or are in any way representative of mainstream religious art in the Islamic tradition. Islamic religious art has taken a completely different direction to religious art in other cultures, as a look into any book or encyclopedia article on it will tell you. ("For practical purposes, representations are not found in religious art, although matters are quite different in secular art. Instead there occurred very soon a replacement of imagery with calligraphy and the concomitant transformation of calligraphy into a major artistic medium." Encyclopaedia Britannica, Islamic Arts, Macropaedia, Vol. 22, p. 76.) --JN466 16:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is closer to that museum than it is a mosque or an individual's home. given we are an institution intended to collect and share knowledge, I think you have just added a fine argument for why Wikipedia should retain the images. Resolute 16:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
      • We are sharing knowledge on a fringe aspect of Islamic art, while neglecting the mainstream. It's like having an article on the Bugatti Veyron that is all about the wheel nuts. --JN466 17:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
        • "a fringe aspect of Islamic art" is not fact, but rather opinion, and a minority opinion at that. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

On fa.wp, the consensus seems to have been that the images should not be excluded because this amounts to suppressing an important aspect of Islamic history and culture. --FormerIP (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, this was a golden age in Persian culture, universally recognized in the academic world. From his self-description on en.wkipedia.org, Jayen466 has no expertise in Islamic art. Given that, it's hard to know why he is making such bold assertions. Could it be just some form of WP:GAME? Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be daft, Mathsci. Iran is a Shiite country, and it's tolerant of figurative depictions of Muhammad in a way the majority Sunni tradition is not. If you look at the Turkish and especially the Arabic Muhammad articles, you'll find a lot of useful, culturally iconic imagery that we don't feature. --JN466 07:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd ask for clarification of this. It seems to imply "Iran is an Islamic country - but their interpretation of Islam is wrong, so we can discount them". I'm sure that was not your intent, but when you imply that because they are tolerant of such - but Sunni tradition isn't, it's hard to see anything else as a reason. I've watched similar wars on and off Wikipedia from various sects of Christianity - some going so far as to claim that other sects weren't really Christianity. Obviously, we can't take sides in that either - nor should we evaluate which of these are "the true Islam". So, please elucidate. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • All that was meant to say was that Iran is not representative of the wider Islamic world in this respect. Best, --JN466 21:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The description on the website of the Fitzwilliam Museum of the Book of Kings has a more detailed commentary than you have given of the page in the illuminated manuscript depicting the veiled Prophet Muhammad that I mentioned elsewhere. You have actively campaigned on this very issue on fr.wikipedia.org (fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Sondage/Installation d'un Filtre d'image) and are currently also airing your views on wikipedia review. Issues like this have arisen in real life and various experts on Islamic art seem not to agree with your stance. As a recent example, Thomas P. Campbell, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, said in June about the Museum's decision to display images of the Prophet in the new Islamic gallery: “We hope that it does not become a lightning-rod issue. These are not 20th-century cartoons setting out to be confrontational. They’re representative of a great tradition of art. ... We could duck [this issue], but I don’t think it would be the responsible thing to do. Then we’d just be accused of ducking it.” [3] Mathsci (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely an art exhibition, designed to showcase tons of art, is very different from our aim of creating a set of images that aid the understanding of the reader? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends. In the case of the Met, I assume that the Islamic collection is designed to educate the US public on aspects of the Islamic world. In addition, I also assume that in post-9/11 New York they are sensitive to causing offense. There are also other accounts, e.g. these essays by Islamic scholars Timothy Winter [4] and Omid Safi [5]. Mathsci (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You make it sound as though it were a crime to support something on-wiki that the Wikimedia Foundation Board thinks is a good idea. --JN466 09:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Beyond Tarc's comment, this article is not about Islamic art. It is about a historical individual. Resolute 19:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I had a similar debate with Griswaldo (article on religion or biography on a person who happens to be a religious figure). Besides disagreeing with me, he advised me that I am "sorely out of (my) depth here"[6] and my comments are "that much more ignorant".[7] There are others who seem to hold a similar view (sans the "interesting" comments against those who disagree). This of course means one of the most important basis's for determining how to handle the images is being disputed by others. And thus, this problem will continue since not even a major basis for things can be agreed upon. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• What is our working definition of "incidental material"? SDY (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Anything that irritates Ludwigs2.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it means material that causes a lot of incidents. --FormerIP (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP: Exactly - which is what Kww just said above you. ;-) Smile Ludwigs2, this may be a joke. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would define incidental material as material that adds practically no educational value to an article, but is just being included because it is related to the subject. All those examples of "non-representative" artwork in the comments section are far from incidental. Monty₈₄₅ 02:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed: I added a comment above to show the true effect, even though the goals may be to censor only those particular articles. The RfC is biased in implying, from the start, that there is no value to the images. But that was expected (which is why on the Muhammad Images talk page, we wouldn't agree to this RfC proposal). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Serious comment though: Ludwigs2, I thank you for finally taking this to the correct venue. It is much appreciated (at least by me). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• What is this, an RfC on if we've stopped beating our wives? Ludwigs loaded the RfC question, i.e. "That being said, does NOTCENSORED also protect controversial content that adds little or no value to the article?" He has staked a position at Talk:Muhammad/images that has garnered precious little support, that images of Muhammed are of no value to the article. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of this is to allow discussion about whether material is incidental or not. There's no hard and fast rule; I trust editors can work it out. however, we need to stop the use of nontcensored as a hard and fast rule that protects every image no matter how stupid it might be.

Frankly, I'm just tired of trying to discuss this issue and getting jumped on by fanatics who have their teeth sunk into NOTCENSORED. it just produces a whole lot of dumb arguments. --Ludwigs2 15:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're tired of discussing the issue, feel free to find something else to do. The principle of "not censored" is perfectly applicable to content that religious fundamentalism wants to remove from the project. All this is is an endaround a consensus that you do not like. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: This is not about whether the material is incidental or not. You imply as fact that it is, and ask if it should be removed under policy. And the underlying reasons are once again because you believe we should adhere to religious beliefs.[8][9][10] Each time you try to tack on whatever handy rationale you think might appease some - but the one consistency is you wish (as you've stated) all images to be removed[11] to not offend/to honor religious beliefs. Oh, and this time I provided diffs to your words. So, don't bother wasting your time claiming I'm attacking you or misportraying your motives (or I'll add a half dozen more diffs to each). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose all poll options since question is flawed. None of the 3 examples are purely incidental and no particular definition of incidental-ness is stipulated. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Defining incidental

SDY had a good question about what counts as "incidental" material. Let's start at one extreme, and see if we can walk back to a reasonable definition:

Imagine that the article is Automobile, in a section about different types of vehicles. An editor wants to replace an existing picture showing a sports car with another picture showing a similar sports car with a naked woman walking past it (e.g., perhaps the snapshot was taken at a nudist facility).

Can we all agree that:

1. such an image would count as potentially offensive material for the purposes of NOTCENSORED;
2. that the nudity serves no educational purpose (for that article); and
3. the image deserves no special protection under NOTCENSORED.

Does anyone disagree? Does anyone think that NOTCENSORED requires us to prefer the image that happens to contain both a nude woman and a sports car over the image that shows a sports car but no humans? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is obvious, yes. But I think that as we "work backward," we will restrict ourselves to only some lines of thinking and not others. We can't hope to cover all possible shades of gray, and certainly not from all perspectives. I don't think we can expect to define "incidental" material for all topics, all at once, since really it is up to an expert on a given topic to decide whether something is incidental. In the case of the car, I'm sure everyone would agree you need do no original research to decide the nude woman adds nothing to your understanding of automobiles. But when it comes to our famous example above, it appears that, depending on the expert whose work you consult, certain cartoons will be declared "incidental" or not, and so it would be impossible to declare something incidental without doing some level of so-called "original research." Divergentgrad (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Was this contribution irrelevant? I feel my idea has been ignored. If my point is no good, it would at least be educational for me to know why. Divergentgrad (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, all other things about those two theoretical pictures being equal, it is simple enough to choose the picture that illustrates the subject best. You don't need any policy changes for that; just read Wikipedia:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. ¶ Here's a tougher example. Assume we only have one rare automobile picture (say a prototype) which has bikini clad (or even topless) girl centrally posing with it (so that clipping her out of the image would be noticeable to the viewer). What would you prefer our putative policy on incidentally objectionable material recommend in this case? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

ASCII, the issue here is that we occasionally do have people say that removing such an image is pure censorship, even when we have unobjectionable options available. That's the problem Ludwigs is trying to deal with: a needlessly offensive picture, being defended as something that requires more than the ordinary reasons to replace it with something else—as in, it's not good enough to just use your editorial judgment and treat it like any other picture, e.g., the way you would decide between a photograph of the car vs a photograph of the car with a clothed person.

The WMF will generally not allow people to post pictures of a topless girl in that instance. Did you perhaps mean a topless adult woman? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "we occasionally do have people say that removing such an image is pure censorship. That's the problem Ludwigs is trying to deal with". Absolutely not. Just look at the examples Ludwigs2 gave: Muhammad depictions, etc. His idea of incidental is very different from mine or yours. And let's not engage in hair splitting here. I used "girl" generically; assume she is of legal age for porn shoots in Florida. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, WhatamiIdoing, that's not what Ludwigs2 is attempting to address at all. If he was, I might even try to figure out a way to support wording that would. What he is attempting to do is incorporate religious sensitivity in Wikipedia editorial policy. That's a very bad thing to be fighting for, and I can't foresee any time where I would support it.—Kww(talk) 21:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Kww - you really have no idea what I'm trying to do, and what you just said was patently idiotic nonsense. I swear...

Defining 'incidental material' is fairly easy in principle (though as I write this I'm beginning to think that 'gratuitous' is a better word):

• Images of things which are not described in the article text are incidental
• Images which can be moved, removed or replaced without changing the meaning of a section of the article are incidental

So, if your car-with-nude-model image is the only image we have and we deem it necessary for the article to have an image of the car, then the image is protected; but if we have another image without a nude model, then the first image can be replaced without changing the meaning of the article, so it becomes incidental. that doesn't mean it necessarily will be removed, only that NOTCENSORED does not apply and we can have a discussion about removing it.

Kww's meaningless noise aside, the point here is not to remove every controversial image that doesn't meet some preset criteria, but merely place a lower-limit on the application of NOTCENSORED so that we don't get tangled in these pissy wars over tangential images that really don't help build the article much at all. We can solve these kinds of disputes IF we can talk about them; the goal here is to preclude editors from beating us over the head with policy to keep those conversations from happening. --Ludwigs2 21:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the origins of this discussion, I don't think Kww's comment counts as "meaningless noise" at all. Perhaps you're simply not the right person to drive this one forward. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that definition of incidental. Applying that definition to Obama, the infobox picture of the president, File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg would be incidental to the article, as the sitting for that photo is not discussed in the article, and it could be removed without changing the meaning of the article. Any image that is REALLY incidental should be removed for not adding to the article, regardless of censorship. Monty₈₄₅ 22:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, sometimes it is hard to take you seriously. Are you denying that you consider religious objections to be worthy of consideration by Wikipedia editors? Have I not been explicit in saying that I think to do so is fundamentally wrong? What part of my "meaningless noise" said anything much different?—Kww(talk) 22:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Kww: I will AGF that you actually believe that statement. however, as I have said many, many, many times, this is not about religion for me (any more than the same argument on Pregnancy or Goatse.cx was about nudity). For me, this is about NPOV and ethics: about not using images that offend out readers without some good encyclopedic reason to do so. Frankly, I am baffled by the fact that you don't instantly accept this. It wouldn't surprise me more if we went out ballroom dancing and you start flailing around like you're in a mosh pit. I've got nothing against moshing, mind you, but trying to carry that 'if you get hurt you shouldn't have come here' attitude into wikipedia's editing practices is bizarre. or so it seems to me.

I don't see that we lose anything that matters to the encyclopedia by showing a little common courtesy where we can. you seem to see common courtesy as some infectious form of radical censorship. that position is just such a complete non-sequitor to me that I cannot even fathom why you would hold. maybe if you could explain that to me we could get somewhere. --Ludwigs2 23:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the religious objections of a billion Muslims and the religious objections of three remote tribespeople are precisely and absolutely equal, because popularity has nothing to do with whether an objection is valid, and neither side's objection has any merit that a secular encyclopedia can evaluate. Taking one into account without taking the other into account is morally abhorrent. The only way to treat them both equally is to disregard them both, and that is precisely what we have to do. By any measure that is relevant to an encyclopedia, the images of Mohammed are not controversial at all. I'm not worried that your stance will result in massive censorship, I'm worried that your stance will result in highly selective censorship favoring some large groups, which is a more damaging result by far.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

and there we have the central flaw in your belief structure, where you say: "the only way to treat them both equally is to disregard them both." You've committed yourself to a scorched earth policy that denies the interests and feelings of our readers, but for what purpose? I could see this kind of rigid resistance if - say - we somehow had an actual life-drawing of Muhammad. Heck, if we had an actual image of the prophet I'd be pitching in right beside you against those billion Muslims. But we're talking about non-representative artwork from a particular historical period that is of no direct relevance to this particular article - what's in here that is so important that it requires this intensity of resistance?

You and I both know the answer to that: you are standing on a principle. it's a good principle, too - wikipedia should not be censored - but like any good thing too much of it is bad. If you cannot draw the line anywhere except "absolutely not, never" then you condemn yourself and the rest of us to endless amounts of pointless fighting. On the other hand, if you show a little common courtesy on cases like this (where the gain to the page is so minor that it's really not worth it) you will find that it becomes easier to stand up for the principle where it really matters. --Ludwigs2 00:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"You've committed yourself to a scorched earth policy that denies the interests and feelings of our readers" - The interests and feelings of which readers? Do you actually think they all feel the same way? That they all feel the same as you do? If that was the case, why do you think you are finding so much resistance? Besides, as I have pointed out repeatedly, "we" have already shown more than enough common courtesy. We have agreed to more than enough compromises. That you choose to ignore these facts reveals that negotiating with you is worthless, because you have shown that you will not accept anything other than exactly what you want. Resolute 00:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In the end, principles are the only thing worth fighting for.—Kww(talk) 00:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Resolute: You keep mistaking me for someone who wants to achieve a particular result, when in fact I am someone who wants to have an open discussion. I disagree with your assessment (I don't believe this is a matter of 'compromise' but rather a matter of 'encyclopedic balance'. If the images don't help the article at all (as I believe) then why would we compromise with someone who wants to use them? You believe they have value, prove it to me, and then we'll start talking balance. And please note, I already suggested to you how the images could be retained meaningfully (with a section dedicated to discussing them). You chose to reject that approach, so now you have to justify their value on your own.

@Kww: that is something I can agree with - I have my own principles, as I have said repeatedly. You want to eliminate the principles I stand on; I only want to place some moderate restrictions on yours. who's being more reasonable? --Ludwigs2 01:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Giving weight to religious sensitivities is not a moderate restriction on my principles, Ludwigs2. It's gutting them. If we were having a "reasonableness" contest, I'm confident I would prevail.—Kww(talk) 01:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Really!?! let's have one then - how shall we set the rules? I'll skip the fact that you've (again) implied my position is religious. As far as I can see the two extremes in this battle are (A) denying all 'sensibilities' (as you put it) and (Z) giving in to all 'sensibilities'. You're firmly ensconced at extreme A, while I'm on the Aish side of the median (remember, all I'm asking is that we allow discussion about these sensibilities for images that are not clearly necessary for the article). how is your position more reasonable than mine? --Ludwigs2 03:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, we'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who is less reasonable than you, as you persist in the same intellectual dishonesty every time you post. You have no right to claim "not clearly necessary for the article" as if it were fact. Many editors here have opined that the images are quite clearly necessary. You argue from the tiny, tiny, minority POV that thy are not. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

ok, that just made me laugh. Tarc, you're losing your character assassination touch. I'd say you need to practice more, but that's clearly not true. having a rough day? --Ludwigs2 03:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, the famous river defense. You've tried to hang your hat on various ways to save the poor Muslims from having to look at pictures they don't like...WMF resolutions that don't apply, broadsides against WP:NOTCENSORED, "incidental images", argumentum ad Jimboem...and not a single one has really set the world on fire. I can imagine the frustration when someone just knows they're right and the world is a bunch of blind buffoons (never happened to me personally, but I have an awfully good imagination), but that doesn't really excuse making demonstrably false accusations here. I told you awhile ago that image removal would simply never happen; here we are, no closer to your goal. Isn't it about time to wind this down? Tarc (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous… --Ludwigs2 03:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, one part of this is getting beyond frustrating: what word do you want me to use for taking the religious objections of Muslims into account? I don't care what your religious beliefs are, and I haven't accused you of attempting to preserve your own, but I don't see how you can argue about millions of upset Muslims on one hand and then deny that you want to modify Wikipedia guidelines to take their religious beliefs into account on the other.—Kww(talk) 05:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Kww: it doesn't make a lot of difference which word you use - 'sensibilities' is fine, 'offense' is fine. I would prefer if you avoid personalization - and religion - and merely talked about controversial material, but... the problem is not with the word chosen, but with the efforts to squelch whatever-it-is in such an absolutist and uncompromising manner. You've decided that every personal and cultural preference that disagrees with your personal and cultural preferences is ipso facto an act of censorship, insist that such are not to be allowed any leeway of any sort under any circumstances, and are willing to fight tooth-and-nail over the most trivial manifestations of it in order to enforce you viewpoint. To me you look no different than the people you oppose, even down to your unceasing efforts to assert your extreme position as a norm.

I don't care one whit about religion: and by that I mean that I'm not here to support fundamentalist forms of Islam or the kind of militant secularism that you're pushing. I'm trying to get you all to settle down and use some common sense. You're locked into a battle over an issue that is of no consequence to that article whatsoever and making worlds of trouble over something that will not improve the encyclopedia in any significant way. it's ridiculous, and I don't 'get' why you don't see how ridiculous it all is. --Ludwigs2 15:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We are using common sense; that you disagree with others does not mean that they are being illogical. For most here, common sense informs that we do not take into account a religious-based opposition to image portrayal. Removing the images deprives others of information about the subject; it is simply not an acceptable trade-off to appease a religious concern and short-shrift everyone else. I realize that this is yet another tangent you disagree on, i.e. images are unimportant to the article, but you are in the clear minority on that point-of-view as well. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no mistaking you, Ludwigs. You want a specific result, and we're now into week two or three of your inability to accept that you won't get it. As to your suggestion of a depictions section, first, the argument that I (personally) reject it is unfounded. Second, the very fact that you are not arguing an equal lack of value to the calligraphy and other means of depicting Muhammad, and that you are not arguing as vehemently that they do not belong in any spot but a depictions section reveals the hypocrisy of your position. This is not, and never has been, about the "value" an image has. This has always been about images you don't like. I don't need to prove to you that the images have value because you have closed your mind and have shown you will move the goalposts as far as you need. I need only for the community to support my view, an consensus remains with me. Resolute 15:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Images which can be moved, removed or replaced without changing the meaning of a section of the article are incidental. This would be impossible to make sense of or apply in practice. Any image in an article contributes to its meaning. This is true even in the case of images that are unencyclopaedic. A childish drawing of a giant spunking cock in the article on Robert Kilroy-Silk, for example, ought to be removed if someone is really insisting. But there is no denying that the meaning of the article would thereby be changed. And the idea that an image is incidental if it can reasonably be moved within the article just seems odd. --FormerIP (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, Monty: you are both thinking in exaggerated terms. We do not need NOTCENSORED to make the argument that there should be an image of Obama on his article - whether or not you consider the image 'incidental', there is no real reason to remove it. This whole discussion only applies to 'controversial' images where there is that added factor to be taken into consideration. And if a controversial image adds nothing to the topic of the article (what does a 'giant spunking cock' have to do with RKS?) then removing it does not change the meaning of the article in any real way. remember, 'meaning' in this sense is determined by its encyclopedic use, not by the personal meanings that editors might attach to the image.

Again, there is no way to make editors use common sense if they do not wish to. however, what we can do is try to keep policy from being used in ways that violate common sense.

Nomoskedasticity: your opinion is ill-considered. If Kww et al can only argue their side of the debate by making up cheap lies about my opinions and attitudes then I can't really stop them, but I can't respect them for it either. I don't mind if they criticize my behavior - sometimes my behavior is quite worthy of criticism, this I know, so that's justified - but their efforts at Geraldo-style psychologism are seriously worthy of contempt. if they cannot be sincere enough to deal with me fairly, then what use are they except to fill the page with bile?

I don't care who takes the lead on this - anyone who wants to lead, go for it! I'll speak my mind on the issues either way. --Ludwigs2 23:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Obama picture(s) and "there is no real reason to remove it". But think of the racists and white supremacists! Many of them will surely be offended to see a picture of an African American sitting in the presidential office, signing bills, etc. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And if there are racists and white supremacists who want to make that argument, please, let them. I'll make popcorn and sell tickets. There is nothing in policy that would support that position, and quite a lot that could be leveraged to oppose it.

You really don't get it , ASCII - I'm happy to let anyone make a content argument on wikipedia (safe in the assumption that policy and editorial judgment can handle whatever weirdness gets thrown at us). what I'm trying to do here is forestall a quirk of policy that is leveraged to suppress content arguments. We don't need NOTCENSORED to protect that image of Obama, because we have far better arguments that will do the job. We also don't need editors using NOTCENSORED to plaster controversial images wherever they like for no readily apparent reason. discrimination, please. --Ludwigs2 23:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you put it that way, I have to ask you: are you personally offended by depictions of Muhammad in that Wikipedia article? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would that matter? But in fact, I'm not personally offended: I'm not a dualist, so religious squabbles over iconography strike me as silly. But by the same token (that I'm not a dualist) I see no particular reason to snub religious beliefs. Frankly, I think all religions are charmingly daft; I love the ritual and respect the beliefs, and think that all religions would be wonderful assets to humanity except that some people get so OCD about defending or attacking them. it's even worse now that secularism has become so prominent - hard-nosed secularists are just as bad in their way as religious zealots.

I got into this dispute because I assumed that people simply hadn't thought through the ramifications of their acts, and that a bit of discussion and refocusing would unwind the nonsense and let common sense happen. One of these days I'll learn better than to expect things like that, and on that day I suppose I'll leave the project forever. --Ludwigs2 01:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

On an argument that has gone on for years the assumption is people don't understand ramifications of what they are doing? The only ramification I can identify is that people feel offended by things they see on based on religious grounds. The pictures are perfectly suited and hold the same value as any other religious leaders in similar circumstances. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

With one possible exception, I think we all have a pretty good grasp of "irrelevant" at this point in the discussion: If some kid spams a penis picture—or a butterfly picture, or a picture of Queen Elizabeth—into Algebra, we revert it as vandalism and go about the rest of today's work. We don't say the butterfly picture is irrelevant and should be removed, but the equally off-topic penis picture has to stay so we can show off what a cool, not-censored kind of place Wikipedia is.

But let's get back to the (at least mostly) relevant pictures: Would anyone here actually defend an image of a sports car with a nude person standing next to it, if an image without a nude person is available? Does anyone think that choosing the zero-nudity-containing image actually violates this policy? (I didn't think this was such a difficult question, but nobody seems to be willing to answer it...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No. That doesn't have much relationship to the issues being discussed, though.—Kww(talk) 05:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't have much relationship to the example that dominates this discussion, but I think Mohammed is a relatively poor example for the actual question, which is how we should address the over-invocation of NOTCENSORED by people who are trying to include "controversial content that adds little or no value to the article" (=the words from the RFC question).

So what counts "controversial content that adds little or no value to the article"? You and I agree that a car with a naked person standing next to it provides nothing educational to the reader (on the subject of automobiles, vs an image without a naked person).

Can we fairly generalize that particular example to a statement along the lines of "Pictures including naked humans, when the article is not about nudity, sexuality, or medical conditions" (and possibly other categories; feel free to suggest expansion)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Note recent addition to the offensive-material guideline

[12]. Not discussed it seems, but probably not very controversial. With 500 guidelines on the English Wikipedia, the advantage is always on the legislator's side when it comes to finding something that isn't watched much. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a constructive addition. It makes the essential point (we don't practice censorship) while cautioning against abuse of "we don't practice censorship". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. I think all in all our policies and guidelines and such work quite well, the problem is when problematic editors try to make the policy fit where it isn't meant to, or use to to address every little thing every one may possibly find offensive. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks sensible to me. It might need a little copy editing, but the point is valid, and well illustrated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:NOTCENSORED

In part, the Wikimedia Foundation's May 2011 resolution concerning controversial images says

Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers [...] "Controversial content" includes all of these categories. [...] We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement. [...] principle of least astonishment: [...] respect [readers'] expectations of what any page or feature might contain.

This policy presently says

Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable where these materials are relevant to the topic. Discussion of any such potentially objectionable material should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Per the Foundation, controversial material should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': one that respects the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic.

But the Foundation goes further than this. It urges us to pay particular attention to the educational value of controversial content, not just relevance. Hundreds of thousands of images and statements may be relevant to a given article, but not all relevant material will have real educational value. I'd like to see this policy incorporate both of these elements of the Foundation resolution, educational use and principle of least astonishment, by replacing the above with the words of the Foundation

Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and respect the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.

Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

While I was composing this, the above RfC was posted. I'll leave this here, though, as I don't think they conflict or duplicate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think "respect the reader's expectations" sounds too much like an enjoinder to simply ensure that no-one is ever offended by anything, which is too much. Maybe "consider reader expectations". On a more minor point, "content of a ... religious nature" is not always controversial, which a literal reading of the above would suggest. Maybe "particularly involving sexuality, violence or religion". I also think the first sentence of the existing paragraph should be retained. --FormerIP (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"respects the conventional expectations of readers" is already part of the policy. With regard to "content of a ... religious nature" is not always controversial, does this clear up the ambiguity?

Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and respect the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.

With regard to retaining the first sentence, the purpose of this post is to argue that relevance alone is not enough to justify inclusion of any content, real educational value needs to be demonstrated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The current version is differently worded so as to not to give the impression of an enjoinder. We are asked to follow a principle. In your version, "respect the reader's expectations" is too strong. What if a reader comments: "I don't expect to see human nipples on Wikipedia". What process would we go through in order to respect this?

I don't get your point about the existing first sentence. It doesn't say that relevance alone is enough, it just clarifies that controvesial relevant content is includable on WP. I think your proposal is unbalanced if it focuses only on what is not allowed. And the difference between "relevance" and "real educational value" is too opaque to be useful, I think. All information that is relevant to an encyclopaedia is, by definition, of real educational value, surely? --FormerIP (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. "Consider" rather than "respect." That is different from the Foundation's use of "least astonishment." And would give us

Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.

which seems reasonable to me. With regard to the first sentence, I'm concerned that readers may take it that relevance alone is sufficient to justify inclusion of content, controversial or otherwise. Obviously educational merit, BLP, NPOV, etc, etc, also apply. Perhaps we could simply remove "where these materials are relevant to the topic"

Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable. Pay particular attention to placement and categorization of controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether the content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry FormerIP, I just noticed I didn't answer your question. I'm trying to make it clear that relevant means both related to the topic and important to the topic. At Talk:Muhammad/images we've proposed that there are degrees of image usefulness

• misleading or harmful
• useless - no relation to the topic
• related to the topic but adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the article or section
• adds to the readers' understanding of the article or section
• adds enough to the readers' understanding of the article or section to justify the space it takes up (related, educational and (WP:DUE)

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that an image is more educational than an existing one is a valid reason to replace the image, however we must be extremely careful not to confuse the educational value of an image with the risk that prudish educational institutions may take offense to the image. That some readers or schools may find an image offensive makes it no less educational. Likewise, there should be no astonishment in finding a photograph of a human penis in the Human penis article. Really that is all common sense. The problem is that I think the foundations choice of words is nebulous, and can be read to suite the views of the reader. It can be read as consistent with current policy, or much more broadly. Monty₈₄₅ 02:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Was a consensus ever established for adding the "least astonishment" language to the policy? Monty₈₄₅ 02:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, we know that the end result here is, our article on Muhammad will have the most common image of the figure, because for the remaining portion of the world that isn't of the Muslim religion that would be otherwise offended by the image, we are using it in an educational manner. That needs to be understood that is very much not likely to change. Ergo, the point of this exercise is to clear up that NOTCENSORED cannot be used to deny the use of material that a minority group would find patently offensive. This is in line with the Foundation's resolution. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it'd be very helpful if we establish, straight out, that the decision here does not apply to the Muhammad article, period. That issue has been through enough debate and comment that it bears the risk of just beating a dead horse to try and address it here. Would anyone oppose specifically exempting that article from any changes or consensus arrived at here, since there'a already a specific consensus there? SDY (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, (IMO) very very wrong. Policies and policy changes get applied uniformly with no bias due to religious beliefs. If you wish otherwise, then it is the last paragraph of WP:CENSOR which we need to be discussing changes to. Until then, your statement has no merit. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Side note, I may disagree with the outcome of this initiative (especially if it means wholesale removal of images from that article - overturning multiple consensus and an RfC and Village Pump proposal to keep the images), but I will still support the community's voice in it. Uniform. No exceptions (see my list above in the Comments section of Ludwigs2's "RfC"). etc. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that is an unrealistic proposition. While no RFC here should be able to outright overrule the existing consensus at the Muhammad article, a policy shift here would unavoidably shift the statusquo there. The next time the debate starts in earnest at Muhammad, any change here WILL be used as a justification to reach a different consensus there, it may not sucseed, but it will be tried. It is also a terrible idea to explicitly exempt one article or subject from a general policy standpoint. Monty₈₄₅ 03:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

While it may eventually affect that article, which is unavoidable, I just don't want to turn this discussion into yet another WP:COATRACK of that discussion. As far as blind and uniform application of policies to all articles I don't think that's necessarily a demand. While consensus can change on what to do over there, and the policy will inevitably be influenced by those discussions, we have to write this policy to apply to more than just Muhammad. SDY (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is already a coatrack of the Muhammad images debate. This discussion does not get started if not for all of the arguments there, so lets not pretend this is something it isn't. These proposals are a direct challenge to the prevailing view at that article, while the unintended consequences on other articles has not yet been explored or considered. Pretending that this isn't about that is just that: fantasy. Resolute 16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Masem, note that the 6 images of Muhammad we have in the Muhammad article are very far indeed from representing the way Muhammad is most commonly portrayed. That's the whole problem in that article. Such depictions were very rare. The mainstream representations of Muhammad are calligraphy and pictograms, and there is a very rich tradition of those. For background, see [13] We're demonstrating and propagating our ignorance of Islam by illustrating the Muhammad article like the article on Jesus. --JN466 03:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Anthonyhcole's proposal. --JN466 03:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Shall we not vote on this yet? I've already changed my thinking somewhat thanks to input from FormerIP and I'd like to see more discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A little too early, I agree. One thing to consider is bluelinking in some of the other policies and editing guidelines. The other thing I'd very much like to see is a a clear statement that controversial content can and should be removed if there is consensus to remove it. Redundant, perhaps, but I've seen some arguments over the past year that could be read as treating WP:NOTCENSORED as an absolute, which is obviously false, but some defensive writing (i.e. "cannot be misunderstood") on that account wouldn't hurt. SDY (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The next time the article on Muhammad makes the news, we'll have a ton of IPs and single purpose accounts proposing removal of all images - and have to follow that consensus. Same applies for other controversial topics. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you think a closing admin will not recognize sock/meatpuppeting when it happens? SDY (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What sock/meat puppetry? And how would they know if (as another example) an editor simply made a few posts on some high trafficked Islamic forums? And, you KNOW that such results, regardless of how they found out about the images, will be argued forever as reason to remove them all by some of the very editors here who have already made such arguments. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm rapidly losing interest in this, because it appears that this is just a coatrack of the Muhammad discussion. A thousand voices with one argument do not win over six voices with five arguments. We are not a democracy. If nothing else, I'm bumfuzzled by the obsessive/compulsive nature of the discussion over the Muhammad article, and I'm going to go work on something useful in the encyclopedia instead of trade barbs with people. SDY (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rob. Local consensus can be mercurial. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Monty's comment, I've just searched this talk page archive for "astonishment" and "foundation" and can't find a discussion on this topic.

Does anybody have criticisms or suggestions wrt the latest iteration of my proposed change

Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable. Pay particular attention to placement and categorization of controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether the content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As per others, I dislike the "readers' expectations" portion. We are seeing that hashed out as well on the Muhammad article. I'd prefer "and consider ensure including such content fits within all of Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines such as (see my list above)" - those policies and guidelines really do cover pretty much every scenario brought up. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, FormerIP objected to "respect readers' expectations" and recommended "consider readers' expectations." The principle of least astonishment is a specific recommendation of the foundation resolution wrt controversial content. And you are arguing that it doesn't belong in this policy. That, I guess, is what this thread is about: should the Foundation resolution be reflected in this policy? I'll be interested to hear what others have to say on that question, since it doesn't appear to have been discussed on this page before. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Check this [14] out to get an idea of the battle ahead. During all of this, someone changed the disclaimer heading on the talk page to say something very different than what the consensus was. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should discuss that at Talk:Muhammad/images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

True... sorry for the distraction. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To Anthony: Just for clarification (as it appears some of my intent hasn't been clear to others), it's not the intent I disagree with - it is simply the ambiguity of the word. For instance, by applying WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, I think it covers some of the scenarios we've been talking about. Hopefully that makes what I am trying to say make more sense. I'm too tired to propose better wording right now - maybe tomorrow if you or someone else hasn't thought of something. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to including the principle of least astonishment, though I favour it. I'm more concerned to clarify that controversial content needs to have demonstrable real educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need this kind of change. The foundation resolution was targeted at Commons, which was being used as a porn holding tank. Our policies and procedures are adequate to ensure that only images with relevance to an encyclopedia are kept, and additional language will only be used to justify the removal of material that shouldn't be removed.—Kww(talk) 11:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't being used as a porn holding bank, that was a moral panic. Policy needs to make it clear that offensive material should have a demonstrable educational use if it is to be placed in an article. I don't think the resolution only addresses Commons, but have asked a board member for clarification. [15] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that was a moral panic. However, here is the problem: "Offensive material should have a demonstrable educational value if it is to be placed in an article". Most opponents are trapped in circular reasoning that educational merit is lacking because the images are controversial. But while some argue the controversy is a reason to remove images, I would argue that that same controversy is why they should stay. If they weren't considered educational, there would not be such high support for their retention. The educational value of these images has already been proven. Also, I would suggest that the removal of the image of Muhammad burning in hell showed that there is no need to alter this policy, because as Jimbo said on his talk page, this project has a pretty good handle on things. Material which is intended to be provocative has been removed. But material for which offence is incidental has not. This is appropriate, in my view. Resolute 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors you characterize as opponents, but, assuming you include me in that group, I am capable of distinguishing between educational content and offensiveness. I cannot see that being controversial should ever be a reason to include an image that has no educational relevance to the article or section topic. With regard to the remainder of your comment, I'm not here to discuss Muhammad, there are plenty of other venues where you can do that :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, in various cases it is not that simple, and you are not able to distinguish such as an absolute by applying our own determination/opinion. And neither am I. Nor anyone else here. What may be educational to me may not be to you. And there will be a few issues/items/whatever where you will not be able to understand why I find something educational or vice-versa. If you rip your computer apart and pull all the components off the board and start writing up what each is, I will not find it educational in the least bit. I could point out what each component is while asleep with both hands tied behind my back. Betcha there are tons of people who would find it educational though. Now, back to the issue as I am stating it. There are things that fit into a category where people wont understand why something provides educational value (unlike my obvious example above). Does the article on a stove show detailed instructions on how to turn on the burner? No. No educational value - to us. It's about weighing what the community deems as educational. Not our beliefs. In this, it's a foregone conclusion that there is a lack of knowledge in this country on this topic. Thus, everything has a higher educational value for most our audience. Which doesn't apply to people like you or Jayen or such who are knowledgeable. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Respect the reader's expectations" is feel-good but meaningless drivel in the absence of well-designed surveys of the readership's reactions and expectations. As far as I can tell those surveys don't happen on Wikipedia. At best, Wikipedia editors are surveyed from time to time, and it's usually a highly-biased self-selected sample. Wikipedia articles are written according to WP:NPOV, which balances contents based on how reliable sources deal with the material, not based on what a hypothetical and practically-never-properly-surveyed readership would like to see. [And be careful what you wish for. What if turns out that the people hitting the article on porn simply want to see lots of porn? Studies of internet bulk traffic and of Google top queries suggest this might be true. "The customer is always right?" We turn Wikipedia into a free porn site then?] On the other hand, simply adding that wording to the policy without doing any reader/customer studies [which is a far more likely scenario] just opens another gate for WP:Wikilawyers to argue "I know that it's offensive to the readers because such-and-such subset of the population objects to this material based on my deep gut feeling" as way to override WP:NPOV. So, I oppose this change as pointless verbiage at best and dangerously WP:CREEPy armament in the hands of POV pushers in more contentious cases. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose any changes to the current policy of this kind. The entire premise of "particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature" is absolutely ridiculous. These are are different as can be. Sexual or violent material can be harmful to young people (I'm talking about Cock and ball torture etc. not nudity). Religious material is entirely different. "Religion" is a very very broad tent. I'm a church-goer myself and I think religion is great when it helps us address questions of our place in the universe, provides comfort, gives us guidance in being good people, and draws us together as a community. Stuff like taboos on eating pigs etc, though, is just rank superstition. Superstition gets mixed up with religion, and this is a problem. Avoiding idolatry is reasonable (idolatry arguably interferes with a truer connection to the Divine and so forth), so it's reasonable for Muslims to not build statues of Muhammed or pray to pictures of him. A taboo on any images of him anywhere is just superstition. I oppose giving any special-pleading rights to people's superstitions. Herostratus (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think my wording reflects the Foundation resolution. I recommend it, as well as this study by two researchers commissioned by the board, and the report of the board working group. Please consider their arguments. The purpose is only to avoid unnecessary controversy, without sacrificing a jot of educational value. No one, in these two threads or at Talk:Muhammad/images is arguing we shouldn't use depictions of Muhammad. The argument is we shouldn't use them when they do not add to the readers' understanding. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, that kind of "research" was and is a waste of donated money. I've not seen any empirical evidence of what the readers expect in that study. Only two "expert" opinions. Those are a dime a dozen on a topic like this. Wanna buy some parental control software? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• From the expert's user page, half of which is dedicated to telling us who he isn't, just the relevant part: I'm actually the Robert Harris who has written a couple of books introducing newcomers to classical music and who has created a few series for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about music, most recently "20 Pieces of Music that Changed the World". (Music is my second career). Although for the time being, I'm happy to be known within the Wikimedia community as the consultant working on the study of "potentially objectionable" images. Speaks for itself. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• So that's your rebuttal, is it? Sneering ad hominem? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• If all you have to offer is expert opinion, the you'd better be an expert. Applies to court proceedings and most businesses, especially those that spend their own money. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I was recommending the arguments to Herostratus, the reasoning behind the resolution, not the authors as authorities. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed changes. I don't actually see any problem. Of course, people are always going to make lots of noise about contentious issues like this - but prior consensus has established that it's not our job to make judgements about what is/is not 'offensive' - we should only be concerned with encycloapedic value, and appropriately neutral coverage. I think the 'least astonishment' remark is fine as it is.  Chzz  ►  16:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• When an image is controversial and adds nothing relevant to the readers' understanding, I believe we should not use it. We frequently use images that do not add to the readers' understanding (see the lead image at Pain), and I don't object to them usually, but I do when they are offensive or harmful. That's the intention of this proposed amendment, simply to avoid gratuitous controversy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, you certainly failed to translate your intention in policy words others can interpret in the same way as you do. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Really? I thought it was pretty clear but perhaps I'm too close to it. Wikipedia abounds with images related to the topic but that don't add relevant understanding. To argue such images off the encyclopedia using current policy, controversial or not, at least the way policy is presently interpreted, is impossible. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• And you honestly believe that editors engaging in second guessing what "reader's expectation" might be does anything to alleviate that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• That language is already in the policy. My proposed text clarifies that editors should make sure controversial content has relevant educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

But there in lies the catch; who determines educational value. Two people will almost never assign the same value to the same thing. I think it will just lead us back to square one personally since we have already seen different individuals put separate values on images. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's no catch. We exercise judgment all the time on questions of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Relevance is no more slippery a concept. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could believe that. It is rather difficult to, however, when the goalposts are continually moved, as in this case. Resolute 03:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment All pictures have educational value: "a picture is worth a 1000 words." It comes down to editorial judgment whether it is relevant, and how it's relevant (eg. does it mislead) and that is determined by consensus. Perhaps reference to pictures used in other reference works, in this "controversial" arena, would be one helpful criteria. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the subjectivity, potential for abuse, and harm to our content that the wording would produce as well as the implication by this proposal that policy should be based around the WMF, and not on internal community consensus. Defining content that is sexual, violent, etc as potentially offensive is injecting clear bias in our handling of that content. Everything has the potential to be offensive, and to decide only to treat material that is objectionable to the general population differently from material that is potentially offensive to smaller groups is showing a clear preference for the majority of readers. It also becomes troublesome to decide on what is potentially offensive to the majority of users, do we choose American societal norms, and place a preference for American readers over others? Or Western societal norms over Muslim? What this change is implicitly asserting by singling out violence, sex, and religion is that we should avoid info that is "potentially offensive to the general English speaking audience" which is clear WP:POV. Also, Wikipedia is a self-governing community that works on broad internal consensus, and should take WMF's recommendations as just that, and not as a incentive for uprooting long held policies.AerobicFox (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  

  "Everything" has the potential to be offensive? Here's the image from the lead of our article about apples. Can you tell me what could be offensive about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am a radical environmental zealot, Wikipedia is ruining people's health by using images of genetically altered apples to represent the fruit instead of organic or heirloom apples. This is part of a growing trend on Wikipedia to represent fruit as it has become and not as it naturally is, please replace with a picture of an apple grown organically(as apples have been grown for the majority of history), and stop being part of the movement to poison people's diet with unnatural food. Etc, etc.

And believe me, these people are out there: www.amazon.com/review/R3TKTSOPJ83EXA/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=6305942331&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful(Link is blacklisted) Amazon Review of "The Tigger Movie"

I found this movie very disappointing. It was so full of low-level slapstick violence that it felt more like a warner brother's cartoon than a Winnie the Pooh Movie. While the story was a sweet message, Eeyore's home being smashed by a rock and roo crashing into closets concerned my two year old deeply. What happened to a great storyline without the bells and whistles of violence to move it along? I'll stick to the Blustery Day. Once again, Disney gets a D-.

Go to any popular product on Amazon that you feel is unoffensive, and some people will give it a 1 star rating and be offended by it.AerobicFox (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the Amazon reviewer claiming to be offended. Do you? "I don't like to show violent storylines to my child" is not the same thing as "I'm offended by this movie".

As for your creative apple response, it appears to me that the apple in question is a Fuji, which is a "natural" cross that originated decades before genetic engineering was even possible. Do you want to try again? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't really feel a need to "try again" at explaining something to you. How incredibly petty to even tell another to do that. Unless you wish to make a counter argument that argues that "potentially offensive" things are limited in scope you are not adding anything by making potshots at others posts. Yes, the vast majority of Fuji apples we eat are genetically modified(here are their patents); whether I should have said "virtually everything" as opposed to "everything" or "offended/shocked/disgusted/any other negative reaction" on top of "offended" will not move this discussion any further.AerobicFox (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not even "virtually everything". The vast majority of images we use, as we use them, have basically zero potential for offensiveness.

BTW, you might like to read a bit about plant patents. Patents are not restricted to genetically engineered items; they are also freely assigned to anyone who happens to be the first person to notice a naturally occurring mutation. All of the patents I checked in your list involved zero genetic engineering:

• "The new variety of apple tree, `Moana` was discovered as a limb sport mutation of a `Nagafu-6` (unpatented) Fuji apple tree which was then growing in a cultivated orchard controlled by the inventors, and which is located at Upper Moutere, Nelson,New Zealand in May, 1996, during routine orchard operations."
• "The new Malus `FUJIKO` was discovered by the inventors, Michelangelo Leis and Carlo Mazzola, in the summer of 2002 in a block of Fuji apple tree designated as `NAGAFU 12` (unpatented), growing in a cultivated area of an orchard in Migliaro,Ferrara, Italy."
• "The present invention relates to a variety of an apple tree obtained by branch mutation and by selection of the variety Fuji. "
• "The new cultivar `Candy` originated as a limb sport mutation of `Aztec` Fuji (not patented). It was discovered by the inventor in a cultivated orchard at Upper Moutere, Nelson, New Zealand."

These are all 100% naturally occurring mutations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"virtually zero potential" is still the same as "potential" which images will always have on offending somebody. Yes, it is true that there are currently no commercially grown genetically modified apples, but you could just as well alter the example person to being against cloned apples. Heck, if you want to be really hypothetical then there could be someone with a religion who believes Apples are holy fruit that should not be illustrated. If it makes you feel better you can change "everything" to "a lot of our images" although it still does not change my argument. There are going to be people offended by the presence of any sexual image, offended by historic racist drawings, uncovered women, animal mating, depictions of religious deities, depictions of animal violence, depictions of pigs roasted over an open flame, depictions of children playing in traffic, running with knives, or drinking underage, etc, etc. The list of things with the potential to offend somebody is unmanageable unless you narrow it down to what will offend a certain segment of the population, and catering to that segment is POV.AerobicFox (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I put the Foundation resolution forward not as an edict for us to obey, but as a proposition to consider. I am addressing the use of controversial images only where their use is of no real didactic value; the kind of image that WP:IUP expressly identifies as worthy of avoiding:

(Images) should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter

Wikipedia abounds with images that fail to conform to this policy. I am proposing that, when content is controversial, we should pay particular attention to whether it conforms to IUP in that respect and, if not, apply IUP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Meaning no disrespect to your proposal, but the current wording of WP:NOTCENSOR already states as much. The only differences I see(apart from emphasis) with your proposal is the addition of these parts:

1. all kinds of potentially controversial content
2. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use
3. respect the reader's expectations

The problems I have with these changes are:

1. In practice "potentially offensive" = potentially offensive to general Western societal norms, which is not global or inclusive of smaller subgroups
2. This is really more directed at determining whether or not to host controversial content on Commons(to whom this paragraph was addressed to). It is talking about "categorization and placement" and is referencing arguments over there concerning whether we should be deleting controversial content that likely won't have any use on any of the Wikiprojects. The statement as written would need to be changed to addressing the illustrative/informative value of media on the article, and not "educational purpose" or "categorization", etc.
3. This is subjective and allows potential for POV abuse by replacing realistic images with less graphic ones to downplay the topic, as well as other problems.

AerobicFox (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose changes. This seems to be an end-run by those espousing a minority viewpoint about the propriety of displaying historic representations of middle eastern deities. Unable to fillibuster or edit war their way to a reversal of policy, now they take another tack. Losing one battle in a long and thoroughly disruptive war of attrition in the name of political correctness, they start another. The policy is well-established and works fine, leave it alone. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No one. Again, no one. One more time, no one here is discussing middle eastern deities. You have accused me of engaging in fillibuster (sic), edit war, and end-run (whatever that is). I know I'm not guilty of the first two. Please strike your completely uninformed comment, as it may confuse or mislead others. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that better? Carrite (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Vastly. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Opppose, there's nothing wrong with the current policies. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible improvement to NOTCENSORED

I think the section is capable of improvement. It has to cover at least these points:

1/ we cannot guarantee content will always be as desired (because "anyone can edit"),

2/ reader wishes do not always match our role as a neutral reference source,

3/ we deliberately do not censor our content, we use community consensus not a censorship list,

and make clear there are (at least) two main classes of exception:

4/ There are matters that don't belong in mainspace or content pages and this is an expression of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, and core content policies (NPOV/weight, sourcing requirements, BLP requirements etc), it is not an expression of "censorship".

5/ non-content pages may indeed have restrictions on content as their role is supportive (eg WP:UP),

Try this wording:

Wikipedia is a neutral reference source, serving a worldwide audience of many ages, from many cultures and many needs, so it contains a very broad range of information and illustrative media. Content is decided on every one of our 61,763,726 pages by members of the public who visit our site and edit our articles (You can too!). Our encyclopedia pages are not censored. They will not always contain just the content you expect. They contain whatever editors feel is appropriate or reasonable for the page to serve its entire audience. In some cases this may breach your personal social or religious norms, perhaps very strongly. Since changes may be made by anyone, inappropriate material may sometimes appear before it can be removed, although obviously inappropriate content (such as clear vandalism, clear copyright breach, or material clearly illegal for us to host) is usually removed very quickly. Restrictions apply in two main areas. 1. Encyclopedia articles routinely exclude or restrict some kinds of minor tangential material, material from lesser or unreliable sources or which cannot be verified, material which is the personal views and beliefs of individual editors or has not gained the attention of the wider world, matters given undue weight or prominence or not presented neutrally, some routine kinds of event, pejorative material about living people unless recognized by a high quality source, and material agreed to have no educational or hosting value by editors. We may also group some kinds of related topics together in one article. This is an expression of core policies: that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, that it is selective rather than hosting everything, and our content related policies and guidelines; it is not an expression of "censorship". 2. Content on "community" pages (rather than "encyclopedia" pages) are subject to different considerations, since their function is to support the community which makes Wikipedia possible. Some kinds of content are generally agreed to be unproductive for that purpose and may be forbidden, or hidden or deleted if posted. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should generally seek to focus on its [[informational value and policy compliance in a given article (including accuracy, neutrality and sourcing). "Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. Under- or over-stated content is usually reason to fix–or discuss fixing–the issue if practical. Wikipedia will not remove content because of internal bylaws or rules of organizations forbidding information about the organization to be displayed online, because organizational rules only affect their members and Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

Benefits:

1. Explains why it's not censored
2. Explains that members of the public create our content and "you can too" - key information since the most common question of someone whose complaint about objectionable content is rejected is to try and identify who is responsible for content on Wikipedia
3. Simplifies the classic "not censored" issues people may hit
4. Explains the main areas we do restrict content in mainspace and community space - one of the most common ways WP:NOT#CENSORED gets referenced is editors who try to argue that "not censored means I should be allowed to say what I choose and add what I want". A quick summary of where and how we do restrict content is likely to be helpful.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's a vast improvement. One concept I would add is that the determination "whether it is appropriate to include in a given article" should always "be guided by reliable sources". Well done, FT2. --JN466 07:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Appropriate to" is the problem, it's vague, uninformative, and will be hijacked anyway to mean "appropriate for children, for modesty, etc". Edited - "informational value" is much harder to hijack and also closer to (and more exactly) what we do consider. Good catch. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Informational or educational value is good, but that such value exists should be demonstrated by recourse to reliable sources that share that view. Otherwise we're again hoplessly into OR territory ("well, I find it useful"). --JN466 07:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not needed here - cannot explain every policy here. It explains they need to convince others there is a lack of informational value, and that puts the debate in the right kind of arena, if they convince others well and good, if they use poor sources and poor arguments they won't convince anyone. I did add "and policy compliance" which covers RS but also a range of other things too. Reasonable? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Update - Also whether it has value is often subjective, and needs editorial consensus. I'm thinking of the kinds of debate which focus on whether a given image is "appropriate" for an article. That decision has to be made editorially and the correct focus will be its value (or lack of value) to that article. There won't be RS to decide such things, just community views. So you can't assume RS will be how such debates are solved. Many settle based on whether editors feel the disputed image or text is "good for the article" (ie its informational value in one way or another) as reckoned subjectively by participants in the debate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Certainly not unreasonable—I agree it's covered by your links to due weight and Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines/Content ("Basically, Wikipedia is a record of human knowledge, viewpoints and summaries that already exist and are expressed elsewhere.") But the mode of discussion you describe is in my view part of the problem, because of its subjectivity, and its lack of recourse to sources. Take the example Hans Adler gave, of the editor who kept inserting his photograph of a woman in the process of defecating into the defecation article, defending it with NOTCENSORED. I would argue that the best course of action in such a case is not to ask, "Do you guys think this image is informational, or appropriate?", or "Do you think it correctly illustrates the article topic?" It's "Do reliable sources demonstrate that this kind of image is educationally useful, by including it?" If they do, fine; if they don't, it goes, whether it illustrates the article topic or not. We are not here to define new editorial standards of our own making; we are here to reflect existing expressions and presentations of knowledge. Cheers. --JN466 08:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, in that case the discussion's a different one. The question you raise is more "what standard do we have for deciding an item (eg image) is okay in a given article?" That one is a genuinely thorny issue so it's not one I have engaged here. Some will completely disagree that your view on the appropriate criterion is "correct". For example a valid rebuttal might be: "Just because a given concept hasn't been illustrated a given way before doesn't mean it isn't more useful to readers to do it that way, on the cutting edge of spreading knowledge we should not assume it." (I say that just to show there is a genuine open question in your post, not to debate the point)

What we can say without going into that territory is, the locus of the decision will be its informational value. Although users might disagree how we assess that value (use in RS might be one method) in all cases they are trying to estimate somehow its value in providing information to the reader. So this at least places the debate in the right arena, people posting an objection are told to consider its value to a reader (but no specific stipulation how to assess that value, because no policy mandates how we assess that value) and its policy compliance as their main points. It's close enough for today in the sense it marginally improves from before. From there on it's like xFD in the sense that every discussion will be unique so the best we can do today is say that this is broadly the right kind of arena. If consensus is ever reached on a general rule, today isn't the day it happens. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would counter the "cutting edge" argument by saying it is intellectually inconsistent with the entire premise of Wikipedia, formalised in the dawn of the project: that we reflect reliable sources. We are not writing text with a mindset that says, "Just because a given concept hasn't been written about in a given way before doesn't mean it isn't more useful to readers to write about it that way, on the cutting edge of spreading knowledge we should not assume it." Putting talk page consensus as to "what would be a useful thing to say here" above what reliable sources say is anathema to every sourcing policy we have. It is an odd and, it seems to me, not consciously rationalised act of splitting to think that we should treat text one way, firmly binding ourselves to the judgment of reliable sources, and handle illustrative media in a completely different way, where local editor consensus is the supreme arbiter. I agree this won't be hashed out today, and as Anthony says, this may not be the best place to start, but it is worth thinking about. So enough for now. As things stand, I support your rewrite as a better reflection and summary of the interaction between the NOTCENSORED principle and other policies and guidelines. Cheers. --JN466 09:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I like it, too. More readable, friendly and comprehensive. (I've decided I'm trying to shoehorn something in here that more properly belongs at WP:IUP and possibly Wikipedia:Offensive material so I shall quietly slink away.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Made an edit to the last para [16] - 1/ simplified 1st sentence (no need to say both in positive and negative), 2/ noted that "compliance" implies accuracy/neutrality/sourcing since otherwise it's not clear if this sentence covers factual errors, 3/ added that under or overstatement (ie WEIGHT) is resolved by fixing not removing where possible. Last para flows a bit better and provides a brief guide to "ok it's not censored but I think it needs fixing, now what?" FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, this proposal is massive WP:CREEP. It does not belong in a policy. It lacks any discernible focus. It might be suitable for a personal essay though. Point 2 (in the boxed text) in particular is simply a repetition of the "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site" section. And the essence of point 1 (also in the boxed text) is better worded in the current policy without the massive mash-up of stuff addressed in other sections of the policy, e.g. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". The other stuff (how many pages there are, "you can edit!") is simply distracting in the extreme. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• I generally agree with this, but I'm concerned that it might not make the point of relevance sufficiently clear. Consider an image of an automobile with a naked person standing next to it. This image has "informational value": It tells you (1) what a naked human looks like, (2) that naked humans exist in modern/technological society, (3) that some person—perhaps from our pro-naturist community of editors—wanted this image in the article, etc. But the presence of the naked human in the image doesn't provide any informational value about automobiles. We may need an explicit reference to being on-topic, editorial judgment, or least surprise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The point for this policy is that we don't censor - arguments to remove or replace the image should focus on the value (mission statement) and policy/guideline compliance of the image in the article (we have policies/guidelines on image saliency/shock images/etc) and not on mere "objectionability". If it's in the grey area then "what value does an image with a naked person add to our article for a reader wishing to learn about X?" is exactly the kind of thing someone objecting should consider, rather than just IDONTLIKEIT.

WP:NOT#CENSORED is simply our policy about non-censorship. Other project pages go into detail about image criteria.

My core concern is, it's almost (in a way) seeking to hijack "censorship" to cover something that is better classed under content criteria. On this page the piont is we don't censor but we may remove content or images if editors agree it doesn't enhance the article (ie insufficient value to the article) or doesn't comply with policies/guidelines. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am so very seriously against the removal of the religious/secular portion of the last paragraph. There are way too many articles I watch because of massive POV/BIASED changes attempted by or on behalf of various religious sects. Anyone remember Scientology or LDS or similar? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

While those matter, a policy on Wikipedia not being censored, isn't the right place to go into the many POV dispute issues we handle. In this case the kind of religion that has such issues is pretty clearly covered by the word "organization" so it's sufficient. The church is an organization as well as a religion. Scientology is an organization as well as anything else it might be considered. We don't need to specify "organization, religion, group, band, company, country, ethnicity" - we're making the point that if you have internal rules on not publishing information, Wikipedia isn't bound by them. That's all we're saying here. "Organization" is sufficient for this policy since any group with rules presumably has some organization to establish and enforce them internally and we're just making the point "if you have rules, they aren't enforcable here". Hope you can agree this does the job. It does need expanding elsewhere, but that's usually part of NPOV, RS and WEIGHT not censorship. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but (a) it's the only portion removed and (b) numerous editors, unless it is specifically stated, will not consider religion to fit within those criteria - much less their religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, if you follow backwards on all of this to its originating page, you will find editors who (even with it currently spelled out) don't care about the fact that religion is specifically named. Removing it makes things even worse. Thus, still STRONGLY OPPOSED to removing that portion of the last paragraph. In this, I will remain so. I've watched hundreds of articles edit warred over due to religious beliefs, even WITH religion in that paragraph - and all sorts of rationale for why their religion trumps policy. Removing it will make things far worse. It's bad enough that people have attempted to use IAR to violate it to honor religious beliefs/dictates. Side note, many people do not consider religion to be an organization. And virtually no one considers their beliefs (regardless of what religious group inspired such beliefs) to be an organization. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is that big a problem, then would something like this do (drawing on my response to your point on my talk page):

1st draft: "Wikipedia will not remove content because of internal bylaws or rules of organizations forbidding information about the organization to be displayed online, because organizational rules only affect their members and Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."

Updated: "Wikipedia is not a member of any organization, religion, or political group, so rules by other bodies which are binding on their members carry no weight within Wikipedia. Wikipedia will not remove content just because some religion, organization, advocacy group, political entity, or person believes that some matters should not be presented to the general public.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Perhaps a couple tweaks? I am wondering if the use of a semi-colon might make it flow better? Also, as I do not often use them, I guess first I am wondering if such a use is proper. "[...]organization, religion or political group; rules by other such bodies which are binding on their members carry[...]" Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Blatant problem with current policy

There is a blatant problem with current policy... it's that the policy is bandied about as a trump card. The current policy reads, Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. To which I fully agree. The problem is that simply because material might be objectionable does not mean that it should get a free-ride. Too often, rather than discussing the merits of an image/content, people appeal to "NOTCENSOR" and use this policy as the sole basis for inclusion as if the controversial material should be included because it is controversial and any effort to quell it is NOTCENSOR. The policy should be neutrally written, Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content. As it is currently written, the policy puts the onus solely on the shoulders of people attempting to remove controversial material, but none on people wanting to include it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd propose it's not relevant... inotherwords: "[...]Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content." --> "[...]"Being objectionable is not relevant grounds for removal or inclusion of content"

That only works with your first proposed sentence though, namely: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." - or more simply put, "is there a reason and relevance for the content? If so, great, include it. If not, great, don't include it. Objectionable thus doesn't apply, since there's either a reason or lack thereof to have the content in the article."

Anyway, that's my views - especially because (as we've learned above), people's ideas of "objectionable" are so widely different. Of course, people like me probably care the least about "objectionable" content since such people don't find much of anything "objectionable"... disgusting? weird? thought provoking? (or various other descriptors) sure, yes. But it always seemed silly for me to object to something simply because I didn't like it or thought it was disgusting. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The key point is that material should not get preferential treatment because it is objectionable, and many people seem to think that it should. When somebody challenges the use of "objectionable" material, the conversation does not center on the merits (or lack thereof) of the content, it goes to "NOTCENSORED". Rather than demonstrating or discussing the content, people play the NOTCENSORED line as if it were a trump card---which clearly it should not be. WP is NOTCENSORED in taht it isn't governed by the foundation and simply being offensive is not sufficeint grounds for removal. But for any content, it should be judged on what it brings to the article. An image of a grieving wife over a casket may be fine in some articles, but would it be appropriate in the lead of an article on the US Army? No, it would not be. Would putting a caracature in the lead of an article on Obama/Bush be appropraite? No. We constantly make editorial decisions based upon the merits of the contribution. SImply because somebody wants to move/remove something because it is offensive, doesn't mean that their position is without merit. Perhaps the value added isn't sufficeint to include the offensive material? Perhaps it is. The onus should be on proving it one way or another, NOTCENSORED should NOT be a free pass for including something that isn't necessary.

Perfect example, the lead image in the body art article has had a man whose manhood was fully painted. Having that in the lead adds no value to the article. But per NOTCENSORED, removing the image because it is a full nude would not be appropriate. Eventhough other images serve the role just as good as if not better, the current wording would forbid making that change.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with most of what you wrote. wp:notcensored has been abused numerous times. Even with your example. But... how to word it where additional image/text elements are not "added" to selection criteria without creating wording that allows it to be used for "offensive" material based on religious beliefs. For instance, if it were an article on genital body painting, we'd get a ton of "moral" and religious complaints. Just as we get one sect of Christianity "vandalizing" and lobotomizing articles on "fake" faiths who "misinterpret" the Bible and "offend" their beliefs. I agree a problem exists... but I don't agree that any of the proposed wording deals with that problem without crippling the true points and reasons for wp:censor. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I see the other problem, and it's one of skewed perspectives. For instance, in your example, I would see a picture of genitals that happen to be tattooed. Thus I'd see it as a no brainer and agree with your assessment, regardless of how wp:censor is or isn't changed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why I made the proposal very minor and modest. The only person who would argue against that change are people who want to put the sole barrier on people who object---not on what is best for the article. Having a nude/offensive content in an article can have benefits and costs. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the costs? If the answer is yes, then the nude/controversial material should remain. If the answer is no, then it should be removed. That is the editorial process. With the current wording, those who want it removed can simply say, "NOTCENSOR" and move on... which does the project a disservice. If material is included (or excluded/moved) it should be included/excluded/moved on its own merit, not on an appeal to a generic policy that can't evealuate the situation. Furthermore, controversial material has to be weighed for each article, because the scope of the article or material may be more or less controversial in different settings. Having a nude in the lead of Natural childbirth would not be controversial at all, but the same image in the article on Pregnancy has generated over a gigs worth of discussion. Similarly, images of Mohamed might be more controversial in an article on Mohamed than an article on the Depictions of Muhammad.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What Balloonman says is exactly right. --JN466 07:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've expressed the problem with the current situation nicely, Balloonman, and the example is apt. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This proposal has put the finger precisely on the right point. Congratulations. Anyone opposing this change will have a hard time arguing that this happens in good faith. Hans Adler 17:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Shall we drop "or inclusion" in? Is anyone really opposed? --JN466 19:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not the main problem with the policy though. "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness" seriously needs clarification. First, does it mean offensiveness cannot play a role in curatorial decisions, or does it mean it must be weighed against real educational value? Does it mean that the most grossly offensive image belongs on a page if it carries any related information at all, or only if it is highly relevant information? Are there instances where a highly relevant image would be excluded from an article because it is offensive?

Rob, I'm curious about this from above:

Agreed with most of what you wrote. wp:notcensored has been abused numerous times. Even with your example. But... how to word it where additional image/text elements are not "added" to selection criteria without creating wording that allows it to be used for "offensive" material based on religious beliefs.

Why do you make an exception for religious offense? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the part of your comment not directed at Rob, the passage you quote means offensiveness does not play any role in such discussions because it's entirely irrelevant to them. Images and other media are chosen solely on educational value to the article/section they illustrate. Both the image that you or anyone else might consider the most grossly offensive and the image that you or anyone else might consider the least offensive belong on the article if and only if they are the image that best illustrates the article/section in question.

I think irrelevancy is the key point that those wanting to change the current policy are finding most difficult to grasp. We don't include or exclude an image because it is offensive or not offensive, in exactly the same way that we don't include or exclude an image because it was or was not created by an Italian or a Venezuelan. How offensive anyone thinks an image is or isn't, no matter why they think or don't that, has the same relevance to its educational value to the article as is the nationality of the photographer/artist - i.e. absolutely none at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, to your question in your last statement. It was a specific based on earlier conversation. As a generalized answer, please read it as "[...]without creating wording that allows it to be used for (removal of) "offensive" material based on religious, political, personal, corporate, governmental or other such beliefs"

And to expound on that (which I think I did in another section - should have above as well), that thought would continue as follows (which I believe addresses your earlier point, and you'll find is consistent with my other posts on this matter): Offensiveness, for whatever reason, should not be used as criteria for justifying removal or inclusion of any content. Reasons based on "it offends me because of my (pick any or add "your" own personal reason:) religious/political/personal/corporate/etc beliefs..." should be summarily discarded because we are not permitted to insert our own bias and POV into an article, regardless of whether one or a million other people hold such a view. Instead, inclusion or removal of content should be judged by whether or not the content is relevant, informational and/or educational (certain content requires one or both criteria, IMO), carries the correct licensing or fair use claim and is properly used. Additionally, such content should only be used within the parameters of WP:MOS and related policies and guidelines (such as MOS\Images, IUP, etc for image - or BLP for biographical information relevant to a living person). And finally, consistency, as determined by policies, guidelines and standards should be applied universally - not in a "pick and choose" fashion.

Inotherwords, I personally think that "special case objections/exceptions/etc" should be discarded whenever brought up. In my opinion, they are simply someone trying to hide their personal beliefs behind other rationale. Instead, such objections should be directed to another venue, such as Village Pump or community-wide RfC to determine a community decision that affects ALL such instances. As an example we've oft mentioned lately: the depictions of Muhammad do not necessarily depict what he actually looked like (though there is a chance someone "got it right", I think (a) it would be rare, (b) unlikely, and (c) we couldn't prove if that was the case) as they were done after his death. So, skipping the part of policy and guideline that permits such depictions for a second (let's pretend that such does not specifically say that such is permitted), an objection such as "that's not what he looked like" should be sent to VP or community RfC and ignored for the Muhammad article - because it is a single case objection that the editor(s) are not applying uniformly (remember the list of a dozen other articles I made a while back that would also be affected by such?). That shows a very likely (not definite, but very likely) bias on the part of the editor who is unwilling or uncaring about applying such rationalization uniformly across Wikipedia. And even if that bias does not exist, it should be dealt with in the proper venue, because (a) we need to stop making special case exceptions on Wikipedia (that will destroy the encyclopedic nature of WP) and (b) simply going against policies, guidelines and our interpretations-through-use of such on a single case situation is not the way to deal with it. Instead, clarifying the policy in an unbiased fashion is the way to deal with it... such as (above example again) "should Wikipedia allow the use of depictions of people when it is known that those depictions are likely not to be realistic portrayals of how the person looked? This would affect such articles as (list at least a few dozen of the hundreds of thousands of affected articles - not just the Muhammad one)"

Now, in that particular case, it is already covered in policies and guidelines - and the answer is that such is specifically permitted - so in that particular case, the proper method would be Village Pump with an effort to change policies and guidelines (as opposed to clarifying their use).

But, regardless, I hope you get the point. Screw these special case exceptions. If we keep catering towards such, it will never end. If we pick and choose which articles get granted such, then we are imposing our biases and POVs on articles. Can't win either way. And offense is not a justification for destroying Wikipedia with more and more and more and more special case exceptions. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf, you say, "I think irrelevancy is the key point that those wanting to change the current policy are finding most difficult to grasp. We don't include or exclude an image because it is offensive or not offensive" -- Actually, the idea was, if we have an image that appears to be controversial, to refer to sources and check if we are in line with them. The lead image in pregnancy is a nude image. Some people object. They may object with good reason. So what do we find if we look at book covers, health education websites and other sources on pregnancy? [17] We don't usually find a nude image. The most common type of image in English-language sources is actually a clothed image, often with the belly partly exposed, or sometimes showing the woman in underwear. Nude images are in third place. At that point we can forget about offence and simply remember NPOV. Problem solved. Or take an article on a (skin) mole. Moles can occur on any part of the body, can't they? So someone adds an image of a mole on a penis. Or a breast. People complain. Editors reply, "The article is about moles, this image shows a mole, WP is not censored, so the image remains. Go away." Wrong. Dead wrong. The thing to do is to look at sources. Do sources show penises or breasts to illustrate what a mole is? Hell, no. They show an unidentifiable piece of skin on an arm, leg, or whatever. So, out the image goes, replaced with one that conforms to customary editorial standards. Simple. --JN466 01:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you are still missing the point. If you don't think the image at $article is a good illustration for the topic, then go to the article's talk page and explain why you think it isn't a good illustration or why you think this other image you've found would better. Make reference to things like composition, educational value, etc, and editors will discuss it. You might find that they disagree with you, but that is just like every other aspect of Wikipedia. The key point to remember though is that whether you or anyone else finds it offensive is irrelevant. Just like if you said "I want to change the lead image at Rice because I think it was taken by a Dutchman" editors would quite rightly say tell you that the nationality of the photographer is irrelevant, they'll quite rightly tell you that offensiveness or otherwise is irrelevant. Regarding the other sources, I posted somewhere on this page a list of the minimum information needed to make a semi-educated guess at why a source used a particular image. When you have found that information for each of the sources you're comparing it to, make your guess as to why they chose the image they did and present your findings on the talk page and see if there is a consensus of editors that agrees with you. If they do, then the image will be changed, if they don't then it wont.

Regarding skin moles. The images used to illustrate the article should be the ones that provide the greatest educational benefit, regardless of what bit of skin the mole is on. If you think that there is a better image to illustrate than is currently used (I've not read the article) then propose it on the talk page explaining why you think it's better, but remember that because you think something is offensive is not a reason why it is better or worse than an image you don't find offensive - it's completely irrelevant. An image that you find offensive is no more or less protected than an image you don't find offensive. Every image that a consensus of editors at an article think is encyclopaedically the best image available to us to illustrate the topic is protected. Every image that is irrelevant to the article is removed. Every image that is superceded by a better image is removed. I don't know how many more times we have to keep explaining it - offensiveness to you me, the Pope, you next door neighbour, the most senior Rabbi in Australia, a vegan, a flat earther, a creationist, the vicar of Stow-on-the-Wold, Tony Benn, the Imam of the largest mosque in Pakistan, a pacifist, a beef farmer, Sarah Palin, Kim Jong-Il, your butcher's granddaughter, Hugh Heffner, or anyone else is of no consequence, it's not a reason for adding an image, it's not a reason for removing an image. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Objectionable content

We currently say,

• "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."

We are shooting ourselves in the foot with this sort of wording. To give an example, at Sue Gardner's talk in London a few days ago, a woman editor brought up the Russian Wiktionary entry for "woman", which at one time was illustrated with what she described as a vintage porn image [18] that she thought was quite offensive and "inappropriate". I think most of us would agree that the picture she put in instead is "more appropriate". [19]

The question is, if there is a dispute about it, on what grounds is someone like her supposed to argue that the previous image was "not appropriate", if we specifically say that offensiveness should have no bearing on the matter? By saying what we are saying, we are automatically slanting the playing field against editors in her situation. The previous image undoubtedly showed a "woman". (Arguably it showed more of her than the replacement image). So people can wiki-lawyer forever and a day that the nude image is just as "appropriate" or better than the clothed one, because the only thing that speaks against it is potential offensiveness, and that, we say, is not an argument anyone should make or listen to. Do we want to be totally insensitive?

There is a more sensible approach in Wikipedia:Offensive material, which basically states that potentially offensive images have to "earn their keep" in a way other images do not. Thoughts? --JN466 08:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty is that material is not inherently offensive or objectionable. Some people do object to certain kinds of material -- and they do so from particular culturally situated points of view. The problem with using phrases like "objectionable material" or "offensive material" is that they imply that such feelings are universal, and for any given case that implication will be untrue. I feel offended by the image of human beings nailed to crosses, but I don't expect my feelings to carry weight in editing decisions. Perhaps we don't want to be "totally insensitive", but drawing lines in this area is going to be very difficult and it might be better to focus on educational value rather than getting bogged down in endless discussions about whose feelings of offense are going to matter and whose aren't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion thread was prompted by Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principle_15. The trouble is that the only reason militating against having a nude image as the lead image for a "woman" entry in one of our projects is offensiveness to large numbers of readers. And we say in so many words that that argument should carry zero weight within Wikipedia. No other argument can really be made against a well-executed nude image. Discounting offensiveness, a nude image is as "encyclopedically useful" and accurate as a clothed lead image, arguably even more so (showing more of the woman, and less of the clothes). The same is true about the photograph of a woman in the process of defecating (seen from below) that an editor sought to include in defecation a while ago, citing NOTCENSORED. The image was accurate and illustrated exactly what the article was about, yet it was deeply inappropriate, and the only reason was its offensiveness. (It was deleted from Commons, and the user was site-banned, although his argument was actually fully in line with policy as written.) The way to demonstrate educational value is, or ought to be, the use of the same kind of image in reputable sources.

• If reputable sources use a shocking picture (e.g. rape of Nanking, Holocaust), then so should we. (This applies even if there is only a significant minority of reputable sources using such images – per WP:NPOV, we must present significant minority views, even if offensive.)
• But if they don't (e.g. Goatse), then neither should we, and EOD.

Anything else is inconsistent with the sourcing and verifiability principles (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV etc.) this project and all its content are built on. --JN466 09:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a proposal:

• Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources.

Views? --JN466 10:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Undue weight is already abused constantly to mean "This controversy/content/claim/criminal charge isn't what someone/something was originally famous/notable for therefore the article shouldn't have any mention of it". Undue weight as an editing policy was meant to refer to articles as a whole, not to particular bits of an article. It was never meant to be solely exclusionary. A proper solution to an undue weight problem is also to expand the more appropriate sections, but in practice, this is rare. I don't think that undue weight should be invoked in this context, because it just reinforces the inappropriate, exclusionary, use of the guideline to apply to atomic bits of content. Gigs (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I wrote "due weight" advisedly, because the due/undue door swings both ways. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." If fair presentation of a significant minority (or majority) viewpoint requires inclusion of text or media that may be offensive, then it should be included (I believe that was an issue in the abortion case). The important principle is that we follow sources. Are you okay with the rest of the wording? --JN466 15:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Which sources would we be using as reliable is one question that comes to mind. Also the founders were fairly clear (at least in my mind) that they didn't want to turn wikipedia into essentially an online version of EB. I dislike the idea of taking precedent from other areas when we can simple apply common sense. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Reliable sources are well defined in WP:IRS, and represent an extremely wide range of publications with very diverse editorial styles, some widely divergent from the EB house style. Let's remember that all our text is tied to reliable sources by policy. We don't use text that cannot be found in at least some reliable source. If this is our threshold for text, it is common sense to expect that our illustrations should likewise be of a type that at least some reliable sources have used. Now, I am well aware that images are not the same as text. A copyrighted source image cannot be cited and summarised the same way a copyrighted text passage can, but the underlying principle for illustrations is no different from text in terms of WP:OR, WP:DUE, etc. We are trying to reflect reliable sources. Or would you argue that we need to give Wikipedia the freedom to use media that no reliable source would use, regardless of how insensitive such image use might be? And if so, would you also argue that Wikipedia texts should have the freedom to contain views and arguments that no reliable source would present? --JN466 23:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• It might be useful to have some guidance as to what issues should be considered (e.g. relevance, value). But I do not agree that deleting the sentence "Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content" is an improvement to this policy. I think that sentence is useful in telling us that "offensiveness" is not a key issue for editing decisions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that sentence is needed. The complete paragraph would read:
  • However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. --JN466 00:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

While I generally agree with the above, the one place where there needs to be added concern is the lead image. (This issue was brought up somewhere else recently for image use policy so why I'm aware of it). Because of how we present articles, we need to assume the lead image is going to be the image that readers will visually connect to the topic in the future; it is also unavoidable to see that image if you are loading up that Wikipedia page for the first time, so an unexpected image is going to be shocking. (This does not apply to anywhere else in the article, only the lead image). Thus, the lead image should be one we want associated with the topic in the most unshocking, unbiased way. Take the woman example: I would expect in the article a picture of a nude woman to explain the differences between women and men in this fashion, but the lead does not need this when there's plenty of free images of (clearly identifiable) women we can use. The counter to this would be the fact that there's no real way to avoid the "shock" of naked genitalia on articles about those parts of the body.

Thus, for example, the current Holocaust picture is appropriate, compared to File:Rows of bodies of dead inmates fill the yard of Lager Nordhausen, a Gestapo concentration camp.jpg which is used later in the article - still appropriate to use in that article, but not really the best choice of lead image. I know there's discussion as Pregnancy whether a nude pregnant woman can be replaced by a tastefully clothed pregnant woman in the lead image as well (though again, the nude pregnant woman picture would still be completely appropriate in the body of the article). Little things like that and only for the lead image. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A similar situation came up a while back on the talk page of Myiasis: Some folk thought that File:Myiasis-cat.jpg was too disgusting to be the infobox image. (I'm not easily disgusted, so I didn't see the problem, myself.) A different image, File:Miasis human.jpg, was inserted in the infobox, and the former image was retained elsewhere in the article. So far, nearly a year has gone by with no further complaints. Deor (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That pregnancy image well illustrates the problem: it is completely alien to me and my values that the current lead image could be considered offensive, and to much of the world it wouldn't be, even if displayed in a public place. We can't just conform to the least tolerant cultures. There shouldn't even be a discussion as to whether such straightforward (even clinical) images of the human body are top "offensive" to lead articles about the human body and physiology any more than we should humor complaints about leading articles with the unveiled faces of married women. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, at some point, we have to use common sense; displays of nudity are generally a problem across most of the civilized world. If the article was about nudists or naturalism, of course a nude picture is completely appropriate. But we're talking pregnancy, and the most common image (through common sense) of that is a woman with a distorted abdomen as she carries her child to full term, regardless of how she is dressed (or lack thereof). In other words, we can still demonstrate pregnancy with an image that we all know by common sense is less a problem as a lead image. In the body of the article - go right ahead and use as many copious images of nude pregnant women to help the reader to understand, by all means, but again, as the lead image is something you can't avoid when you open a page, some discretion should be used. And of course there is a point that if the pictures available to use in the lead are somewhat offensive to all to various degrees, a lead image is not required. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue with pregnancy article is a little more than just a nude in the lead and to simplify it to just nudity is oversimplifying the issue there. Since the 70's in the U.S. prenant nudes have been associated with Natural childbirth---a specific POV relative to pregnancy. So seeing a pregnant nude in the lead can have a specific politicial/religious/social ramifications beyond a mere nude. And pregnancy can be a politically charged subject when dealing with abortion/adoption/medical treatments/etc that a nude carries other connotations in THAT subject. *I* am opposed to the current lead image there, but my argument is not because it of some prudishness relative to the female body, but rather what a nudes means specifically relative to pregnancy.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And that's part of the problem. I do not question the statements of fact "nude pregnant woman are associated with natural childbirth" and that "natural childbirth is a charged political/religious subject". The problem that exists is that not all uses of nude pregnant women in reliable sources used to promote the idea of natural childbirth. Ergo, regardless of the political ramifications, it is acceptable to a non-fringe group to use such images for depicting pregnancy, even if you and other editors are opposed to it. We can't dismiss it immediately in that fashion. I still would say that at the end of the day, there is no educational difference between a tastefully clothed and a nude shot of a pregnant woman, both are used readily in reliable sources, so the less-offensive one would be the better choice. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... but that is where context come into play. I have no problem with the use of a nude pregnant woman in the article. In another article, I might not have problems with it being in the lead. In the pregnancy article, however, it lacks context, thus my concerns. With it being in the lead, it creates questions as to whether or not natural childbirthers/activist had undue weight in writing the article. Pregnancy is a vanilla topic, but can have emotionally charged political/social/religious ramifications (abortion, stem cells, adoption, immunizations, etc). To simply boil the issue down to censorship is, IMO, to over simplify the issue.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I mention this elsewhere, but the lead image aspect is a almost nearly a separate issue, in the sense that it's not the inclusion of a questionable image (which can always be placed in the body), but that whatever is in the lead will be unavoidable (barring the potential filter solution the Foundation has suggested) when loading the page. The lead image must be chosen to respect, within common sense, some sense of standards, as well as other facets like COI like you suggest. Ergo the use of a nude pregnant woman on the Pregnancy page when a clothed one serves the same educational purpose and visual association can be used instead. That nude can be used in the body instead, after the reader has come to understand what the article is about so they should be able to expect that. However, I'm going to say to simplify this present discussion, on NOTCENSORED in general, what happens in the lead is a different beast as long as everyone understands that the lead image is going to be held to different standards that fall outside this discussion. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• The implication that editors can "wiki-lawyer forever" to include offensive images is absurd given that few editors actively try to insert the most offensive image they can find(compared to many who try to censor as much nudity/violence/etc), and because in no part of the policy does it actually "specifically say that offensiveness should have no bearing on the matter". The current policy states that arguments should be focused on relevance to the article, and since our purpose here is on informing and not on pleasing our general focus should always be on what is informative and not on what the reader likes. Now that does not mean that offensiveness "should carry zero weight within Wikipedia", but that is not what the article says in any form. This proposed wording is attempting to even the scale against a supposed current wording that argues that no weight should be given to arguments on offensiveness, but the current wording does not argue that at all. Furthermore we have guidelines that specifically address the issues you have brought up:

From the the lead of Wikipedia:Offensive material

However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

There is even a subsection entitled "Not censored" is not an excuse for gratuitous offensiveness which furthermore already discusses your concerns of editors inserting randomly shocking images when inappropriate.

I also disagree with "precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources". Reliable sources are limited often times by their resources(cannot print as many images, especially color) and this argument will end up circulating around subjective arguments like "Source X uses photos of tortured Jews so there is precedent", "No, source X's photo shows Jews tortured by method W, Y and Z, and not method A like in the photo you want, and IMO method A is far more offensive", "I disagree, method A is no more offensive and shocking than the other methods(they're practically identical)", "I disagree, and unless you can find a source specifically illustrating method A then there is no precedent", etc, etc. Do we really want to waste editors time with arguments on how specific a source has to be to set "precedent" and editors scouring the internet looking for ultraspecific examples, etc. If we added this then there would be need to be a whole description of just what "precedent" is and how to assess it, and IMO such a section would never gain consensus and would be totally unnecessary anyways.AerobicFox (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that whether another RS has used the image or not should carry any bearing. This would essentially favor not using CC content created by Wikipedians for Wikipedian articles when its felt necessarily per WP:OI. This includes both photographs and illustrations.∞陣内Jinnai 19:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that'd put quite the dent in Wikipedia's long and rich history of hentai and lolicon user creations, eh? But yea, the "it should be in a reliable source" argument is an unreasonable burden to place upon image usage. Again, what this comes across as is policy/guideline wording to support the removal of images that someone doesn't like, and the analogy to the Russian wiki situation was weak; the question was not of offensiveness but of relevance and appropriateness to the subject matter. Does the reader need to see a photograph of a naked woman to understand the an encyclopedia entry on women? No. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's please not have strawman arguments. No one anywhere has demanded that the same image should have been used in a reliable source. --JN466 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We're already scouring the Internets for precedent each time we want to add a bit of text (we call it sourcing). So we are well in the habit of doing so. 99.999% of the images we use would not demand any such effort. But if there is an image that half or close to half of the community finds grossly insensitive, then it would seem wise, as a tie-breaker, to do a reality check to find out whether use of similar images has any significant prevalence in reliable sources, or indeed whether any reliable source at all has ever used a comparable image. If the answer to that question is "No", then we should remember that our whole effort here is about reflecting the content of reliable sources as accurately and proportionately as possible. We are not here to provide an alternative view to that presented in reliable sources – neither in text, nor in illustrations. --JN466 23:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is unrealistic to reason that a reliable source is going to serve as a guideline concerning what in the final analysis is a matter of taste. There is really no difference between the photograph of the image of the woman's face and the photograph of the woman's body, as referred to earlier in this thread. We are applying criteria of taste where we should not. Policy is well-worded as it is:

"Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."

These are editorial decisions. They are, or should be, specific to the article. Nor do I agree with the notion articulated above that the first image encountered in an article needs to be toned down in its ability to shock some people. Education is sometimes "shocking". I don't think that should be our concern.

Just as in the verbal component of an article, imagery should in fact be incisive. Good taste should not even be a considered ingredient in article space. Clear communication of the ideas germane to the article's topic is all that should matter. Our primary concern should be imagery that does exactly what the verbal component does. That is to educate and explain and provide resources for further exploration of related topics.

How is this photo "less offensive" than this photo? Are we writing articles to educate or to indoctrinate? Bus stop (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

By defining a "woman" as a sex object rather than a person, which is offensive to many women and men. --JN466 00:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A face does not contain sexual content? The photo of the full figure nude contains no more or less sexual content that the photo of just the face. There are no objective measures of level of sexual content—or at least none applicable to the two images linked to. Our concerns are properly confined to the subject of the article. We should be concerned with what images help to illustrate and expand upon the verbal component of the article. We simply cannot be concerned with "offensiveness" beyond a reasonable point. Granted, when an image is gratuitously offensive that can be grounds for an argument for removal. But we have to be careful about that argument being invoked where inapplicable. That is why I would support language as presently in place. The two photos above are equally appropriate (or inappropriate) for the article that they were supposedly for. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop: common sense please. You and I both know that for the vast, vast part of our readership these two images are nowhere near equal in offensiveness. You want to make an abstract argument about the inability to objectively determine sexual content; you're just Bill Clintoning us. 99% of the people in the world have no trouble whatsoever seeing this distinction, and that includes people who like the nude (one can approve of the nude and still recognize that it's a sexualized image). We need better language here because too many people rubber-stamp problematic images with NOTCENSORED. The problem is not (as you put it) that the argument might be invoked where inapplicable, but rather that there are editors who have determined for themselves that there is nowhere where the argument can be invoked. it just leads to long disputes over images that aren't really worth the effort. --Ludwigs2 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A suitable lead image for man?

Is this suitable for the lead of man either? Although this is unoffensive neither image is demonstrative of the average man.

Bus stop, do you think the image on the right would be a suitable lead image for the article man in an encyclopaedia? And if sources covering the topic "man" do not use such an image as their lead or title image, do you think it is in line with WP:DUE / WP:NPOV if Wikipedia is the only exception? --JN466 01:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish people were capable of taking a broader perspective on this issue. I mean, I think I understand comment's like Bus stop's "Good taste should not even be a considered ingredient in article space" above - it's an effort to keep the encyclopedia free and open - but it's just a fact of human life that the line between being direct and being rude is paper thin. Direct is good, rude is bad; opting for the first makes us respectable, opting for the second makes us not. Good taste matters in almost everyplace in the world, and if the project simply ignores good taste then the project becomes a first-class jerk. We can deal even with even highly offensive topics without becoming offensive ourselves, and that is the attitude we should be fostering across the project.

I like Jayen's revision, but I'd recommend taking the emphasis off of wp:RS (which is just going to open up a can of worms, since images usually don't have clear sourcing like text, and drama-ridden images tend to get wider publication), an aim for something a little less one-sided. something like:

• Wikipedia aims to be useful and accessible to the broadest population of readers. Controversial or potentially objectionable content should be assessed according to its appropriateness, relevance, and educational value for that particular article, and material should neither avoid nor aggravate the given controversy or offense without good cause.

I think that might cover it better. --Ludwigs2 00:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me just add that there is no misogyny here. Both photos seem to be flattering of women. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, common sense please. misogyny is a very strong term. This is inappropriateness, not misogyny. Or would you suggest that it's acceptable for someone to pat some acquaintance on the bum because patting someone on the bum isn't rape? Just because it's not extreme doesn't mean it's ethically correct. --Ludwigs2 00:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs—maybe you had your libido accidentally in the "off" position when viewing the facial portions of the two photos. There is much more sexual content in the photograph of just the face. The full figure nude seems bored at that moment that the photo was taken. Bus stop (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop: do I really need to ask you to use common sense a third time? Your argument is that a woman with a 'come hither' look on her face is as sexually charged as a full-figure nude. It's an absurd argument that practically everyone in the real world would recognize as absurd the moment they heard it, and the only reason it slips by here with any credibility at all is that you're saying it in the standard 'internet fishbowl' (i.e. the detached, speaker-centered realm where you can say whatever you want and never have to cope with the disbelieving eye-rolls that run across the faces of everyone reading). The first picture is trying to be sexually provocative; the second one is inherently sexually charged. You might want to check what position your libido is in. . --Ludwigs2 01:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Break

The present wording includes the sentence

• Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article.

That wording encourages editors to dismiss any argument involving offensiveness as irrelevant. By doing so, it sets WP:NOT against guidelines such as

• WP:Offensive material,
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Offensive_images,
• the new Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Images_for_the_lead,
• Wikipedia:Restricted_materials#Hate_speech.2C_violence_and_sexual_exploitation, and the
• WMF board resolution on controversial content,

all of which offer editors guidance based on whether content is potentially offensive or not. If we can't discuss whether an image is offensive or not, we can't discuss how these guidelines apply. That sentence needs to go, or be rephrased. --JN466 01:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

JN466—there is a fundamental problem with speaking of images being offensive or inappropriate. Consensus determines which images are to stay and which images are to go. Policy should not be in place to add a greater degree of indeterminacy to the already complex and subjective process of reaching consensus. "Offensiveness" will never be defined nor should it be defined. This project is open to articles on all topics. Criteria for offensiveness inevitably varies by article. What would be the point to misleading editors into thinking that they can simply invoke prudish proclivities to get images removed? The threshold for removing images should be much more stringent than that. Editors should instead be required to show inapplicability of a given image to a given article. Good taste should not even be on the table as a topic of discussion. To keep the discussion on topic, editors should be discussing how a given image advances or detracts from the purposes of a given article. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That is why we need to look at the wording of this section, so that editors can't argue like you. :) Inapplicability of a potentially offensive image to a given article is demonstrated by a lack of sources using similar images in the same context. Likewise, the relevance of a potentially offensive image is demonstrated by reliable sources using similar images in the same context. Most of the time we know that our pictures are fine, because we consciously or unconsciously remember seeing similar illustrations in reliable sources; the image's presence feels natural and expected. Here we are talking about images that are unexpected. --JN466 02:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

JN466—the Internet is not organized by images. Except for a few searching tools like TinEye, there is little ability to associate words with images. What we are actually doing is using our own mental resources to bring images into association with words. There are exceptions. But in the example of an article title Woman, which I believe was the article associated with the two images of females discussed above, there can't be a quintessential image associated with that topic, and when we are considering an image of Issac Asimov we are probably not going to find a picture of him in the shower. Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, I am really perplexed by this logic (which I've seen several editors use, not just BS), and I wish someone would explain it to me in a way I can understand. As far as I can tell, it's like arguing that not only is it allowable to fart in restaurants, one should make a conscious effort to fart in restaurants simply because one can't give in to social pressure of people who don't like the smell. It's a 'zero-tolerance' paradigm for the preferences of others for no obvious reason that I can wrap my head around. Is that a wrong assessment? --Ludwigs2 02:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs—I don't think we should write into policy guidelines that can't be followed. How can such a Talk page discussion proceed? Editors could write volumes on what they feel is offensive. This is a matter of taste. Subjectivity doesn't need to be written into policy.

A far narrower area for discussion would be the goals and aims of the article. That keeps the discussion on the topic of the article rather than peripheral sensitivities. I am not so much arguing against "good taste" as I am arguing for keeping the discussion relevant. I think discussions of "taste" are a distraction and an endless quagmire. Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop: you confuse the emotions of an individual with the standard practices of a group or culture. offending the feelings of an individual is unfortunate, but not a major concern; offending the standards of a group, nation, culture, race, gender, (etc) is a major concern. When you include an image which broadly violates the mores of almost every community and which can easily be interpreted as demeaning towards an entire gender, casting it as the offended feelings of individual editors is a gross misrepresentation. Do you understand that? Because if you do not understand that, then everything else you say has to be weighed within the context of that limitation.

You fail to understand the psychology of the situation. When we do things that offend people's standards we need to have a reasonable explanation for why we have to. If we do not have a reasonable explanation for why we are doing it, then we look like dickheads. that makes people angry, makes the project look stupid, and generally causes trouble all around as people try to explain to us what dickheads we are being. Telling them that good taste and offense don't matter, or we should ignore that stuff and focus on content, doesn't do anything except reaffirm that we actually are dickheads. It just exacerbates the problem. The only way out of this tangle is to stop doing things that offend cultural mores except where we have a clear and obvious reason to do so.

The only reason these discussions end up as quagmires is because editors like you get it into your heads that that thing (whatever it is) just has to be done. You don't stop to think whether it actually adds that much to the article, you feel a complete entitlement to place your personal desires ahead of the conventional norms of large sections of the real world - you lose all perspective on the encyclopedia and all orientation to common sense. How are the rest of us supposed to discuss things with someone who believes that only his/her feelings matter? Because you know as well as I do that no one argues strenuously for a borderline controversial image unless they have 'feelings' about it.

I'm all for keeping discussions relevant as well, but good taste is always relevant, and trying to deny it is guaranteed to to send a talk page into a tailspin. so let's not do that. --Ludwigs2 06:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is so preposterous that it is difficult to take it seriously. But I'll try. When you say "good taste", you mean your taste, right? I say that because it is so entirely obvious that it is impossible to talk generally and consistently about the "standards of a group, nation, culture, race, gender". There is, of course, no set of standards that all "groups, nations, cultures, races and genders" embrace; even the slightest effort at reflection results in the insight that there is diversity and conflict in this realm, even for any one of those dimensions of membership/identity. So, in practice when someone says "good taste" they usually mean "my taste", because there isn't anything else for it to mean. No doubt you will reject all of this -- but do you really expect to be taken seriously in that regard? Do you really think you get to speak on behalf of races, genders, cultures, etc.? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ludwigs—"offense" can be an excuse or a pretense for skewing articles in ways not in the interest of the general English-speaking readership. Editors don't need to be armed with language enshrined in policy articulating that we should not "offend". Arguments for and against the inclusion of images should be confined to just that which is relevant to fulfilling the aims of that particular article. If some image, or text, is gratuitously "offensive", it should be possible to also argue that its use falls outside of the primary aims of that particular article. "Offensiveness" is to varying degrees subjective. We should be concerned with not offending our fellow editors on Talk pages but we should not necessarily devote so much energy as you and others are arguing for to not offending the general readership with relevant information whether in the form of images or text. Every "offensive" image or text already exists on the Internet. Wikipedia should be an oasis of educational content and we should not be subservient to those who claim to be "offended". Bus stop (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: What exactly is preposterous here? are you saying that there isn't a taboo against nudity almost everywhere? are you saying that this taboo isn't recognized by practically everyone? There is a clothes-optional resort I go to two or three times a year - it's a marvelous place, but no one there deludes themselves into thinking that the behavior is conventional. Why are you pushing that delusion here? This isn't about my tastes vs your taste (and if it were the discussion would be very different); this is about your personal preferences vs. the mores of every major world culture. You seem to want to deny that culture and society exist and reduce everything to minor squabbles between wikipedia editors, and that is just poor reasoning.

@Bus Stop: I would actually want to agree with you, except that in practice NOTCENSORED is used to make it impossible to "argue that its use falls outside of the primary aims of that particular article." It's kneejerk: If I say "I don't think this image is the best one for this article and I'd like to replace it with that image" I will instantly get the response "you don't think that image is good because you are offended by it, therefore NOTCENSORED renders your argument invalid." It doesn't matter what I say, I'm always told that I'm trying to remove it because of offense and opposed. This is why the wording of NOTCENSORED needs to be changed, to stop that kind of mindless policy application. --Ludwigs2 17:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, allow me to explain what I am proposing. From time to time we have content – usually images – in our articles that a significant number of contributors consider insensitive to reader's expectations. These matters usually go to an RfC, or several RfCs, and frequently flip-flop multiple times, with the content removed, then added again, and so forth. The result is interminable disruption. For an example, with an outline of all the myriad discussions had on the matter, see the box at the top of Talk:Goatse.cx. Now calculate the editor hours that went into this – the uploads, deletions, votes for deletion, deletion reviews, mediation, and so forth. We have to find a more efficient way of solving these disputes. What I am proposing is two things:

1. that concerns about insensitivity in illustration are prima facie taken seriously (this is something the present wording discourages),
2. that we solve those disagreements the same way we solve all other types of disagreements on content: by recourse to sources.

Reliable sources should be the final arbiter in these cases. For example, I'm not aware of any reliable source that has actually featured the goatse image on its pages while writing about it. If that is so, why should we? Sources give a link to the site for those who wish to see it; so can we. (And we can often provide relevant Commons links as well, where additional and perhaps more explicit media are available.) To give another example, leading to the opposite outcome, Rape of Nanking features a horrific image of a severed head. Editors may argue that it is too horrific to show. However, that image was published by Life Magazine, establishing good precedent in a highly reputable source. Ergo, the image stays. Or an editor may object to a drawing illustrating a sexual position. However, we can show that similar images are used in educational works on sexology, so the image stays. Do you see what I am getting at? Recourse to sources prevents us from straying outside the envelope of what reputable publishers consider useful to present, while safeguarding potentially offensive images that have demonstrable educational justification. Following this approach ensures that our editorial judgment is informed by the judgment of reliable sources, for media as it is for text, where we have long taken for granted that we cannot include ideas and information that are without precedent in reliable sources. It's a cornerstone of our project.

As with disputes about article text, adopting this proposal will not end all arguments – there will always be edge cases where only very few obscure or questionable sources feature the kind of content someone wishes to include – but it will help our discussions be better informed by reference to mainstream standards, and may reduce the amount of time we spend on them. --JN466 13:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, we might have found some common ground. I can see some value in drawing on reliable sources to work out what images to include. However, I'm not sure why we would address that issue here. Perhaps at WP:IUP? The issue motivating your introduction of a discussion here, on WT:NOT was (as I understood it) "offensiveness". I then have to mention what seems to be a contradiction between two recent posts you have made: [20] and [21]. Are you proposing to delete that sentence or not? It seems to me that this is the issue we would discuss here, while the "use reliable sources for images" discussion would belong somewhere else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, Nomo, it's the misuse of NOTCENSORED that causes these problems. I was the one who spearheaded that move to get rid of the Goatse image, and I literally spent a month trying to get editors to move past simple repetitions of the phrase "Wikipedia is not censored". And in fact, I never succeeded in that goal: all I managed to do was be sufficiently persistent (RfC's, mediation, and AfD on the image, endless circular talk page discussion) that the squabble attracted sufficient numbers of thoughtful attention to make removing the image feasible. the supporters were parroting NOTCENSORED to the end, and for weeks beyond. and the Goatse image was not a subtle issue: it was an image that never should have been on the article in the first place, but once it was there it required a herculean effort to remove because of editors using NOTCENSORED like pepperspray. Much the same thing has happened on Muhammad, and on Pregnancy, and on… do you see the problem? --Ludwigs2 17:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you either misremember or misrepresent the goatse debate. I was a part of that as well at the time, and the reason it was finally (and IMO wrongly, but I accept that a consensus of editors saw differently. Novel concept, I know.) deleted was because of WP:NFCC concerns. See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png for a refresher, the argument delete on the grounds of offensiveness was explicitly rejected in the closing argument. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. He simplified the situation. Of course a full description of the dispute would have included the information that even though it was and is bloody obvious that such an image has no business in any encyclopedia that addresses a wide audience, the matter could only be decided once an for all through the copyright detour. This just shows the extent of the problem. Hans Adler 17:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I remember how the issue was resolved. I also know that it would never have gotten to that point except that I pushed, and pushed hard. I don't really care if the right thing got done for a spurious reason (God knows the closing admin needed some credible excuse, given the trenchant opposition); what I'm trying to point out is the ridiculousness of the opposing arguments. Simply repeating NOTCENSORED over and over again is a discussion tactic worthy of six year olds, and it's not how we should decide things on project. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it curious that when confronted with a misstatement of yours, you are unable to own up to it. It bears repeating; "not censored" in the goatse case was accepted as a strong argument argument that the image deletionists were unable to counter-argue. The only reason the image was deleted was because of WP:NFCC policy, which is arguably one of the most important in the project as it deals with fair use and copyright concerns. That you think the prevailing argument is ridiculous is a point you have belabored to death by now. We get it. We also no longer care. Simply "being offensive", an arguable point in itself, will never be an acceptable reason to remove an image from an article. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"I find it curious that when confronted with a misstatement of yours, you are unable to own up to it. It bears repeating; 'not censored' in the goatse case was accepted as a strong argument argument that the image deletionists were unable to counter-argue." -- Exactly. That's precisely the problem that we are trying to address here. That we have reached a point where it was impossible to remove a photo that shows a naked man from behind, with his anus stretched and wide open to an extent that most people would believe anatomically impossible, for the right reason, so that in the end it was easier to go a different route. Hans Adler 18:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how the goatse discussion closed out, I think there's a very subtle difference between that and the cases for Pregnancy, Muhammad, and others. The goatse article is not specifically about the photo, but the use of a shocking photo to surprise/revolt viewers, eg, the action, not the actual image. It is not necessary to see the image to understand how the image was used. Compare this to Pregnancy, where there is educational, non-shock value to show the effects of pregnancy on a human female, or in the case of Muhammad, how the religious icon is visualized within that field (even if to a large fraction of them, that creates a problem). Moreso, the lack of such images on the last two pages harm the understanding of both terms, compared to lacking the actual goatse image on the article about it. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Again I would like to point out the fact that if an image can be brought up for a reason to be removed other than it being offensive people have been shown as willing to compromise. Taking offense as a guiding star means we might as well start now sanitizing the wikipedia, because whole groups of people find large numbers of things offensive. When using other types of policy to remove an image most people will debate it but people don't throw out the NOTCENSORED flag until someone decides the article needs to change because it offends. I am fully on board with we shouldn't be offensive just because we can but there needs to a logical thought out reason to get rid of something, not just because someone somewhere decides it is immoral unethical or likewise. I don't care how large or small a group is that is offended by it, since the rights of a small group should be held as no less viable than the rights of a larger group. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Also as a side note the image tossed out as the lead image for man is not even a factor. It isn't showing anything offensive, so having it as a lead image wouldn't really matter. It's not like he is in the process of masturbation or has his weiner hanging out. Probably wouldn't be my first choice (probably would have chosen one of those funky collections that shows a whole bunch of people) but it shows a fairly physical fit member of the male gender. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Masem: again, your argumentation is part of the problem. let's consider the pregnancy image in dispassionate detail for just a moment, so you see what I mean:

• The image is a more-or-less tasteful art nude. We can debate its 'exact educational value' endlessly (as though that phrase has any real meaning), but I think it's clear to everyone that the lead image of pregnancy does not need to be a nude (not the way that the lead image of the penis article needs to be a penis). It could be removed without harming the article in any appreciable way.
• Using an art nude image causes our readers some difficulties. Some people are offended by it (for cultural or personal reasons), some organizations (like public schools) might block it, many people would find it an embarrassing image to have that image visible on their computer in a public place. We can argue endlessly about whether people should feel that way, but the plain fact is that huge numbers of people do have one or more of those issues, and that interferes with their ability to use the encyclopedia

What you end up arguing is that a few wikipedia editors can cause difficulties for significant numbers of our readers simply because they assert some highly disputable 'educational value' and then squelch all debate by referring to NOTCENSORED. Removing the nude image from the lead might be sad, but it would not harm the article in any concrete way and would make the article more accessible to readers; it would be a clear net plus for the project as a whole. But it's a minus for individual editors who like the image, and those editors have NOTCENSORED to enforce their personal preferences over and above the interests of the project and the readership. How is that sensible? This is why we need to do some wording change in the policy, so that we can actually discuss the needs of the readership without running into an impenetrable wall of non-discussion. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sooner or later one just has to accept that their opinion isn't carrying the day, that another course has been chosen. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's true, Tarc, and we are all waiting for you to get to that point. --Ludwigs2 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As my opinion has been that of the overwhelming majority that believed "not censored" is an apt defense against intolerance, your "no, you are" comment kinda falls flat. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's really not a problem for me if you need to believe that. All I'm suggesting is that your "I'm right and everyone agrees with me" approach is a little juvenile. There's clearly an issue to discuss here; you can claim there isn't until the cows come home but I think it's clear to everyone that that perspective is detached from reality. --Ludwigs2 20:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I will defend the idea that some sense of decorum should go into the lead image - pregnancy can be showed by a tastefully clothed woman in late term as easily as it can be if the woman was nude - but the nude image is still appropriate in an educational manner to demonstrate the larger effects on the female body, and thus appropriate to include in the article body, regardless of the sensibilities of the readers. Yes, it will always always always be a balance between what is an educational value vs shock value. But really, the distinction is truly one of common sense, and a line that cannot be defined any better beyond both what the Foundation has set forth and what NOTCENSORED has provided. We're clearly at the grey area for most of these, but they are few and minimal. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument that "offensiveness" cannot ever be grounds for the removal of an image, because this is an inherently culture-bound judgement, isn't well founded. Essentially every subjective editorial decision will be made, in part, on the basis of the values and beliefs of the user(s) responsible for it. Consider WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." What's conservative? (Due) regard for the subjects privacy? Sensationalist? Titillating? There's little choice but to look inward. So, when it's proposed that we shouldn't use "offensive" material "unnecessarily", these words have meaning: that which a supermajority of editors are willing to give them. Material which falls below the generally accepted community standards of Wikipedia editors, such as the goatse image, is inevitably bad news. The pregnancy/other medical articles/Muhammad images almost certainly aren't a problem. But Masem's distinction between these cases can't be effectuated without giving interpretive meaning to subjectivities such as "educational, non-shock" and "appropriate in an educational manner". Wikipedia is build on decisions requiring editorial discretion, which is never culturally neutral. That doesn't mean we can sit on our hands. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I don't think its really clear that its time to just "give up". If Wikipedia is going to act like a grown up project it has to accept that some level of image censorship is going to be required. Offending large numbers of users is highly counter-productive to our purpose to be a free and accessible encyclopaedia.

The reality of the world we live in is that the country that is #1 in terms of audience is still over excited about seeing a nipple for about a second in 2004. Regardless of whether or not you think the Americans are overly prudish the reality of the situation is that they are offended by such content.

Fundamentally if you show NSFW content where people don't expect it they are likely to be at best embarrassed at work - and if there is a complaint to a school it would be very difficult for the school not to just block the whole site - that doesn't do the 99.9% of the project which isn't offensive any justice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And with regards to harm, even in cases like pregnancy where there is some level of expectation the harm of only having images of Muhammad on Depictions of Muhammad (possibly with a hatnote), and having a women wearing tightish clothing or a drawing would be extremely trivial.

Having endless discussion about such topics creates large amounts of harm alone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "whether Americans are offended" is even workable. Which Americans? The ones watching the Superbowl with their ten year olds? The ones viewing "R" rated movies that received their designations because of nudity or sex? Both represent very large portions of the country. The only standard that susceptible to straightforward application is whether Wikipedia editors generally consider material to be offensive and unnecessary. Also, "they will block us" isn't necessarily a compelling argument, because it opens the door for hundreds of external censors to wreck havoc. The People's Republic of China has often blocked Wikipedia for challenging their dictatorship. I consider that an honor. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese government allegedly block all sorts of websites, including things like the BBC. School's don't generally block websites like the BBC, because the BBC has an appropriate content policy.

It would be good if the community could always show enough empathy to block images that were clearly inappropriate, unfortunately that isn't always the case, as can be seen from any opposition to the removal of Goatse.

With regards to allowing "hundreds of external censors to wreck havoc" - that's basically what the BLP policy does to all articles on living people, which make up a vastly higher percentage of the projects articles than even the most wide-ranging and draconian change to the images policy along this line. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I view it better not to try to censor something than to deal with anyone that decides things need to go because they don't have coping skills. As for things being labeled NSFW most workplaces and schools can block individual locations of websites such as wikipedia. Just because they hire lazy people that like to do as little as possible shouldn't affect what we contribute. In the case of most of these I would suggest if people are offended by something that they should say I dislike image x could we consider image Y instead. That would most likely gain a lot more support then saying I am offended remove it now! Tivanir2 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

With regards to laziness and people lacking coping skills, welcome to the world. Its not feasible that this will change.

With offensive content all that is being asked is that a cost-benefit analysis is made. Obviously only content that is considered offensive by a large group should be considered for censorship.

With regards to "In the case of most of these I would suggest if people are offended by something that they should say I dislike image x could we consider image Y instead." - certainly in the pregnancy case that was done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tivanir. I think part of the confusion here is that you've confused 'education' with 'challenging the status quo'. I see a lot of this in RL: people (students in particular) who think it's important to get the public to open their eyes and see the world in a new way. and in the real world that's a good thing, generally speaking. But wikipedia isn't here to 'educate' people in that sense; we're jsut here to inform people about various topics. we should not let efforts to make people more open-minded get in the way of our efforts to inform them. Doing so is indoctrination, not education. --Ludwigs2 21:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care how open or closed minded people are hence why I could care less about offense. While that could be taken as the most open minded approach I also am quite aware if I go to the penis article I should expect to see a penis. In the case of the pregnancy issue I can sit here all day and say "Does the image need to be a nude to get the point across?" The answer I arrive to is no if an image can be found that better suits the article and displays the articles intent clearly. However the reaction of "My god! Nipples and breasts, how inappropriate!" is the key defining point to try to get another image that is less offensive but doesn't portray the subject as well then I think it has no basis. Example: an image of the belly would probably be a good alternative since changes that occur during pregnancy, unless you have multiple images of the same person throughout, won't be visible to the reader. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a specific outcome for the pregnancy case. What we need is to empower editors to exercise their judgement. "Wikipedia is not censored" should no longer be a means to shut down the debate. If editors believe that NSFW images, as they define them, are categorically offensive and unnecessary, so be it (very unlikely). More probable is individual consideration on a case by case basis. Having the image inline, or not having it at all aren't the only options. There is the technical ability to link images with a preceding colon, as in File:Sandro Botticelli - La nascita di Venere - Google Art Project.jpg, an example provided for demonstration of the syntax only, and not to suggest usage on images of this type. The point is that "Wikipedia is not censored" is an abdication of editorial discretion, and should be eliminated. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tivanir: I have to take exception to a point of your logic - this really irritates me, so please pay attention to it. putting a controversial on an article and then insisting that other editors have to find and image "that better suits the article" before it can be removed is ridiculous. The onus is to show that the controversial image is better, not on other editors to show that a non-controversial image is better. The point is - and pleaser pay close attention to this, because it's important - when all other things are roughly equal, non-controversial images are better than controversial images by default. This isn't a fraternity where we get to do the dumb thing first and force people to force us to be reasonable. Or at least, it shouldn't be. --Ludwigs2 21:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Impressive that you assume I don't listen to people. There is no onus on either part to prove an image is better and just because something is not controversial does not immediately make it a better picture it makes it a picture that is less likely to cause offense. There is a huge difference between multiple pictures and what you can gleam from them regardless of whether or not they are sources of concerns. The onus when trying to change something is always "does this picture show what we want better" and has never been "This picture causes offense and we lose a bit but this one is non controversial." Again the argument comes down to people want to use think of the children mentalities. I don't buy that, and if we start changing policies to address specific group interests I am damn well certain we will see a HUGE influx in demands to remove things based upon them being offensive to some group or another. I hear you fine but I also see that you have no leg to stand on since if you bothered to also come up with arguments supported by other policies people wouldn't just quote NOTCENSORED because then they would actually have something to justify against. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head: fratboyism. That may get us good articles on celebrities and television shows. For math and science articles, the Encyclopaedia Dramatica approach simply scares the most highly qualified editors off. The goatse images would unacceptable in almost any academic community. Perhaps we should have a nude image in the pregnancy article. Or not. But this is absolutely crucial: having no community standards at all is inimical to the educational goals of the project. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh bullshit, just because the prudery of several editors has been denied doesn't mean there's a lack of standards; the standards are just lower than what you would like them to be. Offense is simply not a concern; if an image is appropriate to the subject matter, and it passes WP:NFCC, then it should be usable. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, offensiveness should not be a consideration. Images should be chosen based solely on two criteria: 1. How well they illustrate the subject and 2. Whether we can legally use it. A goatse image would never be the best image to illustrate a mathematics article, but it would be appropriate to illustrate an article about the goatse.cx website. If the image that best illustrates an article on pregnancy is a naked woman, then we should have a naked woman illustrating that article, if the best image is of a clothed woman then we should illustrate it with a clothed woman. Wikipedia is a global, NPOV project. What is and is not offensive is inherently a personal point of view that varies, sometimes significantly, between individuals sitting next to each other let alone between people of different cultures. Contemporary mainstream conservative Western social values are neither consistent nor objectively or reliably definable, let alone a default that are suitable for everywhere around the world. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree to an extent. If the concept of pregnancy can be demonstrated with a fully or partially clothed woman for the partial aspect the image is being used for then one doesn't need to go to an extreme because they can. That is an aspect that can only be defined on the article's talk page, but at the end of the day we don't need nudes to depict every part of human anatomy or its biological functions.∞陣内Jinnai 23:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We may not always NEED nudes, but it is also wrong to opposes a picture simply BECAUSE it is nude. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Any attempt to remove an image has to involve an argument other than "it is offensive." The argument that an image is "offensive" is a meaningless argument. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, Bus Stop (first repetition) you're made a subjective criterion that's impossible to meet. Any time I object to such an image for any reason whatsoever, someone will insist that I am objecting to it because it's offensive and forbid its removal. How can any offensive image ever be removed that way? again, all other things being equal, non-controversial images are better than controversial images by default. This is a standard the project needs to adopt. --Ludwigs2 23:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How about an embedded vomit video on Vomiting then? Illustrates the subject perfectly. And offensiveness does not matter. That's another keep then, unless we can find an NFCC problem. Brilliant. --JN466 23:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So if I upload an CC image of an explicit image of sexual intercourse to pregnancy citing it as a depicting of how usually occurs between humans then its perfectly fine because its educational? By the logic Bus stop and Hilo have given, it's not shocking because the rationale given does relate to pregnancy if there text supporting it.∞陣内Jinnai 23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't try to paraphrase and extrapolate my views. You're unlikely to get it right. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, would you object to having a video or photograph of two people fucking on the Pregnancy page? I would, solely because that's not the approach of reliable sources covering the topic of pregnancy, and because it would violate the principle of least astonishment. But if we say that what reliable sources do doesn't matter to us, because we know better how to illustrate an article than them, and that we should not focus on offensiveness, as we are currently saying, then there's really no policy reason not to have that video there, because it illustrates how pregnancies usually come about, and that's mentioned in the text. And having such a video there would cause Wikipedia's treatment of the topic of pregnancy to diverge sharply from that in reliable sources. To me that's a bad thing. And it also means that we could have the best text in the world, and no one would read it, because the video would absorb all the attention. Another bad thing. --JN466 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the lady in the current image is pregnant. You could not guarantee that any particular fuck video was connected with a pregnancy. You have extrapolated too far. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature specifically says that images only have to look like what they are meant to illustrate, and don't have to be provably authentic. So a video of intercourse is fine, as you can't tell the difference anyway. --JN466 00:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Go for it. So long as it's not blatantly porn it won't offend me, but I don't really think you're serious, are you? Too many of the conservatives her would have conniptions and kittens in tandem. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This nicely defines the problem. HiLo isn't offended by an embedded video of a couple fucking in Pregnancy. Bus stop asks "How is this photo "less offensive" than this photo? This blindness to offensiveness is your problem. You are arguing that our readership should be exposed to offensive content because you don't feel it and don't care that they do. This is a shortcoming in your social perception and understanding, not a virtue, and not a stance that should be assumed by a mature encyclopedia.

Some, above, are arguing that offensiveness is too subjective for anything useful to come from us taking it into account. Across the world and across history nudity is seen as offending social norms. Open displays of nudity are always transgressive. Public depictions of grotesque violence and frank sex acts are universally viewed as offensive and shocking. Depictions of Muhammad are seen by most Muslims as offensive and shocking. Offensiveness is something most editors, and all readers, are capable of taking into account.

How should offensiveness affect our editorial decision-making? As many have said above, offensiveness alone is not sufficient to justify exclusion. The degree of offensiveness needs to be weighed against the didactic value of the content. These decisions will involve discussion and consensus, including consideration of what other reliable sources do; that's our job and what we do pretty well here. I agree with others above, a blanket diktat that "we do not consider offensiveness" works against the quality of the project and infantilises the editor community.

Some have argued that we don't need to take account of offensiveness to exclude gratuitous offensive content because relevance alone is sufficient grounds for removal of gratuitous images. This is wrong. The encyclopedia is littered with images that convey little or nothing of educational value, but which are vehemently defended. Try removing the lead image of ADHD on the grounds of its limited educational value. You have no chance. If you add "controversial" to the reasons for removal of an image, the chance of removal reduces to less than none. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW I agree with all those here saying we should be taking offensiveness into consideration. Obviously, we must and do already, to a certain extent. Even if you object to a graphic sex video in Pregnancy, why isn't there a graphic sex video in every one of our articles about sex? Right now we mainly have illustrations. Someone, tell me why such a video could be removed from an article about sex apart from an argument based on the offensiveness of the video (which theoretically isn't currently allowed [!?!?].) Clearly, we care about offensiveness at least a little bit. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 2

Nomoskedasticity, the apparent contradiction between two recent posts I made: [22] and [23] isn't one. I am proposing to

1. Delete the sentence "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article"
2. Replace it with "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources."
3. Keep the sentence "Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."

The complete paragraph would read:

• However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources. Beyond that, "being objectionable" [in itself] is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

You may be right that using reliable sources as one consideration in image use discussions may be better addressed elsewhere. In that case, the only sentence at issue is

• "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article"

That sentence is doublespeak. It tells editors not to focus on offensiveness, but offensiveness may be the one and only reason why an image is inappropriate. Maybe we could just delete it. Cheers. --JN466 23:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayen: I actually don't like that last line at all, since it is too easy to misinterpret as a carte blanche for adding controversial material. How about revising it to read: "Non-objectionable content should be preferred, but where there is sufficient cause to use objectionable material offense is generally not sufficient grounds on which to oppose it."? --Ludwigs2 23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

JN466 —why should there be "...in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources"? Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Because that's the principle this project is built on – ???? Can you please answer the question whether you would like to see a homemade video of someone vomiting, defecating, or torturing a cat on the pages vomiting, defecation, and crush film? --JN466 00:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

JN466—there are no ironclad rules such as you are trying to write into policy. When an editor wishes to have an image removed from an article, that editor has to present a convincing argument for why that image fails to advance the purposes of the article. The editor must persuade other editors to join in a consensus-forming block that will ensure that the image gets removed. Never should the appeal to "offensiveness" be a part of that argument because—Wikipedia is not censored. Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Your refusal to give a straightforward answer to this simple yes/no question leaves us wondering whether you would support the described kind of video but feel that it's not opportune to admit the fact, or whether you would not and are aware that this shoots a huge hole into your argument. Hans Adler 00:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Adler, enough with the pedantic boorishness, Bus Stop is exactly right. In these cases, we ask the question "do we need to see X to understand Y?" So if someone really does try to add an image of a person vomiting to vomit, or if someone tries to remove an image from Muhammad, we hold a discussion regarding what the article gains by inclusion, or what it would lose by removal, respectively. "Vomit looks cool, and the pic is free" would not be a good reason to include, and "some Muslims are offended", would be insufficient reasons to include or remove. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not address me by my naked last name. In all places where I have lived so far that is incredibly rude, especially in an adversarial context. For further information see User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats, which applies similarly to me except that on Wikipedia everybody may call me Hans and I actually prefer "Mr Adler" to "Dr Adler". And just in case it's not clear, "Herr Adler" is also not an acceptable option in a civil English conversation. Hans Adler 17:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove a video of someone vomiting from the article vomiting in the first place, if another editor goes to the trouble of making and embedding one? Could it be because it is offensive to you? And I disagree that it is uneducational. Such a video allows you to observe the involuntary action of various groups of muscles involved in vomiting in a way that is simply not possible if you yourself are the person vomiting. Especially so if the subject in the video is naked. That would be even more educational. --JN466 00:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

One can always tell when your argument has gone off the deep end, jayen; you really don't pull off sarcasm very well. Tarc (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm? Maybe it didn't work very well as sarcasm precisely because it was never intended as such. On the rare occasions that I vomit, I never see what it looks like, as I am never in the mood to use a mirror. On the rare occasions that someone else vomits in my presence, I run for a bucket or otherwise try to be of assistance, and also don't concentrate on how, precisely, it works. I am convinced that a video of a vomiting person would be extremely instructive. And yes, if the person were naked, a number of additional observations could be made.

What we are trying to find out (well, obviously I can only speak for myself) is whether you and Bus stop go so far that you would support such a video in the vomiting article, or whether you are just being hypocritical. Because it does appear that a lot of anti-censorship extremists are hypocrites who would reject the hypothetical vomiting video because they don't agree with it and want to censor it, but whenever other people have the same feelings about something they are comfortable with, they insist that this must not be taken into account at all. While trying to stay in their own comfort zone all the time, these hypocrites insist on violating others'. Hans Adler 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Bus Stop, but I do not object to the hypothetical use of a vomiting video on the relevant article. However, I have never edited the article, I don't even recall ever having read it, and so I am not in a position to say whether it would benefit the article or not. Furthermore, I have not seen a video of vomiting that would be suitable for an encyclopaedia article about vomiting (that doesn't mean there isn't one, just that I've not seen one) so I cannot comment at all on specifics. I have though seen a video of vomiting that would be completely inappropriate for the main encyclopaedia article about vomiting - it was a (presumably copyrighted) hard porn video showing vomiting, urination and other excretory activities including ingestion of what had been excreted (it was not labelled as this!). If it were Free content then it might be suitable for illustrating an article about those particular sexual practices or pornography of that nature (afaik we don't have articles on those subjects) but even then it's quite probable that more encyclopaedic videos exist. My point is that I can't say "yes, put a video of vomiting on the vomit article" because it's not as simple as that. In short if media is proposed to be added to an article I'm involved with, then I will support it if I think it encyclopaedically relevant to the topic and there is no other media available to use that does a better job. Possibly related to this, see Talk:Child pornography/Archive 3#Images, Talk:Child pornography/Archive 5#Pictures and Talk:Child pornography/Archive 5#images. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this fine example of diversion as a rhetorical technique. I probed specifically into the vomiting topic because it appeared that that's the kind of thing that Bus Stop and Tarc would want to censor. If I had been interested in your response (to test whether you are hypocritical), I would have looked for something that takes you out of your comfort zone. For someone who has seen the kind of pornography that you describe, presumably it takes a bit more than mere vomiting, or maybe we would just have to go into a different direction altogether.

My point is that practically everybody has some things that they would want to censor, whether they are aware of the fact or not. Whether the offensiveness of certain content to some people is sufficient reason to exclude this content must be decided case by case as a perfectly normal editorial decision. We make such editorial decisions all the time, and normally without any disruption whatsoever. Problems usually start only when the anti-censorship mob arrives and claims that the offensiveness must not factor into our editorial decisions, exaggerates the benefit of the controversial content to an absurd degree, similarly downplays the disadvantages, and systematically ignores/denies all arguments offered against the material that are based on aspects not directly related to its controversial nature. Of course, the anti-censorship mob always consists only of editors who are comfortable with the material in question. It's far bigger for the beatiful photo of a nude woman at the top of the pregnancy article than it could ever be for the hypothetical vomiting video, and on the one occasion that someone added a photo of an excreting woman, taken from below, to an article and tried to defend it with reference to this policy, that guy was blocked almost immediately and nobody came to the editor's defence.

The underlying principle is this: "Censoring material offensive to some? Totally out of the question as a matter of principle, because it's simply too subjective. Except of course in cases of material that would take me out of my comfort zone, in which case it's not censorship." In other words, we are simply dealing with the standard behaviour of hypocritical spoilt brats. A good indication that I am right is how often in discussions with the mob, the mobsters accuse their opponents of being themselves offended and denying it. Apparently they cannot even put themselves in the shoes of editors who pursue anything but their own personal tastes. Hans Adler 12:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to that accusation of hypocrisy elsewhere in this section - see diff or do a page text search for "I don't want anybody". Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not just going to take your word for it. I don't think there are any hypocrites in the world who know that they are hypocritical. I have described the test above, and rather than wait for the two editors to whom this was addressed to respond, you have come to their rescue. That's not a good sign at all. Hans Adler 19:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources." is anywhere close to laying down an "iron-clad rule". It simply says that these are the considerations discussion should be informed by. If you think it can be said better, please feel free to propose a rewording. --JN466 00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that few, if any editors upload, insert, or argue for content that they find absolutely disgusting. So, Tarc's comment "just because the prudery of several editors has been denied doesn't mean there's a lack of standards" sums up the problem with this discussion. Who's being a prude, and who's being lewd is inevitably dependant upon cultural context. Editors making the argument "I don't find this content to be offensive" should certainly prevail if enough users agree. But wrapping this argument in the flag of "not censored" is misleading, since WP:VER, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR explicitly censor article content, and in ways that are applied somewhat differently by each editor, according to their culture-bound tastes. You cannot write whatever you like, so long as it's legal in Florida. The Encyclopaeda Dramatica standard on offensiveness is technically a standard, but it isn't a helpful one. What "not censored" is really saying is that we sometimes censor content according to all of our policies and guidelines, except this one. So there is no good way to keep out the goatse image, a large-format video of the act added to necrophilia, etc. I urge editors to consider the fact that there is probably something that will make you sick to your stomach. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, I honestly don't get what people like Tarc, Busstop, HiLo, and etc are actually arguing for. It's clear they are against anything that appears to them to be censorship, but their understanding of censorship seems to be vague and subjective. the rubric seems to be that anything someone objects to must be kept; a wikt:perverse logic that is needlessly confrontational. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding: is the point of all this that you fell the need to enforce controversy, because controversy that's not enforced is censorship? --Ludwigs2 01:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it's about not wanting rules, but retaining the freedom to decide as one sees fit oneself. Everything else is rationalisation, and the argumentation is full of holes. It's about saying, I want to be able to delete what is offensive to me, but I don't want to have any rules that prevent me from having what I want just because someone else doesn't like it. It's selfish. --JN466 01:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No. I don't want anybody to be able to delete what is offensive to them and prevent what is offensive to others from being deleted. I want a policy that, exactly as it currently does, means the decision about whether to include or not include any image on an article is made purely on the basis of a consensus of editors at the given article about whether that particular should be on the article based on how well it illustrates the topic. The proposal is to change this so that an arbitrary group of editor's undefinable standard of what is an is not "offensive" gets applied across the encyclopaedia because they don't think anyone should be allowed to discuss the inclusion of images they don't like in case they don't get their way. NPOV is "absolute and non-negoitable" but "offensiveness" is inseparable from POV. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What is proposed here is to make the decision based on standards in reputable secondary sources. I don't see how this is equivalent to empowering anyone's personal standard of what is or is not offensive. If you are talking about an arbitrary group of editors making a decision based on their undefinable personal standard, that actually describes very well what you are expressly arguing in favour of – a self-selected group of editors on an article talk page gets to decide, based solely on their personal criteria, predilections and comfort zones, without any attempt to neutrally reflect coverage in secondary sources. Isn't that right? Cheers, --JN466 12:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I think we should follow the sources, to the best of our ability. If they feature content that may upset someone, then so should we. If they avoid it, then so should we. I think if you read the two sentences in context, Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources. Beyond that, "being objectionable" [in itself] is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content., then it's clear that it's not a case of "anything goes". A controversial image must be due -- due not because some editor likes it, but because it reflects how this topic is presented in sources. --JN466 01:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

An interesting point. We allow original images for the same reason as original text: RS are often under significant copyright restrictions. Just as editor-written text is required to faithfully represent the meaning of the source(s) cited, images might be subject to verification requirements. I've seen no RS cited for the video in ejaculation, as the primary means of verification is presumably personal observation of the act. Is this something we would want to promote for teenage girls who edit Wikipedia? That carries original research to ridiculous, and perhaps dangerous lengths. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing becomes far more problematic for images than for text, particularly if you throw in that 'same or comparable clause. for instance, under this wording we might technically end up with Miss November as the lead image of our woman article: try arguing to yourself that Playboy and Penthouse don't qualify as a reliable sources for images of women, and see how far you get. Not that I want to quibble too much - this is a decided improvement.

Really, for me the thrust of this dispute is that we have to get NOTCENSORED back to what it originally was meant to be: a clause protecting the encyclopedia from losing pertinent information due to clear censorship, rather than a clause protecting controversial trivia because some editors have a rebellious attitude towards conventional social mores. However that might happen is good with me... --Ludwigs2 02:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

For copyright reasons, "verification" of images would require substantial similarity of subject matter, not being identical pixel for pixel. So we could have a free image of a woman looking somewhat like Miss November, posed similarly :) That is, if Wikipedia were a vehicle for titillation, celebration of the human body, or political activism. The foundation resolution suggests that it is none of these. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 2a

Can I propose a change from "potentially offensive" to "controversial". This proposal is based on the rationale outlined in the study report that informed the Foundation resolution:

...we believe the instances when modifications to intellectual openness should be considered must be severely limited to protect the overwhelming amount of content on the projects that must remain unmodified, especially that content, as mentioned above, that is demanding, difficult and contentious by its very nature. Because language matters, it is for this reason that we prefer the term “controversial content” to “potentially-objectionable content.” Objectionable content is, obviously, content to which any individual user takes issue, for whatever reason. Far from lacking an objective test, the designation of objectionable to content is always immediately apparent. If I nominate it as such, it takes on that designation. Who can argue the assertion that I take offense at pictures of balloons (if I am phobic about them), or descriptions of the mating habits of mammals. No one. Allowing “objectionable”, or, even worse “potentially-objectionable” as a trigger to determine potential modifications to Wikimedia content is, in our mind, much too broad a definition whose adoption would be dangerous for the intellectual health of the projects.

“Controversial,” on the other, to us, implies a social process, an acknowledgment that certain types of content (say, images of explicit sexuality) generally create a reaction among broad groups of individuals, each acting independently, and without ulterior motive, that gives us more confidence that we might consider these reactions legitimate and worthy of consideration. There are objective tests for the concept “controversial,” we believe, whose use can ensure the legitimacy of consideration by an open Wikimedia culture of potential modifications to that openness.

I'd also like to propose that the spirit, if not the exact words, of the opening paragraph of the Foundation resolution be included here:

Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. "Controversial content" includes all of these categories.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I'd say that should also include "Wikimedia projects are not censored." which you left out of that quote. Hobit (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hobit, I left a lot out of that quote, and included what was relevant to my comment. The comment was addressing the use of the term "potentially objectionable". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• So I've only got one thing to add to this. Please, please, don't assume that consensus in the TLDR discussion is enough to make any change. This should be a clear RfC where one doesn't have to parse walls of text to contribute to the discussion. I stopped reading about half way through this and I care quite a bit. (I'd prefer to keep the language as it stands I think, though I'd be interested in whatever proposal comes out of this.) Hobit (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we're talking about a clarification of policy that a significant minority of editors oppose, so when the wording of the proposed change is settled, a very wide community discussion would be appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The purpose of a wall of text is to have the RFC declared "no consensus", so that we can start over, repeatedly, until editors supporting the opposite position tire of the process :) No, really, there are important points in the discussion that proponents of "not censored" haven't satisfactorily responded to. First, "not censored" is intellectually dishonest, since WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and so on explicitly require censorship of content for conformity to the policies. "not censored" is also inconsistent with the foundation resolution, far too often serves as a vehicle for editors to wrap themselves in the flag of free speech while simply promoting their own standards, and promotes original research images whose subject matter would be very difficult to verify with any reliable source (commercial pornography doesn't count.) Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  The only intellectual dishonesty here is on your end, I'm afraid. An encyclopedia provides knowledge, some of which may include images that certain conservative-leaning groups and people don't want others to see. "Not censored" is the foil to prudery, religious dogma, and whatever other fanciful rationales you concoct this day. What it comes down to at the end is, you do not have a god-given right to be unoffended. Tarc (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Tarc, you have a right to offend. I'm sure we would all defend that. No one has a "right" to be unoffended. No one is arguing they do. Is it sensible or good for the project and its goals to gratuitously offend? When controversial content adds no more didactic value than equally educational uncontroversial content, should we choose the uncontroversial content, and avoid disaffecting large numbers of readers? Many believe that is the appropriate choice, that such a policy would benefit the encyclopedia without harming it.

  When you mention "images that certain conservative-leaning groups and people don't want others to see" you are addressing censorship, something most (all?) presently engaged in this discussion are opposed to. But "offensive" means "unpleasant or insulting, and likely to make people upset or embarrassed." That is, there is such a thing as offense, and it is felt by billions of people on a personal, individual level, when they view certain types of material. It is this real (though subjective) feeling that I believe we should where possible, without reducing the educational value of the encyclopedia, respect. The act of removing a pair of naked breasts from the top of Pregnancy (a trivial example, I believe) may be motivated by the desire to prevent others from looking at naked breasts, which is censorship, or it may be motivated by genuine concern for the actual, real, embarrassment, unpleasantness or insult that billions of real individuals really feel when they view material they find offensive (though that would be minor in this instance). The act may be identical but the motive determines whether it is an act of censorship or a harmless act of respect. I believe that there are images many of our readers will find personally offensive, and that your desire to see such images is, where they add little or nothing to an article's educational value, subordinate to the undeniable personal offense it will cause others. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Amended 09:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, have you ever read some English-language print or commercial online encyclopedias? If you have, then you know that Wikipedia is unique among major encyclopedias in terms of willingness to include nudity, sex, and violence. So your "An encyclopedia provides knowledge, some of which may include" argument falls flat on its face. While you attribute opposition to the not censored policy to "conservative-leaning groups" and "prudery, religious dogma", one could just as easily credit the BLP "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" requirement to bleeding-heart liberals. Neither sort of puerile name calling is helpful.

I'm not saying that I find the nude pregnancy image, or the ejaculation video to be unnecessary and offensive. What I am claiming is that we should be able to have reasoned discussions about how image use in these and similar articles comports with the sound exercise of editorial discretion, and make decisions on the basis of consensus. It is no more appropriate to describe opponents of image inclusion as prudish, right-wing religious zealots than it is to characterise proponents as militantly exhibitionist liberals. "not censored" puts us in the odd position of making subjective decisions about how article content is compliant or non-compliant with every policy or guideline except this one. Disempowering editors to exercise good judgement on this specific issue only will simply lead to more attempts to include the goatse stretched anus pictures, and worse, much to the discredit of the project. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of NOTCENSORED is actually to empower editors - it frees them from having to balance NPOV with an infinite set of mutually incompatible and inconsistent standards of "decency" and arguments of the "won't someone please think of the children" sort. Why is it acceptable to make the encyclopaedia subject to your standards of what is or is not offensive while completely ignoring other people's? There are conservative Muslim groups who will think that File:Bekker Amore (Profile).jpg would be a clearly inappropriate image to illustrate the "woman" article. Why are their views about what is "offensive" less right than yours? Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is it acceptable to make the encyclopedia subject to your standards of what WP:BLP means when it says that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives", while being unable to consider the views of every other person on the planet? A refusal to draw subjective lines on the basis of one's own judgement implies a total inability to edit constructively. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point, Thryduulf. And it's been made before but I haven't addressed it. I'll have to think about this. How do we decide who is the deserving offended? Numbers? Perhaps it's what Jayen's been stressing all along, we take our lead from the way other encyclopedias and similar sources treat each issue. I'll get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The same way we make every other subjective decision: editorial judgement. None of our content policies provide precise, mathematically certain guidance as to how articles should be written. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Standards in reputable published sources are the be-all and end-all of our text. We simply don't want to have any ideas, facts, opinions that are unrepresented in reliable sources enter our encyclopaedia. To that extent, we are self-censored, severely self-censored, and no one seems to have a problem with that. But when it comes to illustrations, you want to empower editors to apply their standards, even if they differ from standards in reliable sources. Why should we do that for illustrations, if we don't do it for text? This proposal is about doing away with the notion that anybody, of censorious or anti-censorious bent, gets to implement their standards where those differ markedly from standards in reliable sources. That is consistent with our fundamental content policies. --JN466 13:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf: Again (sorry, but I repeat this point often) you are misrepresenting the problem and reaching an utterly irrelevant conclusion:

• You confuse extremist opinions with conventional mores.
• You place NPOV in opposition to the act of balancing opinions, where NPOV should be the act of balancing opinions.
• You refuse to allow any moderate position and try to force a conflict between extremes.
• You effectively tell us we should empower editors to ignore readers' beliefs and preferences and give up on trying to be respectful of our readership because it's too hard, or maybe just too much trouble.

Are you really suggesting that editors cannot make distinctions between Bekker Amore (Profile).jpg and the Goatse image? Are you implying that Bekker Amore (Profile).jpg will produce as much consternation for Muslims as images of the prophet? You personally may be unable to make these distinctions, but most wikipedia editors are perfectly able to do so, and would do so if we didn't have to cope with editors who swing NOTCENSORED like a broadax. You're trying to defend a policy that is intended to inhibit extremist positions as though it was intended to suppress everyday differences of opinion. That's just blindly authoritarian. Yes, someone saying that Bekker Amore is offensive is probably expressing a personal opinion or an extreme religious viewpoint; However, someone saying that they prefer to avoid gratuitous nudity where possible is expressing a world-wide cultural norm. If you cannot see that distinction then you are a member of a tiny, tiny minority. --Ludwigs2 15:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

JN466—Sorry I couldn't respond to your posts sooner but let me try to do so now. First thing is you can't derive "standards" for the inclusion or exclusion on images based on a perusal of sources—be they reliable sources or not. There is no logic to the reasoning behind that. We do not need to demonstrate "precedent" for the association of images with subject matter. That is instruction creep and the adoption of such a policy would be detrimental because of the incompleteness of the relationship between images and words. You can't create what in the final analysis is arbitrary policy, to be invoked in the midst of an argument over whether an image should be kept in an article or removed from an article. Once such wording gets into policy it would get endlessly abused. And I am sorry to say but such wording happens to be virtually meaningless in the first place. Words are not images. These are distinct entities. We as editors can validly extract images from sources not even on the same subject as the article we are working on, and we can do so responsibly. People invest images with significance as they see fit. These are editorial decisions. Policy should be kept simple. Editors can discuss the needs of the article. What you are suggesting is actually another form of value judgement. We don't need value judgements at all, no matter from what quarters those value judgements may derive. We don't, or we should not, reach decisions based on whether we like an image or not. In the final analysis it doesn't matter if you or I or someone else finds an image "offensive" or not. "Offensive" is virtually meaningless in the context of Wikipedia. We are not so provincial. I don't think we even know our own limits. I am amazed that you can suggest that you know what our limitations are—concerning propriety. From where are you deriving that reliable sources should guide us in matters of taste? Reliable sources guide us in matters of factuality. As concerns whether the inclusion of an image is a good idea, that is entirely up to editors. Editors need to discuss the needs of the article. That entails the aims of the article. We need to be cognizant of what is missing from the article. We have to listen to other editors who have ideas for directions the article can grow in. Images are a part of editors writing articles. As Jimbo Wales said, we are not "transcription monkeys". Though we are bound and limited by the availability of reliable sources, we are not necessarily constrained in the form that the finished product (the article) can take. I'm sorry but you are taking a timid approach to article-writing when you suggest that we must find "precedent" in sources for the association of images with text. Consensus should be the final arbiter of whether an image is in an article or not. No rules are needed and it is in fact not possible to have rules concerning what is proper in imagery. That there are editors arguing for the inclusion of an image (that you may consider offensive) is not to be dismissed lightly. The argument for the inclusion of so-called "offensive" imagery is a valid argument too. Personally I may take the side of an argument favoring the removal of an image. But my argument for the removal of that image would only be based on the direction that I felt the article should go in. All of my argumentation would only be based on what was good for the article. I would never argue that some source did not include such an image so why should we. Am I not capable of thinking for myself in matters of taste? You are suggesting limiting our choices to the "precedent" set at other sources as concerns the inclusion of images of a "type". I'd rather leave that choice up to our own editors even if we sometimes get it "wrong". Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In prose, we don't simply extract from reliable sources, we generally use the guidance of the sources to avoid placing any undue weight on any particular aspect: eg if there exists 100 sources but only one covers a small detail, we don't devote a large fraction of an article to that one detail. Similarly, the guidance of using the same type (in terms of offensiveness) of images that the sources will generally use as the representative images to use on WP is completely in line with that approach. If there are 100 academic works on a topic, and only one choses to illustrate the topic using a nude photo while the rest can do the same with a clothed figure, we should be using the clothed figure no matter how important that single source is. That of course assumes there's a good sample of illustrated sources to work from. If such illustrations fail to exist then yes, we have to invent our own approach. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, I see this as roughly equivalent to our articles' textual content. Of course we are all able to think for ourselves. By the same token, we would be able to compose texts for our articles just as we see fit, without recourse to sources at all. There are any number of topics where I feel I could write a decent article without using sources and citations, just using my own thoughts, knowledge and opinion. And that would be WP:OR. We haven't written articles like that for a very long time, and no one wants to go back to that. I agree with Masem here, though I would add to what Masem said that absence of illustrations in an otherwise illustrated publication (e.g. consistent absence of the goatse image in publications discussing it, or absence of photographs of people vomiting, defecating etc. in texts discussing these bodily functions) may in itself be indicative of consistent editorial judgment in reliable sources that we should consider in our discussions here. Wherever we have images of a type that we have determined reliable sources do not use, these will be available via a Commons link. --JN466 16:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And to further build on this: just as we would do in text or style matters, if the sources are roughly split (no strong majority) in the choice of a less offensive or more offensive image (or no image vs an offensive image), that's where we as WP editors can come in and make our own choice of consensus. Ultimately, if this truly was the case, that sources were surely split on what approach to use (out of 100 sources, 50 used a clean image, 50 used a nude image), and no direct consensus can be made by Wikipedians, I would say the default should be to use the least offensive offensive image or no image only as a means of ending a prolonged discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But how do you define which image is more or less offensive? Offensive to who? How do you define it objectively for all images? What about when both options are offensive to different sides (for different reasons)? For example in an illustration showing a Muslim woman some people will find it offensive if she is wearing a niqab whereas others will find it equally offensive if she isn't. As another example the implication that a nude image is "dirty" (by saying a non-nude image is "clean") is something that I find offensive. If there is a serious dispute about an image that editors cannot agree about, then get third opinions, RfCs, etc. until some agreement can be come to. Because each image needs to be judged on it's own merits in the context of the specific section of the specific article there is no point attempting to set standards - at Vietnam War#Exit of the Americans: 1973–1975 is an image that is not offensive in context, but would be distinctly inappropriate in most other places on the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

MASEM—you say "the default should be to use the least offensive offensive image". No, the default should be to use the article's Talk page. From where are you deriving that any of the images under consideration are "offensive"? Your own sensibilities and those of like-minded editors should not determine what are, strictly speaking, matters of taste. How you are further going to hair-split between more and less "offensive" I find even more puzzling. On the article Talk page, reasons can be given that concern the article for which inclusion of the image is proposed and supported by some editors. It does not matter what text any source combines with any image. The editorship is not bound to any particular combinatorial relationship as may be found in precedent at any other source between text and image. We are free to strike out in our own direction in this regard. These are matters of article-creation. No matter what sources exist, we are not bound to mimic the form found in those sources. We can choose to be more bold if editorial will supports that. This is not a project bound to any small sector of people who may have parochial values in what constitutes propriety in imagery. It is perfectly feasible to have here what may not exist elsewhere. Indeed many of our articles are unique. This is a valuable feature of the project that shouldn't be hobbled by the proposed requirement for "precedent" in images in association with certain bodies of texts in sources. That is not what WP:RS was ever about. Instruction creep is not just something that can be ignored. As soon as wording is put in policy, there will be editors invoking it. There is not even a workable way of demonstrating what images go with text. But that will not stop editors from endlessly arguing that somebody else's bad taste is not supported by reliable sources. Such language in policy is counterproductive. As concerns the addition of images, we should be discussing on article Talk pages what benefits our particular article. We are perfectly capable of conducting that discussion responsibly. Wikipedia may in the final analysis be more bold than its sources. If so, so be it. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To both above: it's called "common sense". There will always be fringe cases where one would be extremely surprised that something is offensive to a group, but for most of the cases that have been pointed out in the above sections (nudity/sexual matters, religion, and war/violence) it is reasonably expected that an editor can recognize that an image will be offensive to someone even if it is not offensive to them. And even then, if it is later found to be offensive, consensus can commence to determine the relative degrees of offensiveness of specific choices. The problem I'm seeing is when editors bunker down because they personally don't find an image offensive and refuse to recognize that others might, that we're getting into problems. But the use of images has to be considered in context of all editors and readers, and so we must use common sense to know when we are willingly placing a potentially offensive image in place and understand the alternatives when doing so. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I see more of a problem from editors bunking down and insisting that an image must be removed because they find it "offensive", or they think some other group will (who in many cases actually don't). "I know it when I see it" is probably the worst thing to build a policy around, precisely because while there are a few areas where many (but not all) people who contribute here (read: many people from the unrepresentative dominant cultural backgrounds that make up Wikipedia editors) will agree on, they are but a speck in the ocean of cases where there is no common position. For example, Look at these images:

1. File:Artistic - Open Shirt in Darkened Room 03.jpg
2. File:Bucharest, Young Gypsy girl, 1842.jpg
3. File:Athens Pride 2010 - 21.JPG
4. File:World War One Memorial, Barre, VT, USA.jpg
5. File:BodypaintingmalefemaleMay2008.jpg
6. File:Baby being weighed.jpg
7. File:Ovid Book III Header.jpg
8. File:Breast self-exam FDA4.gif.

Which of them show nudity? Which, if any, of them are offensive? Why? Which is the most offensive? Why? Which of them are OK to be used in an article? Why? Ask someone you live with, do they agree with you about all of them? If not who is right? Why? Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What do any of those images have to do with keep goatse and similar material out? You could just as easily come up with a writing sample that's a borderline violation of WP:BLP, then suggest that the whole policy is meaningless because barely compliant materials are separated from barely unacceptable content only by a dim and uncertain line, placed in a slightly different location by each editor. That would have just as little to do with using BLP to keep bright-line violations out of Wikipedia as a reformation of "not censored" would have to do with removing goatse-type material. This is not hypothetical - the goatse image was defended to the bitter end by editors trying to make a point about "not censored", with the unintentional effect of reductio ad absurdum. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is that while you think the policy would only apply to goatse-type images, it wouldn't. There is nothing in it, at all, that says that Wikipedia is not censored for most things but is censored with regards images like goatse. If there was such a provision we'd have to choose where to draw the line - where would you draw it? The comparison to BLP is worth examining because it actually rather proves my point - a person is either alive or not (if we don't know then we presume they are) so the scope of the articles is very clear. Where there is material that may or may not be includable there is a discussion about it on the talk page about whether it should be there, and if so what weight to give it. This is exactly what happens now with regards images, but those proposing this policy want to change that so that anything "offensive" is automatically rejected regardless of context or consensus - without defining the scope of what is an is not offensive beyond "I know it when I see it" - that nobody has attempted to answer the questions with regards the above 8 images is rather telling. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 3: Suggested addition to NOTCENSORED

Given the above discussion I would like to suggest lines to be added to NOTCENSORED:

In articles on topics with potentially offensive imagery, Wikipedia editors should conform to approaches taken by reliable sources on the topic, including the option of using no illustrations for a topic; if few to no sources use offensive imagery while providing comprehensive coverage of a topic, editors should avoid introducing such to the Wikipedia article. In cases where there is a dispute between the approach taken by sources, and no consensus can be made between editors, it is often better to use the less offensive approach to resolve the conflict.

In other words: if a topic normally covered by reliable works never/rarely uses a nude photo or a grotesque image, it is not WP's to introduce that per this and WP:OR. This is not censoring (we're not saying the image isn't allowed) but choosing what sources work with is a much easier standard to evaluate and does not make WP look like a shock site. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This would be sufficient. --JN466 18:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent idea, but... let's consider how this would play out in practice, not for the pregnancy case, but for a more obvious one. MEDRS such as [24] [25] [26] [27], indeed, probably almost all of these 73,900 Google Scholar results [28], discuss ejaculation without including a photograph of the act. It would involve some effort to come up with just one video in an MEDRS to verify the media in ejaculation. However, if I were to actually remove the video, it would ignite a firestorm of complaints, predicated on "not censored" superseding WP:UNDUE, the foundation resolution, and just about everything else. It might be possible to bring "not censored" in line with more fundamental content policies, but it will take a fight. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And that's why what I suggest needs to be said. It needs to be understood that, say, if ejaculation can be discussed in 10,000s of articles without actually showing what it is, and only one or two reliable sources do, it makes sense to work within the status quo. That is not censoring, that is simply conforming to the standard way that the topic is presented in the sheer majority of sources. In other words, we're changing what NOTCENSORED implies, so those that would argue that after the change will need to reassess their complains after the change. (And thus this suggests that if this has any sort of reasonable support here, to get a wide RFC out for addition to make sure there's wide consensus). --MASEM (t) 18:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose I view it as an attempt to tie editor's hands and to submit ourselves to any group out there that is offended by something. Some of the points are good but simply because it is a controversial image should never be the driving factor on removal or disclussion. Automatically opting for the less offensive image simply because you can't get consesus is censoring, which I am uneasy with. In some images it can be shown that a controversial image is far more useful but without consesus this would tie your hands to use a lesser image. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  We can reconsider what the default position should be if sources are split 50/50, but that's not likely in practice. Illustrations Wikipedia's sexology articles are so far afield from the general practice of reliable sources that there should be no disputes between approaches taken by the sources at all. There will be disputes, but only as to whether we actually care about RS for illustrations. Really, this is no more hand tying than verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, and biographies of living persons, though all of these directly restrict article content. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • The only time that what I've written would require seeking the default is if sources can't agree, and consensus can't agree. And that would fall in line with how the Foundation has asked us to consider choosing the lesser of two evils if neither one is clearly the best choice; and, as Alessandra's noted, how many of our other policies default to a predefined solution if consensus cannot come to a solution themselves. That is far from censoring. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  In my opinion we should use RS as a loose guideline but most publications either have limitations for things such as images (too much space, too expensive, etc.) However this should in no way be an end all be all for our images policies, and the current system works fine when individuals can actually bring policy to table under something other than "this offends." Compromise is even being reached on pages that spawned these concerns, as long as the approach is taken as trying to improve the article not because of offense.

Also on the second note, as an editor I am requested not to use gratuitously offensive materials. If they truely wanted us to censor our workings they would have said that instead of trying to create an image filter so people will be able to self censor out things they consider offensive. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Note, and I don't know how to succinctly put it, the survey of sources should take into account if the RS in general uses sources in the first place or similar restrictions; more weight on the survey should be placed on sources where there are no restrictions on the inclusion of any image. For example, most journals do not limit the number of images, while a news-style magazine may cut down numbers to fit within a certain page count; we would place more value on how the journals present the images related with a topic than the news magazine in this case. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose taking this to a poll since it firstly has no realistic chance of passing and will only serve to gauge consensus amongst editors here which is already apparent. More importantly though this will only fragment the discussion amongst a multitude of "votes" when what we need is a centralized discussion around what the core issues seem to be.(I have attempted to start one below) A real vote should come after a clear summary of both arguments can be made, an RFC is requested for outside input, and a proposed wording has some sort of potential to be passed.AerobicFox (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi break/Summary

• Wall of text is making it difficult to join in after only being gone a couple days. I will try to accurately sum up propositions and their rebuttals here:

1. WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, etc, already require censorship of content, so the argument that we don't self censor is false and should not be reflected in policy
   • Censorship can refer to removal of any content for any reason, but it is often used to describe removal of potentially offensive content, the American heritage dictionary gives its first definition of censorship as "to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."([29]) The above policies are put in place to censor incorrect information because our goal is to provide verifiable information which gives an accurate depiction of the topic. By censoring verifiable, accurate information for being potentially offensive you are violating WP:WEIGHT for not giving due weight to the offensive aspects of a topic, preventing the reader's access to potentially useful information, and violating WP:NPOV by largely skewing objectionable content away from an English audience, but not others(Muslims for example), and by removing the shocking an disturbing element important to many topics such as the Holocaust.(would not a Holocaust denier prefer to remove the most graphic images of that event?)
2. Where the line is unclear we should turn to reliable sources for precedent since we already do so with our text.
   • Reliable sources often use copyrighted content which can not be reproduced in Wikipedia. Media, especially printed media, is usually limited by resources to what it can publish: number of photos, color photos, etc, resulting in many sources using images sparingly, adding an additional burden to editors to find precedent for image use in obscure topics. Reliable sources often have a smaller audience than Wikipedia, and are dependent upon the commercialism of their works, often resulting in censorship of less vital information to prevent a financial loss due to offending some of their market. Since Wikipedia has a broader audience to provide information to there is a greater chance of information being potentially useful to somebody, and since our content isn't financially motivated we are more free than reliable sources to provide content which is not profitable but still notable. Additionally such a policy will promote a WP:FUTON bias where in editors seek out online resources which can publish more non-text media then potentially more reliable printed media.
3. Current policy dictates that we ignore an images offensiveness, which gives editors the ability to not address an images offensiveness when discussing its relevance.
   • The current policy does not ask that editors ignore an images offensives, but to focus on it's relevance which offensiveness is a part of. If an important element of a topic is that it's shocking and grotesque(a severe medical condition, holocaust, etc), then the discussion of an images relevance would note that an image need be "sufficiently disturbing" in order adequately illustrate the inherently disturbing nature of the topic. An image of the bubonic plague in it's mildest form—while less shocking— would not be as relevant as an image of a typical, and shocking, case of bubonic plague. On the other hand the use of shocking and disturbing images should not be gratuitous, a topic on medical disease should not find the most severe and disturbing case of said disease, but it should find the most relevant image.

On a closing note, WP:NOTCENSORED refers broadly to all types of content, including text which has far less potential to be shocking. Currently there are guidelines which specifically discuss image use, in particular WP:Offensive material which recommends choosing the least offensive if multiple options which adequately represent the topic are present. Recent proposals all seem centered around image use, and they should make that clear if they do not wish to be applied to an articles text.AerobicFox (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts on your points:

1. Due weight is established by sources, and only by sources. It is not established by what editors think is important, or useful to the reader. That goes for text just as it does for illustrations. Using a type of illustration that is non-existent or extremely uncommon in the pool of reliable sources, compared to other types of imagery, is by definition undue. We should strive for a mainstream presentation. On the other hand, if a type of image is essential to presenting a significant minority (or majority) view, as borne out by the presence of such images in reliable sources espousing that view, then it should be included, whether offensive or not. If we don't use a type of image, it won't be because we find it offensive, but because we find that reliable sources don't use it, or prefer different types of imagery to make their point.
2. We have in common with commercial publishers that we want to serve our readers well, and provide a quality product. Whether the reader pays money for that product or not is irrelevant. A publisher loses money and credibility if customers don't buy their publication, or if critics say it's a poor piece of work. We lose something just the same if people don't read our articles, or say that we produce poor work.
3. Once an image has been identified as controversial, there is no need to focus on potential offensiveness in deciding whether the image is appropriate or not. Complaints about offensiveness should simply trigger source-based research to check that we are using an approach that is in line with reliable sources. Once that research is underway, complaints about offensiveness should stop. In that sense the wording "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." is correct. However, if we say that, then we do also need to say something about what "appropriate" means. Just like text disputes, these discussions need to be informed by reliable sources rather than unsourced opinion. For example, historical works on the holocaust show images similar to ours (even school books show such images, for that matter). We are doing the right thing there, and we can prove it to anyone who doesn't agree. When it comes to illustrating a medical condition, we can likewise refer to reliable sources to help us gauge what the most common type of illustration is, and to what extent extreme images are used. In deciding whether an image is "sufficiently disturbing" or not we should defer to the judgment of those who have the medical and educational expertise – the authors of our sources. --JN466 20:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree on some areas of that, particularly the decision on whether or not an image is appropriate, but again I dislike tying it simply to offensive materials. In most cases people seem to respond well to the idea that certain pictures might not be appropriate and will debate usefulness and attempt to show why an image could be appropriate. However my key hang up is this keeps coming back to offensiveness, which I believe is in invalid reason. I will happily attempt to see both sides on images that might not be appropriate for the article (i.e. lack of supporting text, doesn't add anything to the article, does the car really need a naked lady) but I don't accept that it should be foremost in our minds. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Images or media that are apt to cause offence and ill-will towards this project call for due diligence. We simply have to make doubly sure that our approach is in line with reliable sources. --JN466 21:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Reluctantly Oppose - its a good effort Masem, but the issue is that for many things commercial interests and not educational ones will decide what is necessary. While I agree we should go with the less offensive one when multiple options are viable, relying on what RSes use, especially when many of those are commercial ones regulated by additional rules than those of the state of Florida or the Federal Government imposes in general. Some of these are because they'd rather maximize readers than offend a specific group even if that would harm the educational value. At the same time others may choose to use shocking media for exactly that same reason. The bottom line is more important to a profit-making industry. Since those are a large number of what we consider RSes, we cannot use their choice as a clear indication of whether an image is appropriate.
• EDIT: These publishes will generally be sensitive only to the primary audience. They will censor things that they will mind, but much less so secondary target audiences and rarely if at all tertiary. These audiences are targeted subsets of the populace of a given language and rarely the entire world. Wikipedia does not target such specific subset; we target primarily the entire English-speaking world, both native speakers and non-native and secondarily the entire world population. We don't really have a tertiary audience since the entire world is already covered, unless you believe in faires or the like. ∞陣内Jinnai 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That same argument could be made for text. If we don't trust educational sources to be truly educational, but believe them to censor inconvenient facts, why do we abide by WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? --JN466 21:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • This is exactly right. We are to be a tertiary source and completely trying to avoid introducing new OR anywhere. That includes how a topic is typically handled, not just in terms of content, but in format and presentation, to a reasonable degree. That means, things like images as well, even if there is a cloud of corporate or government restrictions on what type of images are used. We apply that metric to text and prose, and it should apply to pictures. Mind you, we're not restricted (short of US Florida law) of what we can use, so even if there are a bulk of sources from one specific country that purposely block a specific type of image, but fewer sources that originate elsewhere freely use such images, we should be considering the use of them. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • If that's what you intended Masem, that's not what the text reads would be allowable. The doesn't allow for NPOV except to further remove an image, text or video. " f few to no sources use offensive imagery while providing comprehensive coverage of a topic, editors should avoid introducing such to the Wikipedia article. " That line would not allow for the inclusion if most sources did not for reasons I stated above.∞陣内Jinnai 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, there's probably a footnote cavaet to be added: if the majority of sources don't include an image because the sources are purely text based, that's a reason to discount them in the survey of sources. Similarly, if specific types of images are normally externally censored from a specific subset of sources but other sources are not, we discount the ones that are limited in that fashion. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• There seems to be some confusion between original research and original writing/summarizing/presentation. We do not engage in original research because that is what a primary source does, we do however engage in original summation of secondary sources and original ways of presenting them. Most of what we rely on are secondary sources, they authenticate the results and opinions found in primary sources. In our aim to provide a synopsis of relevant secondary sources we create our own original content, and do not merely repeat how another tertiary source summarizes secondary sources. The important thing to remember about WP:OR is that it only refers to using WP as a primary source, to write/illustrate ideas and concepts not reported/covered by other sources, it does not apply to original ways of phrasing/illustrating ideas and concepts that are covered by other sources. Similarly, WP:Original images: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments.AerobicFox (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No one here is suggesting that original images cannot be used, or are original research per se. OR concerns only come into play when the subject matter of an image is something that hasn't been published in a reliable source, thus introducing an unpublished idea. Can you cite even one WP:MEDRS which confirms that the video in ejaculation is an accurate representation of the act? This may seem like a silly example, since most adults know what it looks like. But that method of confirming the accuracy of article content is original research. Now suppose that an RS could be found to verify the video. If we represent the act at a level of explicitness that only 1 in 10000 MEDRS uses, we are forcing an extremely WP:FRINGE idea into a mainstream article, in violation of WP:UNDUE. While original images are just as necessary as original text, they are both subject to WP:NOR limitations. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the policy. The subject matter of ejaculation has been published, so as long as a video is illustrating that subject matter it is not original research; there does not need to be an RS that specifically states that our video is a correct representation. The method of illustrating/summarizing/etc is not original research because it is not research, it is illustrating secondary sources which have verified the original research of primary sources. AerobicFox (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course we don't need an RS affirming that our video is correct. But the only way to verify, in the sense of Wikipedia:Verifiability that the video is really illustrating the subject matter is by editorial comparison with another video that has been published by a reliable source. Textual descriptions won't pass muster. This is not a case of a an editor-generated graph or other illustration summarizing existing published data. The act filmed is new data, with the man involved participating in an original research project, until the video can be verified. This requirement might be waived for obscure subjects - we could take the photographer at their word that an portrait really represents the person claimed, without having an image in an RS to compare it to. Original photographs of well-known places might be included without specific citations, knowing that there are hundreds of press photos depicting the same subject. Here, in a prominent article, there's no excuse for including a video that would be extremely difficult to verify. Either the data embodied in a video of an ejaculation is unverifiable by recourse to any RS, or so fringe as to warrant omission in a mainstream article. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for a number of reasons
  • I think we have pretty much hit the offensive/educational boundary pretty well with the current wording.
  • We shouldn't be limited in presentation of content to how others present the content.
  • I believe that offensive is too poorly defined and dependent on person/culture to be useful here.

Hobit (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - The desire to appease the vocal image-haters is laudable, but ultimately unworkable. When deciding to include an image in an article, offense is simply a negligible concern. Inclusion discussion should be about what value it brings to the reader, to how it enhances the subject matter. That is all. Tarc (talk)

I believe that there's also a strong case that we need images from RS to compare original images to, for verification purposes, in high-profile articles. Suppose that there were such a thing as a "lightning viper", that all of the text in the "article" was reliably sourced, and that File:Crotalus-basiliscus-basiliskenklapperschlange.jpg were claimed to be a photograph of this species. How could one ever determine, based on the textual description, that the image was accurate? Do understand that creators of hoax articles are likewise capable of hoax photography. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need that except in contriversial cases where its unclear the image matches the text. Indeed that can lead to issues such as those that erupted in Fan service.∞陣内Jinnai 04:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Tarc and Hobit both make good points, but fundamentally, I view NOTCENSORED as even more important to retain with respect to images if we're going to eventually have a configurable edit filter. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The wording is too prescriptive for me. I like the idea of being guided by how RSs use controversial content, and believe it should be suggested in a policy (WP:IUP?) or guideline (Wikipedia:Offensive material?), but "if few to no sources use offensive imagery while providing comprehensive coverage of a topic, editors should avoid introducing such to the Wikipedia article" may affect the educational quality of an article. For example, when I was prepubescent and wanted to know what an ejaculation was like, I would have been helped by the clip at Ejaculation far better than any text, and this proposed wording would exclude that clip. As a helpful tip, "reflect the sources' use" may sometimes be useful, but as black-letter policy, it may do harm.

I'm still concerned about the use of "potentially offensive" for the same reasons outlined by the 2010 report of the Wikimedia study into controversial content. I posted a quote above outlining those reasons.

Per Tarc (except for the appeasement bit), educational merit is the criterion. Unlike Tarc, though, When deciding to include an image in an article, offense is not a negligible concern, but a second order concern after educational merit. We should bear in mind though that educational merit may be overwhelmed and negated by extremely disaffecting content. Difficult judgment calls ... but difficulty is no reason for deciding all such choices in advance by simple diktat. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Support I've been persuaded by the subsequent discussion. It is a bit of a stretch to extend NPOV across image use, but it may be time we did. It would provide a much needed compass for navigating controversial content curation, hopefully keeping us from constantly straying into inappropriate editorial decisions, and hopefully reducing the number of subsequent interminable controversial content discussions. The counter-argument, that we are a unique resource with no commercial, cultural or political pressures who should not be constrained by the policies of sources that are subject to these pressures, has weight. But, frankly, I think the relative fearlessness of the press, particularly academic press today, pretty well assures us this proposition will not harm the educational value of the project while ensuring we exercise good taste in our curation of controversial content. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a stretch at all. WP:NPOV has directly named images as a type of article content that falls within the rules of DUE since 2006. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That piece of policy is addressing the proportionate presentation of competing views. (Images can be used to add undue weight to a minority view.) Here we are talking about modelling our selection of controversial images on the practice of reliable sources. That is, this is not a question of weight but of taste and concern for our readers' sensibility. I don't believe this debate is going anywhere until proponents of this proposition admit we're talking about new language that enshrines in policy something most of us have been doing instinctively all along. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So why is it perfectly fine for the editors of an article, whoever they may be, to determine on the article talk page what the appropriate weight for each viewpoint in the text, while at the same time arguing that making exactly the same determination for images cannot possibly be left to editors at a talk page because they do not have the necessary understanding of all cultures, etc? Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

To several of the above, educational merit is definitely a key reason to include a potentially offensive image, but that merit is something that we should be determining from reliable sources as well, and not creating the definition ourselves. Including factual information under the claim of "education merit" that the bulk of sources does not include (assuming they had the capacity to) is putting undue weight on a minor topic. That same should apply to organization and presentation of articles which include image choice. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Usually, I'm sure you're right. But I can think of too many exceptions where educational value would be diminished by strictly replicating the controversial content use of other encyclopedias and sources. Hence, as a guide or rule of thumb, I'm fine with it; but it would be detrimental to lock us into step with such media. We are different. We can devise our own standards that respect the sensibilities of our readers but permit content that Encyclopedia Britannica may, for commercial or other motives irrelevant to us, shy away from. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia marches to the beat of a different drummer. I wonder when someone is going to try to add photographs of flaccid penises to Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. It's going to be hard to take us seriously as an academic project until we act like one. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not following you. Do you mean there would be some real educational value in adding an image of a flaccid penis to that article? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no serious value in that, educational or otherwise. But, because under not censored, being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content, the policy claims that the image should be treated like so many others we use for decor. There's a reason I'm contributing under a nom de plume. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I get it. I've been in those battles, and I'm involved in this discussion because I'm sick of them and sick of watching all the effort lost on them. This proposal would simplify things in that department for sure, but I am still worried it may be too prescriptive. But I am weighing the very good points being made in this civil discussion of a very emotive topic, and am open to having my mind changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be then shock value which NOTCENSORED does cover and does include as images that can be removed.∞陣内Jinnai 05:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What serious value does the ejaculation video have? "Educating" prepubescent children, seriously proposed by Anthonyhcole above? That strikes me as a little bit creepy. I don't know anyone who's in the habit of masturbating in front of prepubescent children, and I really don't see how doing it over the internet makes it okay. "Not censored for the protection of minors, it's parents' problem to supervise and filter internet usage" or whatever kind of implies that we aren't targeting sexually explicit content at minors. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The ejaculation video would in any event be available via the Commons link. --JN466 06:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Once we assume that we know better how to create sex-educational content than the entirety of the world's sexologists and sex educators (spanning a pretty broad range of approaches ...), we have jettisoned a fundamental principle of this project for no apparent good reason. By the way, I am not aware of anyone having done the source research to verify whether any sources actually do use media similar to ours in explaining ejaculation. If they do, knowing that they do provides us with an excellent response to anyone complaining. On the other hand, if none do, it's hard to see how it's different from OR. --JN466 06:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Our high school health book had a picture of ejaculation. It was a penis with some semen coming out of it, probably more to teach girls than prepubescent guys.AerobicFox (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I just remember wondering when I first heard about it what it looked like, and if Wikipedia had been around at the time I'd have known. There was nothing prurient in it, just my curiosity; it seemed so alien. But I'm well aware this is a difficult call. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that is so, then that is fine, and provides RS support for our way of illustrating the topic. This is how we should handle internal discussions, and it's how we should handle complaints about images being offensive. --JN466 08:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose mainly due to the implied absolute standards of offensiveness in the proposed text. I'm also worried about defaulting to prudishness: if two sources are found, one with images and one without, this proposal favors no images. But images may lack from reliable sources for a large variety of reasons. For example, there are probably bazillions of research papers about ejaculation, but many address some less-than-basic research topics, so they have no need to illustrate the basics. Also, the space taken is a concern in many publications, but not so much for Wikipedia per WP:NOTPAPER. This proposal assumes that lack of an image from whatever publication is proof of the image's offensiveness, and that is WP:OR. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Moral support only. The proposal goes generally in the right direction, but due to the issues described by ASCIIn2Bme, in practice it would shift the balance way too far. We just need a minor correction that helps to shut up those editors who shout everyone down as soon as they sense a chance that content they like is removed based on a normal editorial consensus that factors in real-life people's reactions. Hans Adler 12:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Current policy is sufficient, there is no need to tweak and constrain a long-established and tolerably-well functioning system regarding the use of potentially controversial graphics in mainspace. Carrite (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To restate a few points to consider in rewriting the above:

• Yes, I can see now that defaulting to the less offensive may seem to be a problem. I'd have that as encouragement, but not even with strength of guideline.
• In terms of what sources use, I would refactor the approach to be based on avoiding the use of certain types of images that never appear at all in any source, or that only appear in fringe sources. And clearly, of course, we're talking about sources where there is freedom to include images without space restrictions or the like, not just all sources. So, for example if out of 100 sources, ten use a nude photo to depict an activity while the remaining use a clothed photo or opt to include no photo altogether, then it is still ok, per WP:OR, for WP to use a nude photo, though the ultimate choice is up to editors. On the other hand, if only 1 source out of 100 used a nude, it is like a fringe case and thus not in WP's interests to use that. In other words: when selecting an image, the choices should be based on the type that some significant proportion of the sources have already used before (and countrary to my original suggestion, not necessary based on what the majority says). We absolutely should not be introducing a type of photo that no other source has used and creating a novel presentation of the information, as a tertiary source.
• While WP is free speech (and possibly something more) and not beholden to commercial or government or any other group's interests, an ultimate goal of the Foundation is to have a work that can be free distributed across the globe. If we were only electronic, this would not be an issue, but we're already talking about distribution and redistribution through print and digital media. Obviously we cannot hold ourselves to the lower-common denominator in terms of content, making the work to match the most prudish of moral expectations; we are going to have images and articles that will contain material that will offend. However, we can at least recognize that when we are knowingly introducing content that is offensive, content that other global sources have purposely avoided, we are probably doing harm to the Foundation's goals for redistribution. Again, this is why using established approaches to the types of images to include with a topic based on what's already published at least assures some degree of redistribution. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The distinction you make above, between 10 out of 100 sources vs. 1 out of 100, is an important one, because it affects our ability to provide due coverage of significant minority views that rely on imagery to make their point. --JN466 13:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 4: Should editorial standards in reliable sources count for anything?

Let's examine the underlying questions, without for the moment trying to come up with a wording to include here or elsewhere:

1. Should the editorial standards reputable secondary sources apply for image and media use count for anything in Wikipedia?
2. Should our aim be to provide a presentation that is a neutral reflection of reputable secondary sources, i.e. one that does not strike people familiar with the relevant literature as strange, or unbalanced?
3. If there are complaints from readers or editors about insensitive image/media use, should there be a discussion informed by an examination of the literature on the relevant article topic?
4. If your answer to any of the above three questions is No, what is your philosophical justification for handling illustrations differently from text, bearing in mind that the above considerations are key elements in the way Wikipedia defines appropriate textual content?

If we can gauge consensus on these fundamental questions, perhaps it will be easier to come up with a wording that we can all sign up to. --JN466 10:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The editorial standards in reputable, international, NPOV, educational sources that are not censored and are not otherwise constrained in their use of images should be used as a reference point in a discussion about Wikipedia's standards. Any other sources will have their image and media choices influenced by factors that are not relevant to Wikipedia. You wouldn't expect The Pitch to make reference to the image standards of Thai Rath or Journal of Sex Education and Therapy when deciding their editorial policy, so why should we make reference to theirs? They and we all serve different markets.
2. Our aim is to write an NPOV, Free content, general purpose online encyclopaedia. As a necessary component of being from the neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored. Our images and media should be ones that illustrate the articles appropriately.
3. No. There should be a discussion informed by our policies, particularly on neutrality and verifiability, and a re-examination of whether there are images that better illustrate the subject now available.
4. Because Wikipedia is in a position to use images and media significantly differently to almost all other comparable projects as a consequence of not being on paper and being a global, NPOV project. The images and media we have available to us are vastly different to that available to other comparable projects. With regards to text, the difference between what we can do and what others can do is not so significant (primarily just volume). Text and images are qualitatively different - one can simply reword sentence, but one cannot similarly reword a picture. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Happily, we are in at least partial agreement on 1. Two points: firstly, there is no such thing as an "NPOV source". NPOV is defined as reflecting the balance of sources available to us, representing viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. It is generally accepted that the most reputable sources are accorded the highest weight (Thai Rath would not feature prominently there, any more than any other tabloid). Secondly, unlike the publications you mention, we are a tertiary source – we summarise secondary sources. That is why it is appropriate for us to reflect editorial standards in (a wide variety of) secondary sources.
2. As has been pointed out before, we are (self-)censored, consciously and intentionally so. Our content is restricted to what can be found in reliable sources. We delete any contributions that cannot be backed up by a reliable source. As such, we are in our sources' hands. We trust them to get it right. And neutral point of view really does only mean reflecting sources' views in correct proportion. Wikipedia knows no other neutrality than that.
3. Neutrality and verifiability are inextricably linked with sources. You cannot check neutrality and verifiability without recourse to sources. So even though you reply No, what you suggest should happen instead is actually the same thing.
4. An NPOV project that is significantly different from its sources is, unfortunately, a contradiction in terms. There are differences in that we are a website, and some of our sources are not (I say some because we need to remember that we usually cite news websites that have electronic images and embedded videos like we do, rather than physical newspaper copies), but there is no reason why our approach should not be as congruent as possible with that of our sources. --JN466 13:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

@ 4. If we try and be neutral without following our sources everything goes to hell as its impossible to agree on an overall standard of neutrality otherwise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, as with text following our sources is likely to end up in a sensible position.
2. Yes
3. Yes, but we should only do so if the complaints are substantial. One person complaining shouldn't force us to go to vast lengths to satisfy them. If there are a substantial number of complaints we should have to address them. Its well worth pointing out that there are only a tiny handful of articles where the images used currently are complained about by a substantial number of people. I can only think of two, Muhammad and Pregnancy.
4. N/A. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1. It depends.
2. Yes.
3. It depends.
4. For #1, as I mentioned with Masem, we shouldn't weigh sources solely by quantity, but have a measure for determining what to pick (if we do at all). In many cases publications are beholden to market forces and as such censor their content to increase sales or for governmental control (and rarer purposefully use the most shocking images to increase sales). If we just take sources at their face value and do not consider mateial based on the underlying profit motive and demographics they are targeting we will be giving a non-neutral representation. A publication for the US may be different from a publication in India and describe the same thing with each region censoring different things. Even in the same region, different publications target different subsets of the population. Even if more sources come from one region or target one subset, we aren't the a regional encyclopedia nor a niche encylopedia; we are a global one. If we had to make one subset of the population we cater to, its the English subset (both native and as a secondary (or tertiary) language and then secondarily everyone else. Most of those publications can care less about a given population and thus can censor (or use shock value in some cases) because they target a more select audiance.

As for #3, there comes a point where people tend to bring up the sole argument in the same article about the same image time and again. Even assuming good faith that they aren't sockpuppets or purposefully being disruptive, we there comes a point where if the only reason someone can come up with is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that's their only reason, we should be able to simply direct them here or other areas that talk about our policies/guidelines on censoring (or the lack thereof).∞陣内Jinnai 16:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

With regards to not mentioning sources solely by quantity - well we have to do this for text already and have to compare it in more detail and take some of your points into account anyway.

With regards to points being bought up over and over again which article are you talking about? Both the high profile cases that I have mentioned above, pregnancy and muhammad, are likely to offend very large numbers of people. With pregnancy, 500,000 Americans complained about seeing a nipple for less than a second in 2004 (source), and with Muhammad it offends all Sunni muslims, of which there are a billion, or 1/7th of the world's population. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about ones that talk about more controversial items. One on my personal watchlist (mostly for vandalism and the like) is hentai. There will be very few people that say that the images don't offend them unless they are actively seeking that kind of thing, but it still has educational value for the article.∞陣内Jinnai 19:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that really needed to show the point? Come on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes: The standards in reputable sources (taken as a whole, not just a narrow subset) should count for something, although not quite for everything. In fact, WP:DUE demands that we consider such factors, and it does not make an exemption for images.
2. Yes: WP:DUE applies even to images. Articles about vegetables should be illustrated by images showing the vegetables like normal, reputable sources do, not by showing the vegetables shoved in various orifices (which I assume we can all agree would qualify as a "strange" choice for an article about an agricultural product rather than about sex toys).
3. Yes: If we get a lot of complaints, we should talk about it—but not necessarily make any changes. For example, in the real world, the family of murder victims fairly often objects to all sorts of images (e.g., a photograph of the loved one's dead body, or of a crying family member, or of the alleged perpetrator with any non-guilty or non-disgusting expression on his face, etc.). If we're doing more or less what other sources do, then we're probably doing the right thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 5: A fundamental philosophical disagreement

We normally don't use images directly from RS for copyright reasons, unless they are important historical photos that cannot be retaken. However, an argument that I've heard quite frequently above is that we cannot adopt the approach to illustrating articles generally used by reliable sources, because RS censor themselves to a degree that we, because of NPOV, shouldn't. This is what's commonly known as the WP:ACTIVIST interpretation of NPOV: the sources are screwed up because of pandering to prudes/right wing extremists/religious zealots/large corporations/the psychopharmaceutical complex/hegemonic scientists/the illuminati and so on, so NPOV is defined in terms of setting things right. This construction of NPOV for images is no more consistent with the policy as written than for text. The policy actually says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Unless we want to open a Pandora's box of troubles by reworking NPOV to accommodate WP:ACTIVISM, compliance with the current policy is not optional. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. If the only RS out there explicit avoid discussing certain details that are otherwise known factually true but only in non-RS sources , we don't include those details. Even if this is an act of large scale censoring - WP is a tool to enable information transfer, not to be a political device. Same has to apply to images, even if it is regards to offensiveness. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That really can't be done with controversial images. Ifyou have a Muslim who believes the image of Muhammad on his titular article is sacrilege even 1 image is too much. Yet at the same time there are a ton of people who aren't Muslims who will be fine with that image. There is no middle ground here. Both groups are broad groups too nor can you balance that by saying you'll split the difference and only show his head. That's still too much for such a large group who believes no image should be shown and a head is still an image. If the sources were about the same between those who were fine and those that weren't, we can't split the difference.19:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides what was said pretty well above, re this section of the proposal: "and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources. " - sorry, Wikipedia is not other places. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:OSE refers to similar articles on Wikipedia, not how reliable sources treat a subject. This is the first time I've heard "other stuff exists" invoked in an attempt to defeat NPOV. Now, regarding Muhammad, it is sufficient to recognize that the images were the subject of a heated controversy on Wikipedia, which was not resolved by "not censored" since editors could still contest relevance to the article. This could easily be settled by recourse to an examination of how anglophone reliable sources, which are preferred over non-English references, generally treat the subject, without editors performing a subjective evaluation to ultimately determine offensiveness or lack thereof. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I cited the wrong page. No it was not in relation to NPOV. As of course, all encylopedias have some level of POV behind such "controversial" things - you know, the whole making money and catering towards the audience that will allow it thing. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Masem: if all of the reliable sources refuse to disclose something, then we must follow the lead of the sources. WP:V and WP:DUE are not optional.

But I'm concerned from the comments that some of you may not quite grasp what that means. That's "all of the reliable sources", not "all of the reliable sources, except for the thousands of sources that were published by someone who isn't a Sunni Muslim". In the case Robert mentions, many sources do include images. Therefore we may include such an image and still legitimately say that we are following (some of) our sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If English language sources discussing Muhammad generally do include a picture of him, and the evidence can be gathered which shows that to be the case then we should include an image of him. If we can show that large numbers of sources generally do include images of Muhammad then we can as well - and have a much stronger case for doing so than WP:NOTCENSORED.

If you are going to do such a look at sources you are going to need to include as many English language sources as are found - there is no good reason to only include sources from Anglophone countries. English is widely spoken and read worldwide.

And actually including less images of Muhammad, and a disclaimer would be significantly more respectful without removing all images. We already essentially do use "disclaimers" for similar purposes in other controversial topics on the project, e.g. Ireland has a hat-note link to Northern Ireland even though the possibility of someone wanting to read the article on Northern Ireland going to Ireland is extremely remote. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Better idea, get rid of the disclaimers everywhere except the page that is about controversial topics being discussed on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. Not a "coddle the loudest complaining group of the week society". More below. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How is that possibly a workable solution? If you are offending hundreds of millions of people then there is going to be an endless supply of people complaining about the issue. Additionally if you don't engage with them then they will gain a consensus to do what they want. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're correct. We shouldn't need disclaimers, but humans are far from rational. Myself included, as my unworkable solution points out since it does not address the reality of the situation. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is correct. This is a question of reflecting viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. The discussion about the Muhammad images needs to bear in mind that the Persian miniature tradition that created these images was a courtly tradition of non-public art (illustrated manuscripts for the private enjoyment of wealthy patrons) that never enjoyed distribution among the general populace. This type of art was never used or displayed in public places. Apart from the Persian miniature tradition, it has to be said that there is a certain amount of popular art depicting Muhammad in present-day Iran, where posters and postcards showing a likeness of Muhammad are freely available and not particularly controversial (even if it does not mean that such posters would be displayed in mosques). However, the vast majority of the Islamic world, throughout history, has viewed images of the Prophet as either silly or offensive. They have too much respect for Muhammad to allow some fanciful image based purely on an artist's imagination to be equated to him. Muhammad's words in the Quran, or verbal descriptions of Muhammad's physical appearance in the hadith literature, however, suffer from no such restriction. They are believed to be authentic, and beautiful calligraphy of them abounds throughout the Islamic world. Many English-language biographies of Muhammad reflect this, limiting themselves to the mainstream reception of Muhammad in their choice of illustrations. So rather than showing figurative images on their covers, they show the various types of calligraphy that are customarily used to represent the Prophet's name, or calligraphic renderings of Muhammad's words in the Quran, or calligraphic panels reproducing extant descriptions of his appearance. Or they may show a picture of a mosque. Now, per NPOV we should reflect viewpoints in proportion to their prevalence. This means that the one thing we should not be doing is plastering Persian miniatures all over the Muhammad article. We can show one or two such images, reflecting the significant minority viewpoint of Persia/Iran/Shia Islam, but the bulk of illustrations should be devoted to the mainstream calligraphical representations of Muhammad, which far outweigh figurative images. There is actually no problem if you apply NPOV consistently. --JN466 07:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

But we are talking a biography. We aren't talking about the article on Depictions of Muhammad or Islamic art. We are looking for a representation of how Muhammad's human form was depicted - calligraphy does the opposite. Paintings with veils later painted over his face do the opposite. Paintings with veils painted into the original do the opposite. The purpose of all three of those is to prevent or supplant a depiction of what he was perceived to look like.

As for being respectful of others' beliefs, (1) we didn't honor CoS's requests. We didn't honor LDS' requests either. And (2) (the important one) it has nothing to do with being respectful of others' beliefs. They aren't allowed to create such. Nowhere is there a prohibition against me creating or viewing such.

What *I* would like to see is an Islamic painting of Muhammad that wasn't later defaced. As for the Shia Islam thing, sorry, that does not matter. That would be like us taking a stand on "what version of Christianity is more important?" - which should we choose? RC? LDS? Baptist? Mormon? Protestant? In that, in one major respect, Muhammad is like Christ in being the cause for the various sects and we do not differentiate which is the "true Christianity" or the "true Islam". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't need an image for a biography. That said, since depictions are used in some cases having 1 depiction would be appropriate. Just as we cannot ignore English sources that use his visage, we cannot ignore non-English sources that don't. That's purposeful systemic bias.∞陣内Jinnai 17:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to us to say what a depiction of Muhammad should look like, whether it should be a flame, a veiled figure, one with a face, a calligraphically executed verbal description of what he looked like according to people who knew him, or calligraphy of his sayings. We should use images in proportion to their prevalence. --JN466 18:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Jinnai: I never commented on how many images or such. Nor specified a need (perhaps other than myself and others finding such educational, which has been rehashed numerous times). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Jayen: calligraphy does not look like a human. And if it's a text description, it causes two problems, (1) it is not readable by those who speak English only - that might make it suitable on different language versions, but not here since we can't read it. and (2) such is already described in text making it duplicative if it was readable. As for the veil and flame, those were added after or included in works create far later. And their intent is to not portray how he looks. "Here is a picture that doesn't show how Muhammad was perceived to have looked" is the exact opposite of "Here is a picture that does show how Muhammad was perceived to have looked" - such pictures were very intentionally created to not depict how he looked. You cannot substitute them for the exact opposite purpose. Is there merit to including them in the article? Emphatically, yes - but not as a depiction of how he was perceived to look. Almost everyone in this discussion, including you, have admitted that such images were created to not portray his perceived features/what he looked like. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Our sources will have to make these same trade offs that you are pointing out here. Just as with article titles we should follow our sources in this area.
• By requiring all these decisions to be made on an article-by-article basis you are expecting our editors to have appropriate empathy and understanding for people of different cultures to weigh these decisions up over whether certain content is appropriate. That is an unreasonable burden if nothing else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

1. If judging the appropriateness of what to include in an article is such an unreasonable burden for editors on article talk pages, why do we do just that for every other type of judgement related to article content? 2. We don't require our editors to have an appropriate empathy and understanding for all other cultures, because we not censored the sensitivities don't come into it, we're only concerned about what image illustrates best the topic at hand. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert, you're not getting it. None of the paintings "show what he looked like"! He didn't sit around while someone painted him. The available images are no more informative about what he actually looked like than any of the paintings of Jesus, Buddha, or Socrates. As a result, we can't "show what he looked like". We can only say "here's how this person has been imagined by artists"—which in the Jesus article could mean a figure with black skin, or with blue eyes and blond hair, or an Asian Jesus. It could also be a non-human figure, e.g. a lamb. The point in these articles is not to "show what he looked like", because nobody actually knows what any of these people truly looked like. The primary point instead is to show how artists have represented him through the centuries, even if those representations are more frequently as symbols than as made-up human figures.

When you only want one (or a few), you choose from among the many options by looking at what the sources on this subject choose, not by looking at what the sources on some other kind of subject (like 20th century politicians) do. So in the case of Jesus, they mostly show images that illustrate some scene from Jesus' life, rather than Jesus just sitting around. So our main article mostly does (and should do) that, too. In the case of Mohammed, they mostly show art without a face, so we, too, should show mostly art without a face. It's not that we cannot show a face; it's that it's UNDUE to give only or primarily images that are unusual because they show a face. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually that is kind of a double edged sword with the Jesus pictures, seeing how everyone that can look at things like ethnic background will realise he is not a white guy. The reason those pictures are represented here is because this is a western european/western hemisphere centric encyclopedia. Quite frankly if someone wanted to include additional images of what people believe him to look like from non western cultures I would be a supporter. However going there and telling them to tear them all down because "that isn't what he looks like" is ludacris. The showing without a face happened after 1500s (ish) and we are reaching some compromises to how we should show the pictures. I believe the current accepted way forward is one from each time period (one without veil, one with veil and one as flame.) The problem with this is to some of the Islamic faith this is still unacceptable even though we are removing the majority of the pictures. In order to have them happy we would need to delete ALL the pictures which I find unacceptable since most of the early ones were comissioned by the same groups that are against them now. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on "Objectionable Content"

In my opinion, this is a term that has the easiest chance of being abused. And it is idiotic to even try to define it. There is no universally agreed upon definition of "Is item A objectionable?". The vast majority of articles here are objectionable to by someone. Let's delete them all!!!

This is I think the answer: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." (as noted above). And solely that. When people have very very strong beliefs about something, they confuse "objectionable" with "don't like". For instance, I do not find the article on murder objectionable - I find the act of murder objectionable. I don't find the presence of images in a biography of Muhammad objectionable - people find their beliefs not being enforced on others to be objectionable. We've had major stinks on articles on Israel, Palestine, the IRL, Scientology, Atheism, homosexuality, Christianity, Evolution, Creationism and many many more because people find the content as a whole or certain sections highly objectionable. Let's delete them!!! OR go back to the first sentence of this paragraph. We cannot consider personal objections in deciding content. Doing so creates a bias and inserts specific POVs. We should only consider whether content is appropriate for the article (and permitted by the laws of the state of Florida and the United States).

We cannot change history. We cannot change science. We aren't here to change religion. Removing content based on objections by one group against another is akin to pretending history, science and religion are different than they really are. Once this ball gets rolling, when does it stop? Who of you gets to decide what's objectionable? How many people need to think something is objectionable in order for us to act upon it? Is it relevant to the article (or section thereof) and informative/educational (and, etc, etc, etc, other policies and guidelines that apply)? Yes? Then keep it - no disclaimers, no waffling. Otherwise do not keep/insert it. This really should be that simple.

This is an encyclopedia. I do not come here to read even more disclaimers (isn't there a policy against that?). I do not come here to find relevant information missing because x number of people found it objectionable. I do not come here to debate "my religion and beliefs are better than yours, so my objections hold weight that must be honored - remove this content" either - that's an unwinnable battle. Either the content stays and people object, or the content goes, and the encyclopedia slowly gets crippled more and more. Specific case example, the images of Muhammad... if we honor "objections", when do we then have to honor the "objections" we got from the Church of Scientology? You know, the ones we ignored? Or, will any of you decide to induce so much bias and POV pushing in deciding that CoS's objections hold less weight because their religion isn't worth as much in such matters? Where does Christianity fit? Or Judaism? Or The Church of Latter Day Saints? Get my point? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Additional Note: Look at the big picture. Or lack thereof. This term is already being used for single purpose POV pushing without equal application across other such articles on Wikipedia. And that is because those people find A, B and C objectionable and not D, E and F. Because, again, there is no universal agreement on which is which - and in the end, there's next to nothing on Wikipedia that isn't objectionable to someone. So, do we ensure it's included in a fashion that allows people to POV push all across Wikipedia? Or, what criteria do we use to ignore certain objections? Yours? Mine? Don't use my criteria on what I think is objectionable or not - I'm honest enough to admit, like everyone else that I have biases on such things - are the rest of you honest enough to admit that? If so, that makes this a very dangerous term to include anywhere. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Nobody has proposed doing anything different from what reliable sources do. If reliable sources avoid using pictures of Muhammad then we should do the same. If reliable sources don't criticise Scientology then we shouldn't criticise it. If they do the opposite in either case we should do that too. That's how NPOV works.
  • And as a global project we have to take into account what people consider globally, and not just take into account what is considered acceptable in the state of Florida - just like we do when comparing reliable sources for text content or article titles or whatever.
  • Additionally the number of generally accepted cultural/religious issues which result in censorship is extremely small. The British Museum clearly didn't think there was a slippery slope when they returned the aboriginal heads to the Australians on cultural/religious grounds. Other than images of the prophet muhammad that is the only equivalent case I can think of. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

RobertMfromLI, your "line drawing" argument is fallacious. If objectionability cannot be determined, because it involves a subjective decision on a matter as to which there is no universal agreement, then neither can relevance of an image to an article, the correct style in which to write articles, or, for that matter, the correct wording of this policy. Of course, all such matters can, and normally are resolved in accordance with an rough average of editors' personal beliefs. But we normally don't need to determine objectionability ourselves, because RS have done that for us. I agree that "We cannot change history. We cannot change science. We aren't here to change religion." Neither can we change the POV of reliable sources. NPOV is built upon this, by taking the average of the available POVs, or describing the major ones in proportion to their frequency. As I think you'll admit, the tenor of images selected by an RS is part of their POV. Defining NPOV, for image selection purposes, as far afield from RS, because we think their POVs amount to censorship and pandering to prudes/the religious right or whatever, leaves us with absolutely no guidance whatsoever as to the correct choice of images. While you can say that not considering objectionability removes the subjectivity from the decision, interminable debates can still be had as to relevance, value in describing the subject matter, or any other matter that would be subject to unguided editorial discretion. Indeed, these factors could be used as surrogates for objectionability, since that question can no longer be discussed openly. Being "not censored" provides neither a means to end heated debates nor objective criteria for making editorial decisions, but does wrap opposition to NPOV as written in the flag of free speech. POV pushing in attempts to override basic content policies is hardly so notable an endeavor. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead: Muhammad is only one of many articles of the sort. Secondly, the issue over Scientology is not what you think. It's closer to the fact that we even discussed it than had disparaging remarks. Third, did you know there is a reason why Wikipedia only accepts donations - instead of running ads? It's so bias can't be paid for and no appearance of such can exist. Unlike what has been claimed of various encyclopedias. Print encyclopedias have a different audience than Wikipedia. They cater to that audience. I haven't bought a print encyclopedia in ages - I am not part of that audience.

Alessandra: You are going way off tangent. Objection is very different than relevance. I'd expect any editor would realize that. Is discussing carbon dating relevant to the article on "Age of the Earth"? YES. Is it objectionable? YES, VERY. Nor did I EVER imply changing POV of sources. I stated the exact opposite - it is those policies that should be applied - not who objects or how many people object. And if you think POV pushing to override basic content policies isn't notable, then you do not spend enough time in Recent Changes. Off the top of my head, I can name two articles that have had over a DOZEN edit wars in the last couple weeks. Perusing my watchlist, I can name HUNDREDS. I agree with NOTCENSORED not being the be all end all. I've stated dozens of times it is other policies that should determine what is included (or not). NOTCENSORED is important only in preventing censorship of relevant, informative content. Nothing more. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly which other articles are like Muhammad?

With regards to carbon dating, and the age of the earth, while a small number of extremists may believe that the world is 6000 years old, only a tiny minority (if any) reliable sources will follow that line. Obviously no scientific sources will believe the earth is 6000 years old either.

With the Muhammad cartoon controversy I believe the BBC didn't publish the images on ground of offensiveness, if the BBC were in the minority, great. Then we can include images in the article, if not, I think we should change our position.

If you can create a good list of sources that will prevent most of the sensible opponents from commenting at all - and if you can argue that removing the Muhammad images would be an NPOV violation - which if you have a big list of sources using such images you would - then you wouldn't need to continually argue the case and spend tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of words on it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, carbon dating is discussed in almost all RS on the age of the earth, so we include it. As a corollary, the content isn't objectionable, for editorial purposes on the English Wikipedia, since the RS wouldn't have included it if they thought it was, and NPOV requires yielding to their guidance. Now I contrast this situation with the goatse images. It seems that no reliable sources whatsoever included the stretched anus photograph. However, resourceful editors, fervently believing in free speech, decided to go directly to the shock site, copy the image, and upload it here. It should have been obvious that, since RS uniformly refused to reprint the image, or a substantially similar recreation, they regarded it as unpublishable garbage. This should have resulted in a swift deletion of the image, with a warning to the uploader not to do it again. But, supporters of "not censored" argued that the deletion of the garbage would be censorship; that, if we did so, we would be endorsing the censorship practised by the RS. They were right. But WP:WEIGHT effectively requires this sort of "censorship", in that we are beholden to choices by RS as to which information to include. Since we couldn't censor, either in accordance with editors own tastes or reliable sources' practices, the debate had to be settled on surrogate grounds. Deletion for noncompliance with the NFCC had an articulable justification, apparently having nothing to do with "censorship" at all. So, yes, "not censored", as applied, is straightforwardly in opposition to NPOV. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And actually the BLP policy. Preventing gossip from being added to wikipedia articles is censorship. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• A few points:

We do not "do what the RS's do". The RS's we use are largely secondary sources, and we are a tertiary source. What they do(analyze original research/primary documents) is completely different from what we do(summarize their reports). We do not draw conclusions from a secondary source that the absence of an image is a statement of intent to censor. It is incorrect and WP:OR to analyze the absence of information in secondary sources and make inferences from them which they do not specifically make themselves. What we do is summarize and illustrate concepts that can be verified in secondary sources, we don't try to match their formatting, follow their attempts to market/commercialize themselves, appeal to an audience, or any other way they wish to present themselves. An illustration is neither an idea nor a concept, it's a method for presenting ideas/concepts, so long as does not introduce something not found in an RS it isn't OR.AerobicFox (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So if an illustration is neither an idea nor a concept, I would like you to determine the species of this snake. You may not read the file name, the description, or consult an RS with photographs of snakes. Good luck :) Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea/concept would be "some species rattlesnake". The picture is a method of illustrating the concept of some "species of rattlesnake". No matter how you present this rattlesnake: text, video, picture, taxonomy tree, it is still the same concept, but a different method of presenting it. WP:OR deals with original concepts, and not with original methods for illustrating/describing verifiable concepts which we do regularly.AerobicFox (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a photograph of a rattlesnake before? This is why mapping text to images can be so difficult, to the point of conceptual separation. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have seen rattlesnakes in my hometown before(although ours are a different type and look much different). Answer this for me then, would you be opposed to a textual description of a sources image? For instance describing in words the appearance of an artifact. Our current policy allows for us to do so as well as the reverse just as stated in WP:OI which states can create original images to illustrate concepts that have been reported by sources.AerobicFox (talk)

Eraser Alessandra: Agreed on that end part. I've said something similar in the past on these topics. But that wasn't the intent of NOTCENSORED. It's intent, as was indicated in the last paragraph, was to ensure that scientific, political, religious or other groups could not censor Wikipedia due to their beliefs. "Homosexuality: ALL FAGGOTS WILL BURN IN HELL!!!" - guess which religious organization prompted, promoted and posted that? They removed all the relevant content (which they disagreed with) and replaced it with something just like that. There've been more "legitimate" changes that also are covered by not allowing a religious or political organization to make such changes... like in depth rewrites that turn that article into "Bible School" with fancy polite text that still says the same thing - while once again removing chunks of relevant content they (their belief system) disagreed with. And more crude stuff (yes, than the first example) because of religious beliefs, albeit not pinnable on a particular organization. THOSE are the types of actions (especially the second one, where a chunk of the article was turned into a Bible piece condemning homosexuality) that notcensored is for - IMO. Same goes for science types writing "Idiot creatards believe... (total nonsense with their real beliefs removed)" in articles on Creationism and such. Same goes for religious groups lobotomizing scientific articles because it offends their beliefs (such as defacing the "Age of Earth" article by removing whole chunks and dropping in "The Earth is 6,000 years old" and using Bible passages as references. Same goes for CoS wanting information about their religion removed from Wikipedia. Those are censorship.

Get my point now? YES (emphatically), notcensored has been misused. Multiple times. BUT, adding "offending content" to it just creates a scenario for even greater misuse. I don't think we're on the opposite side of this coin. I have a feeling we're on the same side. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If not censored is to fulfil its intended purpose of ensuring that scientific, political, religious or other groups could not censor Wikipedia due to their beliefs, while keeping goatse-type images out, then deference to the practices of most reliable sources in terms of the subject matter conveyed, including the sort of images used, needs to be made explicit. Otherwise, with editors insisting an illustration is neither an idea nor a concept or that RS censor themselves, so we need to set things right, not censored will continue to be misapplied for the defense of the ejaculation video and similar borderline-OR and undue weight content, making a laughingstock out of the project. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And thus, perhaps you see why adding "objectionable" to the mix, instead of fixing the problem, makes it worse by creating the leverage to continue such things? notcensored does not obliviate OR or UNDUE or anything else. And it works both ways. Heck, notcensored isn't even really related to those. That's the thing. It's not a defense for keeping or removing such content - except as a response to "well, my political/religious/personal objections/societal beliefs are against this". Then, it's a valid use. "Your" (general "your" - not you) religious beliefs aren't rationale. Nor "your" political views. Nor mine. Imposing them to remove content is censorship - and when notcensored should come in. That was the problem with two editors in the recent Muhammad Images fiasco. It kept reverting to honoring Islamic religious beliefs they didnt even understand. And that is when notcensored was dragged out. As a valid response to someone trying to use religious beliefs to remove content. As that failed, it became IAR and "oh, they aren't relevant" and "oh, they aren't educational because they aren't real - but lets not apply this uniformly on other articles - just this one". That twisted trail kept leading back to "because it offends...religious beliefs" - which resulted in notcensored validly being dragged out again. For the same reasons (Scientology, LDS and others) that religious/political/etc was added to notcensored in the first place. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If objectionability, or on-wiki controversy, or whatever isn't recognized as a factor in the policy, then we're stuck playing by the same rules for very different types of content. For instance, articles about organizations often include their logos, taken from their own websites, with no proof of republication in RS. That doesn't arouse heated debates. On the other hand, uploading the goatse stretched anus "logo" lead to protracted arguments, culminating in its deletion with a surrogate justification. If we're being honest, then it should be possible to admit that the goatse image was deleted because it was offensive to a large proportion of editors.

Now, when a significant proportion of RS include the same or similar images to the ones we're using, the "it's offensive to editors here" argument should go out the window. This would be the purpose of "not censored": to ensure that material widely published in reliable sources can be included in articles, consistent with NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, irrespective of users wishing to exercise a heckler's veto. The Muhammad images discussion, and similar disputes, should be resolved by reference to how anglophone RS treat the topic.

Considering the objectionability of content widely ignored by reliable sources is simply an acknowledgement of Wikipedia's sloppy image sourcing practices. Including unpublished organizational logos normally isn't considered a violation of WP:WEIGHT, since they form only an incidental portion of the article. Whatever else may be said of the goatse stretched anus and similar images, they aren't remotely incidental. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that if one cites a British encyclopedia as the source in (using the running example) the use of images in the Muhammad article, even though that encyclopedia may carry a known bias due to the fact that those of the Islamic faith represent the second largest religious population in the UK (and it is a PAID for publication that needs to cater towards its audience), we should do the same whenever someone claims "religious objection!!! Oh, and look what they do!"? As for anuses and such, I don't find the image objectional... distasteful, yes, disgusting, sure. But I think there were plenty of other criteria for removing it. I only care about relevance, educational and informational value, due weight, properly sourced... to put it bluntly, I don't give a rat's ass about anyone's feelings on how objectionable content is - including my own - which is why you will never find a single comment from me stating such objections on any topic or image. Not because there aren't any - but because I don't think my standards for making myself offended are the basis for anything here. We aren't here to cater toward those who are buying a printed encyclopedia. We're here to make one without the restrictions such impose. And unlike a printed book, where one can accidentally flip to the wrong page and be "re-offended", that is not possible here, except by choice. It can only happen once. And even that can be prevented using instructions available on this very site (such as in the Muhammad FAQs page). As for me, couldn't care less about the goatse image (inclusion or lack thereof). Had I entered into that debate, I'd only have cared about the rationale behind its inclusion or removal. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad is a very broad subject. Therefore NPOV requires considering the totality of RS available, to the extent reasonable (we can't examine everything, but we can use random sampling.) So, no one encyclopedia, British or otherwise, could provide conclusive guidance for the Muhammad article. We wouldn't even have to find a majority of RS including the images. All that would be needed is a sufficiently large minority of sources using the images that their display in the main article would not violate WP:FRINGE. Per WP:VER, we give use anglophone sources where available. I've no doubt that NPOV favors the inclusion of the Muhammad images despite their extremely controversial status on Wikipedia.

While historical images of Muhammad actually have serious educational value, the value of stretched anuses is negative. Not even so much because of offending people as making the project look like a bad joke. Applying normal (very low) image inclusion standards to this sort of thing will only get us more of it. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Alessandra is right. Some English-language sources on Muhammad include some figurative images (along with calligraphy, images of mosques and such), others avoid figurative images and only show the latter types of images. We need to reflect the overall balance. So a small number of images is in line with NPOV. A proliferation of them is not. --JN466 07:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the "copy other reliable sources" idea is that it would be, in practice, intractable and would solve nothing. As has been pointed out, the presence or absence of an image in a printed source tells us nothing about what we should do in an online encyclopaedia. But, even if we pretend it does, what we then enter into is a series of propositions and counter-propositions about the various sources that do and don't use images of Mohammmed (if we're being honest that removing the goatse image was partly motivated by censorship, we can also be honest that the current discussion is only about one article).

That's already started with the stipulation that we should be looking at anglophone sources. We normally consider sources in any language to be valid RS and, since images have no mother tongue, it seems a little odd to lean that way in this case. So why is this being suggested? Surely not because one side of the argument has calculated that this would work in its favour.

Next, we'll get into all the other reasons why the sources proposed might not be good enough. They're non-neutral. Not representative. Not religious enough. In the wrong medium. Cover too narrow a subject area. No-one will shift sides through any of that, so its pointless. --FormerIP (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

We prefer anglophone sources because WP:VER tells us to. As far as the prospect that using sufficient prevalence in RS to not violate WP:FRINGE as an image inclusion standard will create interminable arguments over references, we argue over sources and NPOV all the time, so this should be nothing new :) However, the current discussion is certainly about more than one article. There are quite a few sexology articles where image inclusion disputes have been framed in terms of "not censored". Any substantive change to the policy would shift the playing field. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

To FormerIP: And I and two others already touched on something else probably relevant to this issue. Various of the pictures of Muhammad were not veiled - veils were painted on later when that became the norm. That begs the question, which holds more relevance in a biography - one that depicts perceptions of what he looked like, or one that depicts perceptions of what he didn't look like because the believe arose that one could not depict what he looked like? That was one of my core arguments. In a biography, one puts depictions of what someone was perceived to look like. Altered paintings where veils were added, or paintings where veils were included as part of the original were done with the specific intent of not depicting what he looked like. That's like going to the article on an engine and seeing the picture (2nd from the bottom, orangish backgroun) having the engine blanked out and the transmission still visible. It not-depicts an engine. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, this proposition would simplify decision-making wrt controversial content. The judgment calls required would be no more problematic than WP:NPOV decisions made all the time here. We do that well. This is about more than Muhammad. It may have spilled over from there and Pregnancy and, for me, Suicide, but it's about controversial content curation in general. Any decision made here will affect the entire project. I prefer to use anglophone sources because I have at least some hope of assessing their academic stature. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To Alessandra, that is not what VER says. It says: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." (emphasis mine) On a topic of greater interest in other countries, it's quite likely that non-English sources will be of greater quality and relevance. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Or we could decide that English sources cover Muhammad just fine. The question affects the text of the article, not just image usage. It's one of those nasty subjectivities that has to be decided upon the basis of unguided editorial discretion.

To give a concrete example about how a manner of presenting content can affect the credibility of the source, consider Giles Brindley's 1983 presentation [30] on phentolamine and papaverine. A room full of urologists, presumably, were not offended by the sight of an erect penis. But they didn't expect to see the presenter drop his pants. That's not the sort of activity that enhances one's academic credibility. Similarly, Wikipedia's choice of images affects how the project is viewed. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrt your concerns about the term "objectionable", the Foundation used "controversial" in part to avoid the problems you point to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, agreed on a lot of it. Hence that coupled with what the full resolution actually said, my objections to "objectionable" and "offensiveness" as being substitutes. I'm sure we've both been around Wikipedia long enough to see tons of Wikilawyering... wording is important to help minimize that. Sadly. :-/ Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

With Muhammad images in reliable sources a good start would be to see which sources covered the Danish Muhammad cartoons and included a reproduction - that would certainly give you which news sources thought it was appropriate at a reasonably recent point in time. With other sources you could probably judge whether they included any images of anything else in their book/article and in which case whether they included an image of Muhammad.

With regards to sources usage of images, actually I have no real idea - I would hope it would be clear one way or the other, and I would guess that it will be somewhere in the middle. It sounds like a problem that has rumbled on for years, and that any attempt to solve it is a step forward and any escalation is more likely to bring about some sort of compromise (e.g. less images or a disclaimer) that only escalation can really bring. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There can be reasons for removing images. The absence of an image in a source deemed to be somehow similar to our article is not one of those reasons. That argumentation can be presented on an article Talk page and it might sway a few editors, but that sort of reasoning should not be elevated to the level of a policy guideline. Wikipedia articles are unique entities. Yes, they must contain no information that is not verifiable. But images are not verifiable information—certainly not in the sense that verbal assertions are information. It is true that sufficient information has to be available about an image for it to be acceptable for inclusion. We have to know that it is what it purports to be. But I think that images are invested with words when used in a primarily verbal presentation such as in a Wikipedia article. An image stands mute aside from the surrounding words in an article. An image cannot be untrue, unless we are mistaking its identity. WP:RS concerns itself with verifiability. The notion of reassigning WP:RS to standing as gatekeeper of images is without logic. If one wishes to argue that an image should not be in an article one has to show that the image fails to advance the aims of the article. One has to convince one's fellow editors that the article would be better off without the image. In the case of the "goatse" image an argument could have been made that the image was not central to understanding the goatse web site. I don't know if that would have swayed fellow editors, but that argument does not need a change in policy language. And if editors decide that the spread anus belongs in the goatse article then I believe it belongs there. I would argue against it. But I don't accept that there is a standard of "offensive" in imagery and I refuse to understand that the failure of some other reliable source to include an image translates into an inability of this encyclopedia to include that image. Imagery is nonverbal in most cases, unless a strong verbal assertion is included in the imagery itself, and even this is not conclusive. Surrounding text is what matters—that must be reliably sourced. WP:WEIGHT too is not a policy that is applicable to images, unless the surrounding text is in violation of WP:WEIGHT. The article Talk page is the place for resolving disputes about inclusion of images. Each article is unique. No arguments are barred from such discussions. I think an editor can present the argument that a source does not contain the image that other editors wish to add to the article. But other editors will probably point out the differences between the source and our article, and that is the way it should be. No special status should be given to the argument that some other source does not contain an image that happens to be in dispute. That is an attempt to create an unfair, and illogical, means of keeping images out of articles. I don't believe there is any inherently "objectionable content" as concerns images. Language in policy should not be concocted to create a not-level playing field in this regard. Time-consuming as it is, the place for arriving at resolutions to such questions is on the article's Talk page, although there could be a separate noticeboard set up just for addressing, project-wide, the inclusion/exclusion of images. That an image is "offensive" is in my opinion one of the weakest reasons for arguing that an image should be removed. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop: Next time I'm just creating a heading and asking you to do the actual post. I tend to ramble a bit and post my thoughts in 5 disjointed posts - unlike your single post above that covers pretty much everything. ;-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree that it covers anything. "An image cannot be untrue, unless we are mistaking its identity." True, but irrelevant. In order to be useful in articles, images must be accompanied by captions describing their purported relation to the subject. That is text, and needs to be verifiable. In articles about obscure subjects, we've been sloppy about this, taking the photographer at their word. However, there is no excuse for this approach on high profile articles. To verify that the image caption is true, in the sense of accurately describing the subject matter depicted, an image in a reliable source is needed for comparison, unless the image is a graph or similar compilation of published data. An image is worth a thousand words; one cannot conclusively infer from a published description such as "a man, in his thirties, with light skin, black hair, light brown eyes, a medium to heavy-set build, and a neatly trimmed moustache" an association between an image and the person described. So, if you want to say that photos don't need to be supported by sources, you're right - until they're added to articles with captions purporting to identify them that may or may not be accurate.

Now, given that the association between images and their captions is substantive content requiring verification, it is likewise subject to NPOV. If you want to say that we don't care how many MEDR discussing ejaculation include a video of the act, fine - but we do care about how many MEDRS caption videos as such. That much is text, which no amount of sophistry will unbind from our content policies. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding proper captions, I believe Bus stop implied that above. And regardless, it is something all or most of us in this discussion understand as a necessary requirement (a bunch of us went to great lengths to properly caption the images on Muhammad, for instance) - as a matter of fact, based on the experience of all of the editors commenting here, I'd surmise that all of us understand that requirement, even if not specifically spelled out above in Bus stop's post. As for sources, I suspect, as everyone will recall, images must have sources when uploaded - so that too is covered. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not sources for the captions when already assuming that the photo is really what it claims to be, but sources for the image/caption association (the caption says this is an image of John Doe, but how can this be verified?) These associations, if reliably sourced, are then subject to NPOV and due weight in their usage. Simply saying "you said something or other about captions, so I'll explain how much I like proper captions" isn't helpful. I doubt this issue is resolved because "images must have sources when uploaded", since, while {{GFDL-self}} is normally valid for copyright purposes, it is not an editorially reliable source. It's obvious that our understandings of what's a reliable source are quite different. This isn't in contravention of WP:OI, since original text likewise requires verification in RS. As thoroughly explained above, text is often not sufficient to verify the image/caption association. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The absence of this sort of (NSFW) image in reputable sources on cucumbers is most certainly a reason not to include this or similar images in cucumber. It's not up to us to depart markedly from illustration conventions in reliable sources, and to give preference to rare types of imagery over standard ones, even if they do depict the article subject. --JN466 18:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants to be taken as something more than a Frat boy encyclopaedia, and wants to get taken seriously as a reference site (even if just for school projects) then posting things like Goatse has to go.

Additionally if you follow reliable sources that is a great way to avoid making large numbers of unnecessary arguments about whether a particular image is suitable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the reason not to use an image like that in the cucumber is because it doesn't do a good job of illustrating any part of the article. If we had an article or section on the use of vegetables as masturbatory aids, then it's possible it might be a good image to illustrate that page (but as we don't have such an article/section (as far as I know), and I don't know what other images are available, it isn't possible to say for sure).

If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a reference site then it is best to use the images that best illustrate the topic in question. I'm not aware that we are viewed as a "Frat boy encyclopaedia" (but please give a reference to a reliable source if I'm wrong), nor that we normally have large numbers of unnecessary arguments about whether an image is suitable - we have over 3.8 million articles, and less than 5 examples have been cited on this page. I'm also not aware that, other than quickly reverted vandalism, we have any significant problem with using clearly inappropriate images to illustrate an article. An image of an erect penis is a suitable illustration for the penis article, it is not suitable for the Pokemon article, which is why we don't use such an image on that page. Equally, outside of vandalism, the Goastse image was never proposed for any article that didn't discus the Goatse image/website; so all this talk of "Goatse images must stop" is entirely a red herring - there is nothing to stop.

Regarding matching other reliable sources, this is always going to be inaccurate because you cannot prove a negative. If a reliable source uses an image, we can be sure that they determined it was appropriate for them to use. However if they didn't use an image, we cannot be sure why they didn't - perhaps they didn't have one available; maybe they determined that they could only use n images (either for the specific topic or for the whole work) for xyz reasons and that this image was the n+1th best; alternatively they didn't think it relevant for their target audience - e.g. if your audience is gynaecologists then you don't need to use a generic image to illustrate the concept of pregnancy, if your target audience is primary school-age Muslim girls in Pakistan your image choice is going to be different to if your target audience is a mixed class of A-level biology students in the United Kingdom). Maybe they did think the image was inappropriate for all reliable sources, perhaps they said "we'd love to use an image like this, but we can't afford the rights to it", or "We're not using this image because the publisher doesn't like it". We can never know the reason why an image is not included, and we can't know how many sources would have used an image if they could. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Following what RSes use mostly is fine for most articles. However, for topics which deal with subjects that are sensative to a given demographic will censor themselves. FE, most mainstream magazines or television programs won't show a picture or video of ejaculation. However, educational sources, especially sex education ones, will. If we simply go with the "majority" viewpoint we are going to be promoting a whitewashed version of reality because the majority of RSes in most cases are going to whitewash their information so as not to alienate or more likely cause bad press through controversy.

Furthermore, even we ignore that aspect, sources may not have images or video for technical reasons. First, video cannot exist in print media. It is physcially impossible with current technology to have a video appear on a piece of paper (sorry to say, this isn't the world of Harry Potter). For images, they use a lot of resources when transfering over the net therefore certain sites may decide for technical reasons to exclude them. On print that limit doesn't exist, but the costs of images still come with the cost of paper. If you want to give as much info as possible and have a limited amount of paper to do so, often using text is better. Wikipedia isn't made of paper though and except as a secondary consideration, doesn't consider page size.∞陣内Jinnai 21:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a textbook WP:ACTIVIST violation. Per WP:NPOV, we simply do not decide that RS "censor themselves" or "the majority of RSes in most cases are going to whitewash their information", so we have to set things right. To quote the (in)famous sentence in WP:VER, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Wikipedia portrays the world as RS see it, not as you believe it is, or would like it to be. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alessandra. And since when did we say "follow mainstream sources" or "follow paper sources"? The recommendation is to follow reliable sources, as in all the reliable sources, including online and specialty sources. The alternative is to follow the personal opinions of whichever editors happen to be working on the page, and I really don't think that's our best method of choosing images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't write articles which are parallels of other articles. We don't write articles that are congruent to other articles. Articles can be written with or without the inclusion of images. We are writing articles that do not exist elsewhere. We can choose to include an image where another article did not include an image. We make choices. We are not free to assert that which is not verifiable in reliable sources. But we are free to use our own means to convey accurate information. We can choose our own words and we can choose to include images or not to include images. If an editor disagrees that the inclusion of a given image contributes to conveying to a reader accurate information, that argument should be presented, and if a consensus of editors agrees—it should be removed. It would not matter if a source included the particular image or not. We are making editorial decisions. A consensus at Wikipedia determines if we include that image or not. We don't just include images if they are tenuously related to the subject of the article. We make editorial decisions. We may be responsible editors and we may be "Frat boys" as mentioned above. Every edit to an article is a choice. In trying to be responsible editors are we going to urge the inclusion of the cucumber-in-the-vagina image in our article titled Cucumber? The reason for not posting that image to that article is not that reliable sources on cucumbers do not include that image or related images, but rather because we are trying to create an encyclopedia and we have an idea of what sort of articles this project can produce. It is not inconceivable that the cucumber-in-the-vagina photo could be included in our "cucumber" article but we feel that in our judgement that its inclusion would not be warranted, and we can present cogent arguments to that effect on the relevant article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that we get editors that steadyfastily say "well, that doesn't offend me, so it must stay or you're breaking NOTCENSORED". This is what is creating the problem. This is why we have to twist the problem on the side to point to the fact that we are not creating new factual information, which includes the novel approach of illustrating articles, and ask the question of what reliable sources actually use when discussing the topic in significant detail. Thus, if an editor tries to introduce an illustration that takes an approach that no other RS has done in the past, we shouldn't be allowing that either. I will admit there are probably fringe cases where IAR applies to this, but in general, this is a fair rule that works for most content. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The only time that "that doesn't offend me, so it must stay or you're breaking NOTCENSORED" is a valid argument is to counter the removal of content because someone declares it "offensive", and even then it's not the best counter. What they should be saying is "Wikipedia is not censored, so being "offensive" is not a reason to remove content. If you think that this doesn't illustrate the topic, or you think there is a better image, then discuss it on the talk page". Just as being offensive to some people is not a valid reason to remove an image, not being offensive to someone is not a reason it must stay. If you want to argue for the removal of an image based on it's none-use in some reliable sources, then do so. However it is not a trump card, and other editors do not have to agree with you. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This mantra that I hear repeated ad nauseam "we don't care if content insults or offends readers" is getting old. Offensive does matter. It harms the project. Bus stop asserts we can leave controversial content choices to the instincts of whatever editors congregate around an article. It doesn't work. Goatse would still be illustrated with that offensive image if it had had the necessary license. Bus stop, no one's going to successfully argue a porno picture onto Cucumber, but there are too many cases where inappropriate content is allowed to stand, held in place by a conga line of frat boys chanting WP:NOT. Jayen's proposal is an elegant solution to a real problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf's comment about when and why we replace offensive images with less offensive ones should probably be added to WP:Offensive material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think so. The only time its brought up that someone has a problem is when its an indivisual basis where they object to it personally and refuse to listen to any legitimate arguments why it should say citing specifically that they find it objectionable and thus it should be removed. There are exceptions to that rule and I have seen long-standing images removed or replaced on occasion so its not like Wikipedians are completely daft about public opinion. It's more of a case that if you go to an article about ejaculation, you should have some expectation that you may come across an image that you find disturbing because the topic covers info that the is to a number of people disturbing to talk or think about. Going to cucumber on the other hand, someone doesn't have the expectation because while vegetables are used as sexual objects, its not for most people the first idea that comes to mind in most cases and even if it did come to mind as a thought in your mind, most people would still not expect the article to go into depth about such things. If they went to another article about vegetables used as sexual devices, that might be different because there is a different level of expectation.

That said, I know there are a lot of terms out there for sex, violence, etc. that people don't know and may see a wikilink to the term and are not sure based on the context what it is, but be curious enough to check it. That's why we should perhaps treat the lead sections with a bit more caution when having controversial images there so as to not offend someone who did not intentionally go to the link simply because they wanted some clarification. While the image or video would do that quite well, possibly better than text, it one doesn't need to have to have the controversial material always in the lead. However, guidance like that is not for WP:NOTCENSORED, but for WP:LEAD and WP:PROFANE.∞陣内Jinnai 02:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Anthony: Your position seems to be that we should adopt an approach more inclined to censor precisely because the consensus of editors is opposed to that. You're entitled to your opinion, but can you see how that might look like a weak way to frame your argument? --FormerIP (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No, my position is we should treat controversial content the way reliable sources and similar publications do. I honestly don't know what the community as a whole thinks about that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Editorial standards are based on community consensus and not from reliable sources, so you should familiarize yourself with what the community wants. We did not base The Five Pillars of our encyclopedia off of what RS's do. Wikipedians by and large do not believe in censorship, and the argument that because other sources believe in censorship that we must also is a run around of consensus because no part of any of our policies agree with such a position. If you want to run a poll which states "If sources are censoring material then we should to" then go ahead, but it will have an infinitesimal chance of passing.AerobicFox (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Some very popular reliable sources, particularly from the Murdoch stable, feature Page Three girls. A link from that article takes me to The Sexiest 100 Page 3 girls. Breasts and nipples everywhere! I suspect these would be unacceptable in conservative parts of the USA, but are obviously OK in the UK and other countries where they exist. It's impossible to declare a clear, single community standard on this stuff. Do the conservatives really want to ban from Wikipedia material that is commonly published in the daily press? HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The type of works that feature Page Three girls are likely not reliable sources to use for material. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Murdoch outlets are usually excellent sources for sports news. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And more importantly, are they publishing semi-nude girls alongside articles on topics of interest for WP? It's one thing if there are questionable images that appear within a larger published work, but we're talking about images used in conjunction with actually article content. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems as though your opinion is that if a source has an editorial staff known for fact checking publishes explicit photos then they are not reliable. Am I getting this right? This almost seems like No true RS would publish explicit content so I will try to pass a policy saying to follow RS's, and if a source does post explicit content then it isn't a true RS.AerobicFox (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too generous with ascribing "editorial staff known for fact checking" to Murdoch's operations generally. This describes The Economist, Der Speigel, The New Yorker, and so forth. The Sun, not so much, and I don't think applying Murdochian standards to our articles would probably be a good way to go. Other than that, not sure what the point is? Obviously there will always be people like Murdoch, but what has that do with reliable sources or, really, anything? Herostratus (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Murdoch outlets are usually excellent sources for sports news. They are frequently used as such in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What the hell does Murdock have to do with anything? I am responding to this "The type of works that feature Page Three girls are likely not reliable sources to use for material.", a generalized comment stating that works with topless models are likely not reliableAerobicFox (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is slightly off topic, but a work that purports to be serious but publishes nude photos for tantalization only is hard to take seriously in any other aspect; not always unusable, but throws a lot of discreditation to the publication as a whole and would be the type I'd replace with more reliable sources if I could. On topic: again, they aren't publishing page three nude photos inside an article about the latest World Cup match, ergo, the fact that a nude photo is in the larger volume makes absolutely no impact on the discussion on whether what we should illustrate the World Cup match (or other tied topics) with. In other words, when assessing the types of images that available sources employ for the World Cup match, the page three nudes would not even be part of the body of work to consider since they're not part of the article. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"a work that purports to be serious but publishes nude photos for tantalization only is hard to take seriously in any other aspect" in other words, "if it publishes things I don't like it isn't a reliable source" which when combined with your insistence only doing what reliable sources do is a brilliant way to enforce your POV on the encyclopaedia. Reliable sources are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.", regardless of whether you like what they publish or not. Remember that WP:NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" which is why WP:NOTCENSORED exists - the two concepts are inseparable. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of the bias and independence of the source, putting its reliability into question, if they're throwing such images simply to tantilate, even if unrelated to all other content in the work, into the larger publication. This is what is begging the question here on WP: how can people take this work seriously if we're using images of questionable nature when less objectionable but of equivalent educational value exist? Note that I did not say we never can use such sources that have such images elsewhere in the publication body, just that I would try to find something else first if I can (like, if you are talking sporting events, that's certainly going to be published in a less questionable work.) --MASEM (t) 16:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Our priorities are firstly providing info and secondly being taken seriously. If a source has a known reputation for fact checking then it is reliable, your argument that "if they place nude pics to tantalize then despite this they aren't reliable" will do nothing but open the door for "they publish(what I consider) to be inflammatory/incendiary material, so they aren't reliable" or "they publish XXX which I don't like and think is unprofessional, so they aren't reliable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AerobicFox (talk • contribs)

I never said I didn't like it. I do think, however, when you are publishing certain things like that, or headlines and news stories specifically for the spectacle and not the intrinsic news value, you bring into question whether you are seriously fact-checking everything you publish (eg twisting perspectives to gain the largest audience) and are not a source that cannot be taken professionally, even if every other news item could fully meet all other requirements for WP. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, you say that we didn't derive the 5 pillars from reliable sources. That is true. However, the second pillar ties us to reputable sources. It asks us to present information in due proportion to its prominence in the best and most reputable sources, rather than allowing us to make things up as we go along. And the community consensus is that this is how it should be. --JN466 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Community consensus is as you have stated "to present information in due proportion to its prominence in the best and most reputable sources", it is not as you are otherwise basically claiming "to attach WEIGHT to the presentation and style of reliable sources". What you are arguing is essentially to merge WP:MOS with WP:WEIGHT which no matter what subject you are dealing with, citation styles, etc, will never be passed because it's on its face a huge and unrealistic burden.AerobicFox (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@FormerIP. Elaborating on my earlier response. You equate exercising good taste with censorship. They're different. One is motivated by concern not to offend and disaffect our readers, the other is motivated by a belief that others haven't the right to see or read certain material. Most of us are opposed to the latter, censorship. And most of us are opposed to creating unnecessary offense. This is a dispute between editors who see the difference and those who can't. Who'll win the day? I don't know. But I sense the time has come to challenge the mantra "we don't care if we offend our readers." I certainly care. This is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in anarchy or a platform for activists. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is that we're trying to address three different cases at one time:

• Case 1 is where a clear minority of editors insist that an image that is offensive to the large majority of editors shouldn't be removed because otherwise we're violating NOTCENSORED. This is where NOTCENSORED can be improved by pointing to sources: if the minority assert that such images are appropriate but no reliable source ever uses that type of image, we shouldn't be using it either. That's not censoring, that's avoiding original research. (As well as concensus). We should add language to NOTCENSORED to make it clear that it doesn't protect the fringe cases like this.
• Case 2 is where a clear minority of editors insist that an image is offensive to them or some group they asset, and that we should remove it. This is specifically what NOTCENSORED addresses presently - we don't remove content because it is offensive to a small group. No changes are needed here.
• Case 3 is the one that falls between the extremes: a significant fraction (not a small minority) of editors recognizes something is offensive to them or to a group of readers; or a significant fraction recognizes that such offensive imagery is really okay, showing that such imagery is used in reliable sources. In such cases, there are clearly no simple rules; my argument to improving NOTCENSORED wording is that if reliable sources use such imagery on a regular basis, then WP editors can chose to the do same; at that point, it is debate for consensus to determine which imagery is best to use assuming that all choices are of equivalent educational value. My only personal cavaet is that we should be smart and possess enough common sense that when there are two or more equally appropriate choices with one that may be more offensive than the other to use the less offensive version. But that's what I would do; there is no policy that can require this beyond the Foundation's request to avoid shocking the reader.

But again, this still all comes down to making sure we are following the footprints of what the bulk of reliable sources have done before to maintain ourselves as a tertiary source. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, Masem there may be technical reasons sources don't use images (and moreso audio and video). Your proposal does not in any way take this valid point into consideration. It assumes there will always be (outside FRINGE), some non-textual representation.∞陣内Jinnai 17:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no dearth of illustrated sources on ejaculation, sexual intercourse, pregnancy, Muhammad, the holocaust, Gaddafi's death, gangrene, suicide, body painting or most other topics that might result in a discussion of how due a particular type of image is. Where there is a genuine dearth of illustrated sources, we could go one level up and conform to standards for topics in the same general content area. (On the other hand, a genuine dearth of sources may also indicate that the topic is not notable). Also note that we are generally able to cite TV programmes, videos on news websites, documentary films etc. --JN466 17:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I recognize this is a case but would be very hard pressed to think of how it can actually occur. But let's assume it does, that while there's a large body of RS on a topic, none of them had the technical ability to include visual guides. In such as case, I would then say to look at what the sources that can include pictures on a closely related topic would incorporate. It would not be OR to create new imagery for topic X based on the types of imagery for topics near X. If it so happens that all closely related topics to X are in the same boat, that no sources had the technical capability to include sources, we then just need to rely on common sense of what to use. But I'm pretty confident of these being extremely rare cases where that may happen. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well here is a question then just to throw out a what if; How many people would need to find something objectionable before we take their point of view and apply it? In my own opinion this shouldn't matter but we keep coming back to the if enough people find it offensive argument. I don't think we can assign a number, as doing so smaller groups (one's around the target number but not over it) will complain of discrimination while larger groups can insist on radical changes through strength in numbers. For example in most muslim countries it is customary for women to wear full coverings, do we plan to cater to that expectation as well? For those that can't draw the similarity in the argument remeber this group would be considered large enough to cater to on articles like the Muhammad page. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than "more than 1 person" its probably impossible to nail down a number because it depends on the article. That's why I suggested rewiting WP:PROFANE instead (in addition to WP:LEAD).∞陣内Jinnai 22:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the beauty if this proposal: if we follow what reliable sources do, we don't need to decide who to avoid offending. If most articles on Jesus don't illustrate with Piss Christ, then we don't. If most articles on Muhammad don't have lots of Islamic figurative depictions, we don't. If most reliable sources on Saudi Arabia don't have the naked face of a woman on the cover, we don't put one in the lead of Saudi Arabia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't go for that idea personally. Most sources cater to specific groups, and thus will censor things for them. I guarentee if I look up an article for saudi arabia I can find precedence for veils and hijabs on women. Again it comes down to is this group large enough to force the rest of the people in the world to adhere to its own beliefs? That is why I continue to believe that everyone should be ignored if you make a project beholden to a group for any reason they have a stick to beat you with forever more. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is precisely about not becoming beholden to any extremist group, on either side. We simply follow the sources, which is our modus operandi already. We are already beholden to sources, intentionally so. --JN466 17:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If a topic is only covered by a certain set of sources, with a readily-known self-censoring on certain types of images, then we still can only follow what those sources say because we have no idea how the rest of the world would treat the topic. But when the topic is broadly covered by more than just that self-censored, even if the topic "belongs" to that group, then we can look at the other sources to see what type of imagery is used, and then consider what the best approach is. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This is inherently unworkable, puts an unreasonable onus on the article editors, and overall comes across as an attempt to get the image-censoring movement a victory by technicality. An encyclopedia is not a copy service, we're not just trawling through other sources and duplicating what we find there. The project should be free to use or not use images according to our own existing policies and guidelines to determine appropriateness. This extra condition of "how other sources use images" is a bad proposal. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because it is the path of least resistance doesn't make it right. As it is now most individuals (using the muhammad article as an example) are willing to work with people if they have genuine concerns as long as they aren't about offense. We could stand to have more images of his calligraphy as long as they add something new to the mix. However to decide to remove all portraits is considerably about appeasing a group because it is their end want. On the argument for several images ground has already been broken on probable removal because they aren't helping the article and they certainly shouldn't take up space just because (we have too many images as is.) All of the removal considerations are based on merit and what they provide, not because someone is offended. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Is the intention of the section Wikipedia is not a democracy to convey the idea that consensus polls are not desirable for helping to make decisions about content in Wikipedia, and that this idea is supported by the link in that section, "not an experiment in democracy"? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority", period. However, a straw poll might reveal the simple but comparatively rare case where there are no arguments against an issue. Uniplex (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but it didn't directly address my question regarding "not desirable" and the support from the link. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is strongly supported by the link; the reason why: that polls tend to impede determination of consensus (by directing attention towards personal opinion and away from discussion viewed through the lens etc.) is not directly supported by the link. Uniplex (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the link really making a comment on polls or on whether or not Wikipedia is a democracy? It said, "Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy" and "We *are* a grand social experiment of course. But not _primarily_." Here's what is at the link for reference.

David Gerard wrote:
> Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a
> project to write an encyclopedia.

This should be printed out and handed to every single person on the planet. I think I'll start a new nonprofit organzation to do that. Wikimedia will give everyone an encyclopedia. The new organization will give everyone a piece of paper explaining: it's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy.

We *are* a grand social experiment of course. But not _primarily_.

Well said.

--Jimbo

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It looks like the link is implying that Wikipedia is a democracy, but that it is not primarily an experiment in democracy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose this appeal to Jimbo's authority. Setting all other considerations aside, he does not say we are an experiment in democracy. We aren't; we are an experiment in consensus. Polls can demonstrate consensus; they can also demonstrate absense of consensus. When the latter, usual, case exists, they tend to delay the discussion that actually produces consensus. For much, much more, see the guideline WP:VOTE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

1) Re "I very strongly oppose this appeal to Jimbo's authority." - There is currently in the "...not a democracy" section of this policy the above mentioned link to Jimbo's comment. Are you suggesting that the link be removed?

If so, are you suggesting its removal because it just became apparent that Jimbo's comment has been misinterpreted in this policy? In any case, the misinterpretation of Jimbo's comment should be corrected, either by removing the link or correcting the misinterpretation.

2) Re "he does not say we are an experiment in democracy" - Actually he does seem to imply that. He enthusiastically quotes David Gerard who said, "Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia." Jimbo adds, "We *are* a grand social experiment of course. But not _primarily_." In these comments Jimbo neither says that Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor does he say that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. What he does say is that Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in democracy. The policy is misinterpreting Jimbo's comment.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's (your interpretation) pretty much my reading of the Jimbo quote. I agree with him and David Gerard on that point, too. It is a grand social experiment. I think the impact of Wikipedia, thanks to its practical epistemology, is comparable in importance to the invention of moveable type; but this incidental thing, its unique, uber-transparent form of self-governance, may turn out to be its greatest contribution to civilisation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's note is the reason that the phrasing "not primarily an experiment" is in there at all. I would have said, before reading Anthony Cole's note, that this could stand simply as consensus. If I were Jimbo, I would remove it; he has often objected to his comments being treated as revelation. As myself, I might make it a footnote, as the history of the idea; but I don't feel strongly about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You've misquoted policy regarding the phrase. Please reread it. Also, it's a matter of Jimbo's comment being misinterpreted by the policy section, as I mentioned in my last message. Jimbo's message is being misinterpreted to support the ideas of that policy section, which it doesn't when it isn't misinterpreted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the link but kept the phrase so that the text is unchanged. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

From above, Jimbo says “it's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy”; i.e. he does say that

• Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy.

The policy says:

• “Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy”.

Where's the problem? Uniplex (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Uniplex, You've misquoted the message. Please read it again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have done, but I still can't see the problem. Copied and pasted from Jimbo's post above:

“ The new organization will give everyone a piece of paper explaining: it's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy. ”

Uniplex (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Uniplex, You’re right. My mistake. Somehow I overlooked that part of the message. I have undone my edit on the project page. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the RFC of a previous section

This RFC has generated more than 417,388 bytes of discussion. Can an administrator really expected to read through everything, then determine what the "consensus" is, other than by reference to their own opinion of how each argument happens to strike them? The "consensus, not a vote" model can work in article content RFCs and AFDs because they are normally much smaller, and are guided by a direct application of content policies. Here, we're trying to determine what the policy should be; to the extent "not censored" is being used to override NPOV as it stands, the latter policy may thereby be considered modified. So, an "admin applying policy" is unworkable. This situation is analogous to arbcom elections, which are explicitly votes, and RFAs, which are in practice. Much as I would like the closing admin to determine that "not censored" cannot be used contrary to NPOV, and that it undermines Wikipedia's academic credibility, I accept that that view may not carry the day. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How is "not censored" being used to override "NPOV"? The arguements made by myself and others opposing the changes proposed by Ludwigs2 et al are that they would introduce POV and bias where none currently exists. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this behavior does happen. Usually, it's a new editor complaining about an image that is not, strictly speaking, DUE for the given use in an article. The person doesn't usually have the sophistication to say "Hey, this is an NPOV violation, because most of the sources don't take this approach with their images"; they usually try to argue from common-sense expectations of readers, as in "This odd approach is going to needlessly offend people".

And the equally unsophisticated, and equally common, response amounts to "See NOTCENSORED and shut up already, because only people I hold in contempt for being {religious|squeamish|prudish} would complain about this".

NOTCENSORED shouldn't be invoked as a trump card to override NPOV issues, but it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a behavioural and educational problem that will not be at all altered by the proposed changes to the policy, if anything it will make the problem worse, e.g. through arguments about why $source does or does not use an image/media of a given type, whether $group's sensibilites are ok to ignore, whether $other_group should have a say, etc, etc. (see all the discussion on this point above). Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous - this problem has been going on for years, and the worst abusers of NOTCENSORED are all highly experienced regulars. If this were going to be resolved by 'behavioral' or 'educational' methods it would be resolved already, but in fact policy is being used to enforce ignorant attitudes and poor behavior. So policy needs to change. --Ludwigs2 04:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem though is that there actually is no problem. You have made many, many proposals that have been rejected. Someday you just might have to consider the possibility that we're right, and you kinda...aren't. Tarc (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is clear you see no problem. I, for one, see a problem. I disagree with your view that "When deciding to include an image in an article, offense is simply a negligible concern." I, and many others here, believe it's an important second order concern after educational merit, bearing in mind that educational merit may be overwhelmed and negated by extremely disaffecting content.

MASEM's proposal offers a formula that will deal with this legitimate concern while avoiding the literally interminable Talk:Muhammad/images and Talk:Pregnancy time sinks. It will have the opposite effect to that predicted by Thryduulf, and vastly reduce the amount of talk page conflict over image use. We are perfectly capable of assessing whether RSs usually lead an article about Saudi Arabia with an image of a woman's naked face, whether they usually lead discussions of pregnancy with a picture of a naked woman, illustrate discussions of suicide with pictures of suicide, illustrate a four or five page article about Muhammad with six figurative depictions of the man, etc, etc. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, agree with the above editor that "there actually is no problem" is probably an insufficiently nuanced view of the matter. Also not sure that "we're right" is an especially useful construct here. As it's proposing rather than interpreting policy, I don't see a right/wrong dichotomy as particularly helpful. Herostratus (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you haven't really been paying attention to the last month or so of tendentious proposals from this same handful of editors, all looking for whatever crack can be exposed to get rid of images they find objectionable personally...or images that outside groups find objectionable, so they argue on their behalf. "Not censored" is being used quite appropriately to protect the project and its articles from unnecessary, busybody meddling. Tarc (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it shows neglect of Ludwigs2's edits over the last several years. He seems completely unable to accept that there are points of view that are irrelevant to a secular encyclopedia's editorial policies, and religious points of view are the most easily recognized members of that class. People that believe in haunted microphones, quack medicine, and similar things are there as well, but not as easily classified. Offensiveness is one thing, but any policy that attempts to address it is going to wind up having to deal with the issue of people taking offense over issues that we cannot take notice of.—Kww(talk) 18:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Images are unfortunately not a simple matter of black and white. In deciding on the appropriateness of images, we have to go by what is in reliable secondary sources, without trying to make meta-commentaries on those sources, either individually or as a whole. Indeed sometimes the most appropriate sources need not exist in profusion, even for topics like the life of Muhammad. Objections to images, where there is a degree of ambiguity, should in the final resort be left as a personal choice. That will presumably/hopfully be provided by the individual settings for the image filter. Having looked at how the filter will probably function, my understanding is that explicit on-screen warnings would appear for articles where potential problems have been identified. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, as has been said many times previously (though it's probably hard to find in the excess of verbiage), 'personal choice' is not a panacea. In the real world, people are not allowed to walk around nude in public on the grounds that other people have the 'personal choice' not to look. People are not allowed to shoot at each other because other people have a 'personal choice' to buy handguns of their own. Every society in the world naturally restricts the rights of individuals in small ways so that other people in the community don't have to go out of their way to avoid whatever silly thing the individual takes it into his head to do. Don't get me wrong, I admire the Wikipedia principles about liberty, but liberty taken to irrational extremes (like anything else taken to extremes) becomes seriously retarded. The argument you're making boils down to "Wikipedia can be as stupidly arrogant as editors can make it be, because if our readers don't like it they can stop looking," which simply sucks the marrow out of NPOV. That's not what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about. --Ludwigs2 06:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) When I wrote "not black and white", I was referring to various nuanced discussions on images which Ludwigs2 might have missed. From what I understand, for the Muhammad images, consensus is that after looking at sources, we have agreed on a few images, with improvement of content to accompany them. (This applies to images of the Night Journey and possibly the "Ship of Faith".) Even once editors on an individual article have decided amongst themselves on appropriate images, the image filter would nevertheless still enable individual wikipedians to change the settings to mask even those images; I believe that they could also mask all images. If Ludwigs2 is now objecting to the image filter, that is another issue. There were a very large number of responses across all the wikipedias in different languages to the questionnaire which Risker helped analyse. It is a very similar idea to "safe search" on google images. It obviously is an important element in the discussion of images, whether we like it or not. Mathsci (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci: I am not objecting to the image filter; I am saying that the presence of the image filter is not an excuse for indulging in poor judgement. Just because people can choose not to look at images does not mean that that we should go out of our way to include imagery that they don't want or need to see.

with respect to the other, I actually don't object to the compromise that you and Jayen have been working out in Muhammad talk. I haven't looked at it really closely - I said I'd stay off the page for a while - but as far as I can tell on a cursory examination it is fairly close to what I was asking for in the first place, before the whole discussion spun out into the twilight zone. So as far as that goes: good job, well, done, thank you, and I only wish you could have shown up to do it weeks ago and saved me a whole lot of headaches. One of these days (or so I keep hoping) people will actually listen to what I'm asking for before they decide I'm the spawn of Satan. Faint hope, I know, but I'm an optimist.

P.s. it is OK to speak directly to me, you know; responding to my post by speaking about me in the third person in unsubtle. --Ludwigs2 08:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The third person was used because the comment was originally placed beneath Anthonyhcole's comment, but he moved and reformatted it without asking me. Presumably you could have checked that yourself. Please be more careful what you write in future. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Unimportant. humor. relax… --Ludwigs2 08:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that my reformatting caused confusion. I was trying to keep threads on a similar idea together. Please feel free, both of you, to revert me if you see me making a mistake like that again. I think you have a good point, Mathsci. Once the filter is in place, provided the preference options are set intelligently, most of the problems with controversial content will be resolved. In the meantime though, we have a problem. Some content is so offensive to some readers that they will avoid Wikipedia articles because of it. For the time being, when removal of that content is not significantly going to impact the educational value of an article, would you support its removal? Do you acknowledge that there are images on Wikipedia that add nothing significant to the readers' understanding and yet are offensive to a significant number of our readers?

Where is the discussion about the image filter happening? Jayen answered this question in the section below. The discussion is here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a problem with what you did: Mathsci simply views everything I do in a jaundiced light. old history; no help for it until he decides to get over it. Assuming he ever does.

I disagree with what you said about the image filter: the point is to make appropriate articles, not to make inappropriate articles that the reader can filter into appropriateness (if s/he can figure out how). --Ludwigs2 16:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we disagree on that point. Presently, I'm of the view that an intelligent image filter will free up image use enormously. Once a decent filter is in place, I'll feel a lot better about including a "drunken Muhammad" image in Muhammad#Western reception. Though that section deserves such an image, at the moment I feel that, on balance, it would be better not to put it there and alienate a bunch of readers. If Muslims have the option to set "Muslim friendly" on their preferences, no problem. The same applies to Pregnancy and even, yes, Goatse - assuming, of course, the options on the image filter are set intelligently. I favour having the filter default to ultra-conservative (all filters on), by the way. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose by this same logic that White Supremacists could add all sorts of appropriate anti-semitic imagery to articles on Judaism because people have the option to set "Jewish Friendly" in their preferences? This is the problem with the image filter: it creates a de facto 'separate but equal' standard, and as we all know 'separate but equal' is rarely separate and never equal. As I said, I don't object to the Image Filter concept - which is a good thing - but it has to be used in the context of ethical consideration. Using a technological solution to mask an ongoing social/ethical concern is just going to blow up in our faces, sooner or later. --Ludwigs2 17:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

First, let me be clear. I'm assuming an intelligent filter, and from what Jayen's just said in the below thread, I'm not sure that's what we're getting. But, assuming it's the kind of thing that a Muslim can click once and be confident she won't see breasts, dicks, bottoms or Muhammad, or a typical Westerner can click and be confident she won't see Goetse, I believe it will free us to apply NPOV without worrying about alienating large groups of readers. NPOV would presumably prevent white supremacists from adding antisemitic images to most articles, filter or no filter. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the RfC, Alessandra, this present discussion on MASEM's proposal is clarifying many issues for me, and I hope it's valuable for others too. I think it would be a mistake to rush this into a widely advertised community RfC. Once it's clear no new arguments are being put forward here by the same handful of editors for and against, then I'd like to see proponents and opponents of the change compose a brief (paragraph or two) statement of the case for and another of the case against, and lead the new RfC with those statements (as proposed here by AerobicFox). Ludwigs2 started an RfC on a different but related question. I'd prefer to see that closed for now, so attention can be focused on MASEM's proposal, which I think has a better likelihood of passing.

I'd prefer to take this wording to the community, though:

In considering the use of controversial images, Wikipedia editors should conform to the approach generally taken by reliable sources on the topic, including the option of using no illustration. If reliable sources generally avoid the use of controversial images, while providing comprehensive coverage of a topic, editors should avoid introducing such to the Wikipedia article. In cases where there is a dispute regarding the usual approach of sources, and no consensus can be reached, it is often better to use the less controversial approach to resolve the conflict.

I have changed "offensive" to "controversial" per the rationale outlined in the 2010 Wikimedia study of controversial content --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the way that no new arguments have been made by the proponents despite very similar proposals being rejected time and time again for at least as long as I've been here (coming up 7 years)? Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to where this proposal has been put before? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And once again I say that the article isn't unappropriate and is pretty consistent with almost every other article here. I for one am always going to oppose any sort of attempt at self censorship but if we want to get the ball rolling on yet another rehash of the same thing I will happily throw my mark on here once it begins. People self censor all the time (if you don't like porn don't type porn into a search engine for example) but only here are we insisting that the users do not. I find that unacceptable, since under the whole "if you want to go nude people can look away" also applies for the internet. Nobody is forced to come to an article at any point, and if it truely upsets them they could actually read the top area where it goes step by step on how to stop it. Instead we see people immediately jump to the talk section insisting we take down pictures, when we have already provided tools that themselves are an exception to normal policy. To sum it up someones distaste over something does not trump my want to learn about it. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tivanir2: This is an encyclopedia - the argument that "Nobody is forced to come to an article at any point" totally defeats the purpose of having a free, accessible encyclopedia. You're trying to turn the project into an 'encyclopedia for people willing to put up with our bad editorial choices', and that's just ridiculous. --Ludwigs2 17:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, you want to treating every visitor to the project like a baby that must be protected from potential offense. It isn't our job to babysit, to coddle, or to shield people's eyes from things. We decide how to present material to the reader. If it is something they do not wish to see, then the choice of what to do from that point is in THEIR hands. Not ours. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

People are offended in the real world. Can we please accept that? Especially when the material they are being shown isn't obviously going to be there - there is a difference between showing a naked penis at penis and showing a naked woman at pregnancy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Being offended is not a reasonable concern to weigh. If a naked girl at pregnancy is inappropriate and you would like it removed, then you will have to come up with a reason OTHER THAN "it offends people". You may have a good argument to make for that image removal, but you're going about it in a bad and ultimately dead-ending way. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Conversely, Tarc, you are treating every reader as thought they are coarse-minded bulldogs just like you and me. It isn't our job to expose people to things that are not necessary to the article just to 'toughen them up'; this is not the wikipedia encyclopedic bootcamp, you know, and we're neither meant nor qualified to be pseudo-intellectual drill sergeants. --Ludwigs2 18:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't show irrelevant images though, when was the last time you saw an anus at cucumber or whatever it is the argument you keep inserting up above. Your concern has been primarily for shielding the eyes of people who don't want to see stuff at the expense of allowing those that do to be able to see such content.AerobicFox (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that we do. Because we show an unnecessary nude at Pregnancy.

And even on things like Penis other encyclopaedias would probably make do with a diagram.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos are needed at both, as is the nude woman. We really don't need to go back to the days of ridiculous prudishness when people hoping to get an idea of what these things looked like had to look at nude Greek statues. An illustration just does not cut it, for example my brother was circumcised, but our parents never told either of us that(I had no idea, we are not Jewish or anything), and he had no idea whether he was circumcised or not, so he went to our article to find pictures to compare it to. Many other people need resources like these, woman want to know how their body will change when they get pregnant, people want to find out what these parts look like, etc. Besides that my anatomy/physiology textbooks books are far more upfront with their images then our images here..AerobicFox (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No I never said people should put up with bad editing. I said one groups wants do not trump another when it comes to offense. Bad editing would be if the community didn't cite things, provided incoherent information and posted pictures that had nothing to do with the subject. Since the wikipedia community tends not to do any of that I would say the community is working towards the best articles it can keeping in mind a world wide audience without catering to any group for any reason. I have pointed this out numerous times as an example and doubtlessly will do so again, if we were trying to make articles terrible or offensive we could with very little trouble. Nothing in this entire project can claim that the majority of humanity is against an image, however groups for their own purposes might wish certain ones to be removed. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is a photo needed of a nude at pregnancy? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That sort of specific image discussion is beyond the scope of this board, the "need" of an image is something to discuss at the article's talk page. The only point about it that relates to this discussion is that the argument "some are offended by it" is not a valid reason in itself to remove. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox: I've heard dozens of people repeat the phrase "these images are needed"; at Penis it makes sense, at pregnancy it doesn't. we do not need to show a nude image in the lead there, and no one has ever made a credible argument that we do need to. What we have is a bunch of editors who want to show a nude image in the lead (for various reasons), and while I don't object to that in principle it's anti-encyclopedic to put the wishes of editors ahead of the preferences of readers. As I keep saying over and over: there's no problem violating social norms where we have a valid encyclopedic reason to do so, but there is no sense in violating social norms for paltry reasons. This is not ridiculous prudishness (though I can see that it makes you feel better to think of it that way); this is common courtesy. --Ludwigs2 20:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. AerobicFox has asserted that "we don't show irrelevant images" I'm asking for a justification for a particular image to counter his point. If he can't justify it then he should retract or modify his original statement. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Or I could just repost my argument since you have yet to respond to it "woman want to know how their body will change when they get pregnant," and an illustration will not do this. The very fact that you are arguing that a nude pregnant woman is irrelevant to the pregnancy article is more evidence of irrational prudishness than it is irrationally offensive. Nude figures are used constantly to illustrate medical concepts, especially with pregnancy, an illustration just doesn't compare to a photo in being able to convey things.AerobicFox (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A clothed image, or ideally a series of clothed images, of someone wearing tight clothing would do a perfectly acceptable job of covering how the body changes. Unfortunately in Western, especially American, culture nudity is overly sexualised (and if we are actually being fair, I believe Chinese, Indian, South-East Asian and Arabic culture). There is nothing I can do about that. Most of those cultures have little issue with someone wearing tight clothing.

You may not like the fact that people are generally prudish about nudity, but that's the world we live in, for better or for worse. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Three questions. What if the nipples bulged out visibly through the tight clothing so that their clear shape could be seen? What on earth does the title of this subsection mean? Exactly how will anybody be harmed in the slightest by seeing the naked image? HiLo48 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the Americans got very offended about seeing a nipple for around a second in 2004. And I'm sure finding an image of a women wearing tight clothing without visible nipples should be possible.

While they may not technically be "harmed" by seeing a nipple, you can make the same argument about being called an idiot, something that people don't do if they are being civil. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The nude at Pregnancy illustrates a pregnant woman. It's definitely relevant. Is it relevant enough to justify its presence in the article, given the offense and embarrassment it will cause many of our readers? I know what some answers will be:

• Tarc: "When deciding to include an image in an article, offense is simply a negligible concern," "Simply 'being offensive', an arguable point in itself, will never be an acceptable reason to remove an image from an article" and "Offense is simply not a concern" [31][32][33]
• Bus stop: "Good taste should not even be a considered ingredient in article space." "In the final analysis it doesn't matter if you or I or someone else finds an image "offensive" or not. "Offensive" is virtually meaningless in the context of Wikipedia." [34][35]
• Nomoskedasticity: "I think it is right that Wikipedia would not be swayed by such feelings (offense) even if the material is incidental." and "when someone says "good taste" they usually mean "my taste", because there isn't anything else for it to mean." [36][37]
• Chzz: "it's not our job to make judgements about what is/is not 'offensive'" [38]
• HiLo48's "We may not always NEED nudes, but it is also wrong to opposes a picture simply BECAUSE it is nude." [39]

My view is that it is insensitive and inappropriate, and makes us look like a mob of dickheads. -Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My view is that it makes us value personal responsibility over touchy-feely political correctness. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole—if you are objecting to the nude photo at Pregnancy on the grounds that it is "insensitive" then the appropriate response to that is that "Wikipedia is not censored". I'm not trying to be funny. There are other objections that can be raised to the photo. There are suggestions that can be made for alternative imagery, along with arguments for why you feel alternative imagery might be preferable. There are even arguments that could be formulated in support of no imagery at all. Why are you insisting on pursuing the one argument that opposes our policy of WP:NOTCENSORED? If we were to accept arguments containing the vagaries of personal taste wouldn't we be compromising our aim to clearly convey information? For instance anybody can claim to be "offended" by just about anything. I am not saying you are doing that. But shouldn't arguments concerning imagery be based on those more objectively discussed factors? Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Posting before someone says "you can't be offended by everything"

• User:OttawaAC"It's arguable whether photos are necessary or even useful or helpful in Wikipedia articles."[40] "Why should we support such parental neglect of children? Should we host other similar pictures - kids playing in traffic, running with knives, drinking underage, and the rest too?"""Why do you want images of animals having sex? This is no way to claim it is educational but there are many justifications for it that are directly against WMF policy and the rest."[41]

There are many users that try to censor things totally inappropriately under the pretense of offensiveness and we don't need to see a massively disruptive image purge/edit war going on here like we did at Commons.AerobicFox (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And that's the point, WP:NOTCENSORED means we come across like we are running a "frat boy encyclopaedia" and doesn't allow us to make sensible value judgements which allow our material to be used by the widest possible audience due to the lack of empathy shown by some of our members on a tiny percentage of our articles towards the outside world.

The sad thing is that people, and people in authority, will stop personally using, or will prevent large numbers of others from using Wikipedia at all just so that you guys can have your nude image in pregnancy which delivers an extremely small quantity of value to the project.

Personally as a non-muslim I'm not personally offended by images of Muhammad, or by nipples in pregnancy, but by expressing empathy towards my fellow man I understand that many people are offended by it.

Even though I'm sure academic works do include nude images from time to time, as required I don't believe an academic work doing a general overview of pregnancy would include a nude image. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@AerobicFox, which is why we need to follow reliable sources. If I watch a nature program on the BBC or on the discovery channel it may well include animals having sex. If I watch a program on the BBC about underage drinking I'm going to see images of people drinking underage, however you don't need to show a 12 year old drinking a bottle of vodka on alcohol to illustrate the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You say "…which is why we need to follow reliable sources."

Why would we not avail ourselves of an image just because a source omitted that image? Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Because too many editors here can't tell when the degree of offense caused by an image outweighs its educational merit, causing other editors to spend large amounts of time dragging Goetse and tits and depictions of suicide off articles that anyone with an ounce of social sensitivity or social responsibility would immediately recognise as grossly inappropriate. By copying what reliable sources do we rely on the good taste of their editors, and avoid the incessant puerile squabble, reminiscent of a harassed parent constantly having to shove their unsocialised child's penis back into their trousers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is there always a frat boy comparison? Per WP:Offensive material we do not include gratuitously offensive images, because we do not need to add shock value. Even for the pregnancy page the nude can be claimed as better because it shows changes, however if it is really a problem you could always look for something better. Say a 3 panel image of a person at 3 months, 6 months and right before birth (about the 9 month mark) though keep in mind they should all show the same individual. This would allow you to point out changes without needing a nude picture since you can see the changes even under clothes. But that point goes to you are introducing a change that makes the project better not censoring. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a frat boy comparison because that's how the project is actually operating. Only a tiny minority, if any, of our reliable sources would use a nude image in this case.

And while a series of images would of course be better than a single image, by the same argument that judges a nude image to be appropriate a series of nude images would be even better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say good luck to anyone trying to find nude images of the same model for 3 6 and 9 months. If a person poses for nude art while pregnant it tends to be once. And I would challenge the ascertation that we are operating like that, since again while individuals may want to keep something because they view removing it as censorship they should still respond to the idea of improving the article even if the picture is moved or removed. If you can find a good alternative that suits it better I am sure more people would rally to the cause then people that see an "oh my god nipples!" post. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that plenty of other people think the nipples are inappropriate in this situation, most people don't get involved in discussions like this - its only a "hard core" who ever do. If I went down the pub and asked people whether they thought a nude image as the lead image of pregnancy was appropriate I think we wouldn't have people seriously defending such a position.

Besides if it was actually appropriate why would our reliable sources not use a similar image? And if there was some serious value for it why has no-one been able to come up with a serious justification for the value offered by the nude image at all? Given the lack of justification for such an image I don't believe it offers any value at all over a clothed image.

With a series of images the only way you are going to get such a series of images is to get someones girlfriend/wife to pose while pregnant, given someone got their girlfriend/wife to pose nude for the current image it seems perfectly possible to get someone to pose nude multiple times. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Most individuals I have met have apprehensions about posing in their birthday suit. Was I suprised a bit the first time I decided to look at the pregnancy article? Yes, but it is just because you normally don't see people pose that way for that sort of work. As for getting someone to privately take multiple nude pictures if they can, I would say that would be more informative then clother images simply because you could see physical changes clothes may conceal. I am still in the pool that believes the community doesn't require a nude for the lead image, but it does no harm to include it other than raising offense. Besides if you use the tact with a clothed image you would get at least 6 months before you would need to tread this argument again and hopefully the image filter would be working then. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What value does the image offer over a similar clothed image. What critical information would the clothes hide? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be considered critical but womens bodies go over multitudes of changes when they are pregnant. Stretch marks for one, some women see increases in breast size (may or may not be apparent with clothes, that can really be argued either way) and if I was motivated to go back through what to expect when you are expecting probably a few others. Now since I don't particularly care if the image is clothed or not it doesn't really matter but when a physical condition changes the body nudes can be used to great effect. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

a) No stretch marks are visible in the image, and they could be shown with the woman wearing a bra if they were visible, b) given there is but a single image it isn't possible to know whether her breasts have changed in size.

This makes it clear there is no actual value in such an image, and thus this is clearly a case where we haven't come to the correct conclusion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing image filter discussions on Meta

• As Mathsci mentioned the image filter above, please note ongoing discussions on the Meta brainstorming page: [42]. Sue has made clear in Germany that there will be no category-based filter as originally envisioned. A proposal currently being discussed involves a personal filter list, much like our watchlists, where users specify images they want to have shown greyed by default (with a click being enough to display the image, and a click likewise being enough to grey any image and add it to the list). --JN466 17:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Individual images; not classes of image? So the reader has to see the offending image first, then click it to make it go away? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because it is an opt-in filter (unlike Google Image Search, the default is unfiltered, per the Harris Report's recommendations). Having said that, there could be a button at the top of any Wikipedia page, enabling users to switch all images off (and then switch individual images back on that they would like to see). Users could go to Commons and select categories there without looking at their content in detail. Or they might be able to manually edit their filter list, just like you can manually edit your watchlist if you want to. Basically, there are two ways you can add and remove something from your watchlist: you can go the article and click on Watch/Unwatch, or you can open your watchlist and manually add and remove pages. The filter list could work the same way, allowing individual users to add and remove images (or Commons categories) from their personal list. This would also help with "surprising" Commons searches like the ones listed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems – if I decide I don't want to see masturbation videos while looking for images of tennis ("Rückhand" is German for "backhand"), I can simply decide beforehand that all masturbation images that might come up in a search I do should first appear greyed, requiring another click to reveal. All that is better discussed over there though, as that is the page the developers will look at. -JN466 17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're not kidding, are you? I'm stunned. OK. I'll go and read up the back story. I've read the Harris report but just skimmed the image filter stuff, so I'll re-read that. Was the decision to avoid categories made on that page you linked to, or should I start somewhere else? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

lol - on the surface that sounds like pure group-think; I'll need to read it through too... --Ludwigs2 17:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Yep. That's the right response. I'm reading madly, but have to go to sleep now. I'm so looking forward to getting to grips with the reasoning behind this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Is "groupthink" now code for "something a bunch of people decided that I disagree with?" Tarc (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

wikt:groupthink. think more, snipe less. --Ludwigs2 20:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea of an opt-out filter like you have in Google (i.e. default display is filtered, and people have to opt out of filtering to see everything) was rejected quite early on. Robert Harris was against it, and so is Sue, and so was the community in general. The idea is that people can switch a filter on if they want to, but the default remains unfiltered. In addition, the idea of a category-based filter was abandoned more recently, partly because of resistance in Germany (there was resistance to it on Foundation-l as well). Reasons include: the creation of filter categories and the amount of tagging that would be required would be a lot of work that could better be invested elsewhere, it would be extremely contentious, it would be well-nigh impossible to do it in a culturally neutral way, existing categories would not necessarily catch all instances of a particular type of content, it would invite gaming and vandalism, as well as reorganisation of categories to suit the needs of filter users rather than the primary needs of the project, and it would help censors by doing much of the work for them (censorious ISPs and countries could simply disable the reveal function, and images would be permanently inaccessible for everyone). Hence the shift to systems where the onus is on readers to define what they don't want to see. Advantages: no work for the community, Wikimedia is not taking "a side" in any cultural dispute, no undue help for censors. That's a short summary. There is much more in the Foundation list archives and on Meta talk pages. --JN466 20:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If changing Wikipedia's content is an issue, you can just connect over HTTPS and then its impossible unless the users machine is hijacked.

With regards to content filtering straight blocking the URLs would be much easier to achieve, and if you really want to prevent people seeing certain content - well blocking the images isn't going to help as they can still see the text.

The only real use case would be hiding images of something like Muhammad, but they can probably manage to do that now on an article by article basis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Um:

• "there will be no category-based filter"
• "Users could go to Commons and select categories"

Leaving aside the idiocy of expecting users to process several hundred thousand categories (current best estimate of the number of categories at Commons), one of these things is not like the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to hold my tongue until I've read the arguments but on the face of it, this looks like a missed opportunity. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

But my point does illustrate that we could class images into categories and allow the user to select which ones they don't want to display with a sensible default.

That would allow people who don't want to be offended by images to filter them out, as well as allowing those who believe in freedom at any price to see as many explicit images as they like. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I was originally in favour of a category-based opt-out filter, as per Google or Flickr, but the reality is that there is so much resistance to the idea, and not just in Germany, that it would never fly. And I've come to appreciate the elegance of a solution that leaves it to readers to populate their filter lists, that does not cause the community any additional effort and strife about whether this image or video should be in a filterable category or not, and which avoids the possibility of the Foundation being accused of taking one culture's sensitivities into account, while neglecting those of another. The foundation and the editorship remain neutral, out of it, and readers can filter whatever they like. As for the initial effort imposed on people who would like to filter images and media, I am 100% certain that given this functionality, various individuals and groups would come forward and compile lists according to different criteria, and that readers who agree with those criteria could be enabled to use them to populate their personal filter lists. And so they should. A personal filter list should be as much a private affair for the reader as an editor's watchlist. It's their decision what they want to see, just as it is their decision which articles they choose to read in the first place. --JN466 01:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a personal filter list does seem to be a good solution, if that is now what WMF is suggesting. But I also hope that with the filter there is the possibility that individual pages, where image problems have been identified, can activate "filter alert" questions about filtering. A feature like that would certainly avoid the need for interminable discussions on particular images. Mathsci (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There won't be a filter alert, as that would involve a categorisation decision that a page would be suitable for filtering (which could be non-neutral, contentious, etc. ...). But there might be a button enabling images to be switched off that appears on any page. Best to discuss on Meta. --JN466 06:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Irrationality" of offence

One thing I see a lot of people saying is that offence is irrational and/or shouldn't be taken into account.

However even editors on Wikipedia regularly act in an irrational way. When discussing changes you only ever see an extremely small number of people ever change their minds. You'd have thought that when presenting good evidence that you'd be able to persuade a decent proportion of the audience to change their mind - but the reality is that generally people only change their mind over a long time period - which means they avoid losing face. If you go into a discussion, whatever it is, with an open mind and are prepared to change your mind then you get to be right more often as you are judging the decision on its merits - I don't always do this, but its good when you do.

If someone presents a strong case and you change your mind you actually look much better than if you hang on to the bitter end - and discussions become much more productive - its a win on many levels - and yet people in general are still reluctant to do it.

The thing is that people are people and they are offended by stuff - and trying to say that isn't legitimate than saying people not being prepared to change their minds isn't legitimate - when the reality is that people don't change their mind publicly and we have to accept that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, eraserhead, the levels of irrationality on this issue are astoundingly deep. I'm still laughing over the inability of people to distinguish between personal offense (an intrinsically subjective emotional state) and offense against social mores (objective and systematically defined prohibitions instituted by cultures, faiths, and other long-established social entities). That kind of methodological individualism died a horrible death at the hands of sociologists in the 80's or 90's, so seeing it reasserted here (in this nearly psychedelic form) is just too funny for words.

I swear, I'm inclined to make up a humorous 'Welcome to Wikipedia!' template, instructing editors to leave all sense of proportion and decency off project, because it violates our sole core principle of being not censored. --Ludwigs2 23:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2—we are not beholden to parochial interests. I think that we aim to be educational and informative and we try not to compromise on that every time someone says that they are "offended". Concerning images there are many more things that can be said about them other than that they support my worldview (or stand in opposition to my worldview). They contain visual elements and they bear a relationship to a particular article. That could be a constructive relationship or that could be one that detracts from the article or is irrelevant to the article. "Wikipedia is not censored" only rules out one type of argument, and only to a certain extent—though to a considerable extent. Inexplicably that seems to be the only argument (concerning the inclusion and omitting of images) that some are intent on railing against. Bus stop (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop - and AGAIN, you confound personal offense with cultural standards. are you doing that on purpose for effect, or do you really not understand thee difference? As I've said previously, you simply refuse to accept that I'm making any argument other than an offense argument, so this whole discussion becomes painfully circular: it's just aggravating to have you tell me I'm making an argument I'm not making, just so you can shoot it down with NOTCENSORED. --Ludwigs2 04:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead, your screed boils down to "my point-of-view is so right, my evidence and opinions so astoundingly awesome, that anyone who doesn't sing Hallelujah and jump to my side as soon as I finish uttering the last syllable must be a moron". Ludwigs has been peddling this for about a month now as well, and while many other editors have expressed disgust and a bit of anger at being belittled in this manner, personally the most I can muster is amusement and pity. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm perfectly happy to change my opinion when I read a convincing argument. However, not once in all these reams of discussion have I seen a convincing argument. I've seen the same two or three completely unconvincing (and repeatedly demolished) reasons an uncountable number of times, and I've seen a similarly countless number of failures to answer questions asked by those who do not support the proposed changes.

Regarding the other point, the core principles of Wikipedia WP:5P 1: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. 2: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. 3: Wikipedia is Free content. 4: Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. 5: Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

WP:NOTCENSORED is a direct result of the second of those principles; it is not possible to separate the two. We have only three options when it comes to censorship:

1. censor some things and become a POV encyclopaedia, because we would be promoting our opinions about what should be/shouldn't be filtered.
2. censor everything and serve only blank pages, consequently ceasing to be an encyclopaedia (and debatably cease to be Free content, but that's a philosophical debate not relevant to this discussion)
3. censor nothing, being neutral to every opinion about what is and is not offensive.

It really is that simple. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside from causing those already involved to "change their minds" we can hope to bring others into the discussion and we can endeavor to bring them to support our view on the issue under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You forgot "4. Follow reputable sources." Which is actually what we do around here, according to the second pillar. --JN466 02:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That would just be a method of choosing which things to censor and which things not to - i.e. option one. It would be POV based on our selection of sources to follow - again the only options are "some", "all" or "none". We can't follow all of them and include images, because there are many reliable sources that are text only, and you can only include an image or not include it so you can't say 55% of sources include a nude image, 20% a model wearing western clothing, 20% no image and 5% wearing a hijab, so we'll have 80% of an image that is 20% clothed with ¼ of the clothes being a hijab. This leaves the option of following no source's censorship regime (i.e. as at present, NOTCENSORED) or following the censorship policy of some reliable sources - which of necessity involves making a POV choice about which censorship is best. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You lack imagination, and seem to be obsessed with censorship: i.e. you seem to start from the position that an offensive image is present, and now we have to wonder whether to remove it or not. Instead, think positively. Start with a clean slate and think about common depictions of women in reliable sources. That's the kind of images we want to include. The idea is simply to reflect how women are most commonly represented in reputable, generic sources. There will be different races, different styles of dress, different ages, and so forth. We shouldn't have all Playboy models (and then argue we can't remove any of them because "we are not censored"), and we shouldn't have all nuns. It should just be a good mix, without overemphasising or underrepresenting any type of image. The article woman actually does a pretty fine job of this. --JN466 03:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that we are opportunistic in our use of sources. We derive from sources what we think will contribute to an article. We don't derive from sources that which is not explicitly stated and we don't extract all that may be available. No source ever says that an image should not be used in proximity to some type of subject matter. It is a flimsy argument that is being advanced by some editors. The convoluted reasoning of the argument being advanced by some editors is that the precedent set by the absence of an image in a source somehow translates into a prohibition on our using that image in proximity to that subject matter. But of course the source never says that the image in question should not be used in proximity to that textural subject matter. All that is known to us is that the source did not use the image in question, and I don't think that provides us with particularly strong guidance. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No source ever says that an image should not be used in proximity to some type of subject matter. It is a flimsy argument that is being advanced by some editors. That's not what is being argued. If a non-fringe-y number of sources use a type of image for illustrating a specific topic, then we can consider the use of that type of image for our topic, but we are not bound to only that if there are multiple types offered across the sources. What we are saying is that if we try to use a type of image that no source, within their technical ability, opts to use, then we should not be using that either as it is introducing a unique form of presentation of a topic and thus OR. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But it has already been said that sources which publish "titilating" images are not going to be considered, because they can't be reliable if they use those sorts of pictures. So presumably a source that shows an image you don't approve of will be too "fringe-y"? Also, it doesn't matter how many sources you look at, you still can't prove a negative. You also cannot know why a source didn't use an image - as I said above it could be technical, legal, monetary (royalties, etc), space, lack of availability, internal (publisher,etc) regulations, external (government, etc) regulations, commercial reasons, political/moral/religeous issues regarding the target market, personal preference between two specific photographs, etc. To give an accurate assessment of whether any of these were possible factors you will need to know, at least

1. the other images available
2. the economic and regulatory conditions (including printing costs, the price of paper, etc)
3. the moral attitudes of author(s), editor(s), publishers and the target audience (including market research about them) at the specific time of publishing for the specific locale of printing, publishing and target audience(s).
4. the attitudes of the popular press in the above areas too, making note of any recent scandals, etc.
5. If you are dealing with online sources, don't forget to read the ISP's terms of service - the ones that were relevant at the time of publishing of course, not necessarily the ones in force today.

• Once you have got all this information, soured of course from reliable sources (independent of the publisher in question, of course, for the information not related to that specific publisher), remembering that in certain times even a couple of weeks or months can change societal attitudes (e.g. Tunisia today compared with Tunisia a year ago) or even days in extreme cases (c.f. 2001 Clear Channel memorandum)

...then you can make a guess at how much weight each of these factors were given in the choice of image. Then you can do the same for the second source. Thryduulf (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're twisting the arguments. First, to address the fact that we don't know why a source may have not chosen to use an image or not, it is the same rationales for exclusion per WP:OR that we make if sources don't publish a "known" fact. If all sources refuse to print a specific type of image, we cannot introduce that type of image into WP without creating OR; it doesn't matter how or why.

There is a far far difference between a source that publishes images for specific purpose of titilating the audience, verses sources that publish questionable images for purposes of educational merit. I would not call a book on human anatomy a source with "titilating" images, for example.

We're not trying to prove a negative: we want to use images that have been positively identified in reliable sources.

Basically, this all comes down to common sense, again. Like for all other aspects of WP where we use sources to guide the content, we make intelligent decisions when the sources are inconclusive or indecisive in their approach, using a fair amount of common sense. The types of arguments going on here are getting very wikilawyering, wanting exact numbers, exact definitions, and the like, but that is not the Wiki way. The baseline of starting with what sources uses at least sets what are the best likely image choices, from there consensus to whittle down the selection, or to verve from the sources if there is good reason too. That's it. It's very simple. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Religious perspectives should never be included in the editorial policies of a secular encyclopedia. They are fine as subject matter, but not as a portion of our decision making process. Because of that, religious based offense simply doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. That isn't a matter of persuasiveness or open-mindedeness, it's a necessary component of what the project is: a secular encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I simply disagree that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia in the way you seem to mean it. That is nowhere in policy, and impossible to justify using reason or common sense. Wikipedia is Neutral, not Secular, and the difference between those is huge. --Ludwigs2 05:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because its not written down means its not a tenet we follow. To be neutral in our coverage of religion (or lack of religion), we have to be secular and approach the topics off-handed without bias. That simply follows from policy. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

@Directly above, very little "religious" censorship is taken seriously by sources outside the individual religion. Images of dead aborigines and Muhammad are essentially exceptions to the rule.

@Tarc, I'm not trying to say that my arguments are so persuasive that you should switch sides, or that they are necessarily particularly persuasive in this case - or that I am even particularly good at changing my mind when faced with evidence. The issue is that regardless of who brings up the argument, or what the discussion is, very few people are prepared to explicitly switch sides.

It also happens in the "real world" with politicians finding it hard to admit they are wrong, or with ordinary people not changing their minds when evidence is presented. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You just proved my point by repeating just what I said you did the first time. Let me make this clear to you; I have seen your evidence, and I reject it. That isn't hard-headed or stubborn, it is simply that I am quite comfortable with my position on the matter and how I arrived at it. I decline to "switch sides" on this matter not because I fail to understand you position, but rather that I find your "side" to be extremely unappealing. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. That's very exciting. The point still stands that a large percentage of the time people refuse to switch sides in debates out of stubbornness to avoid "losing face" which is just as irrational as "offence" - and yet even on Wikipedia, where you claim offence has no place "losing face" clearly has a large place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

People use the word "secular" in different ways. Wikipedia is secular in the sense of being neutral on religious matters. It is not secular in the sense of covering religious topics primarily from a scientific point of view. Hans Adler 08:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I see it as we are trying to take a factual scientific approach to articles, seeing how scientific approaches themselves tend to be relatively neutral (the good ones anyways.) We aren't looking for an end result we are working the progress as we go. NOTCENSORED means the community doesn't change for a specific groups interests and I think it is a principle worth fighting for. Censorship dressed up as not offending a group, people, organization, etc etc ad nausem is still censorship. I believe Voltaire said it best "I do not agree with what you say sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" or in this case show it. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies on the quote since it is not definitively attributed to Voltaire. Most people attribute it to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, though it is a summation of his belief.Tivanir2 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not neutral on religious matters and can't be. Like all encyclopedias, the Wikipedia is an Enlightenment institution. As such we are inherently and by nature ranged in opposition to ignorance, superstition, enslavement of the human mind, and clerical tyranny. (If we're quoting, Denis Diderot, the founder of the encyclopedic movement and as such our spiritual father, said "I would see the the last king strangled with the entrails of the last priest"). In the developed world the priests are at bay (for the moment), but not in a lot of the Muslim world. This is why deferring to sensibilities regarding pictures of Mohammed in particular sticks in my craw. On one level, there is sincerely held individual belief. On another level, clerical tyranny, assertive superstition, and mechanisms of social and political control over intellectual life by imams and mullahs are part of the larger picture on this subject, too. Failure to address this and make a cogent argument as to why Diderot's children should defer to this is likely leave cold me and many other adherents of the encyclopedic movement. Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

@Herostratus: NPOV is one of the five core principles of Wikipedia. If you assert that it doesn't apply to religious articles, then we all might as well pack up the project and go home, because we are no longer writing the encyclopedia we think we are writing. We must be neutral, above all else; if we can't be, we're just another dumb propaganda rag.

@Tivanir2: that is NOT what NOTCENSORED ever meant. NOTCENSORED is supposed to keep pertinent material from being removed for trivial reasons; it is not supposed to keep trivial material from being removed against credible reasons. You are making a nonsense argument, and making it repeatedly. Please stop. --Ludwigs2 01:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Since this is, by my rough guesstimation, the 861st time you have said it, yes we understand your position on "not censored" by now. And while on its face that statement may be correct, the problem here is your definition of "trivial material" is being used to mean "images you do not like". That is what is unacceptable. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

863rd, actually, mostly because people like you keep insisting that I'm saying something that I'm not. I don't actually have any problem with any of the images I've talked about (except the Goatse.cx image, which I thought was stupidly gross - as it was intended to be), I just think they are inappropriate images for an encyclopedia. But I do understand your position: you don't actually have a credible argument to make, so you have to mangle my argument in order to make it look as stupid as your own. sad reflection on you, that. --Ludwigs2 04:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your own words work against you; quote, "it is not supposed to keep trivial material from being removed against credible reasons". You have made this claim numerous times and it has been rejected numerous times. It takes different forms; sometimes it is images that are "incidental", sometimes it is "gratuitous offensiveness", today it is "trivial material". You argue that images that potentially offensive images that are trivial or not needed in the article should be deleted. But claiming triviality is a matter of opinion, and in the case of the Muhammad article for example, you are in the minority on that point. I don't argue against anything other than your own words. You can't hide from them, there's no Orwellian Memory Hole that you can conveniently toss them down. Sorry. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, Tarc: I understand that you think you are being fair and balanced - a kind of 'screw everyone equally' attitude that would pass for a kind of rough-and-tumble neutrality if in fact it actually worked the way you think it does. I can respect it as far as it goes, but I really get sick of the way you fuck around with reason. You know what I'm saying as well as I do, you simply refuse to face it. I'm always saying the same thing - that there is a difference between images that are necessary to an article and images that are helpful but more-or-less replaceable - and I only use different words because different approaches help people understand the issue.

You're an intellectual coward, Tarc: you refuse to discuss the issue fairly, and instead try to twist what I say into some form that's dumb enough for you to bitch and moan about. Why are you bothering? I mean, I'm happy to have you continue, because you bad attitude only works in favor of our arguments - no one who's not already firmly in your camp is going to sympathize with the aggressive nonsense you pour out - But I would really rather get past this idiotic fist-thumping crap and actually discuss the topic. If you don't want to discuss the issues, well, you've made your point, now back off and let the people who actually want to listen to each other have a shot at the discussion. You can always come back and yell at us some more later.--Ludwigs2 07:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Herostratus: There is the tyrannical motive, and genuine offense (artists' impressions of Muhammad genuinely offend most Muslims). Reducing the number of such images where they're not necessary would be both responding to priestly diktat and taking account of the genuine sensibilities of many readers. I understand that historically our revulsion at appeasing tyranny has overridden concern about disaffecting readers. But I've come to the conclusion that, as a default position, this is a mistake. I believe we should usually avoid offending large numbers of readers where this can be done without really diminishing the educational value of an article.

I feel that feeling in the craw. But I take comfort from the fact that Depictions of Muhammad will necessarily be bulging with more than enough offensive images to give a serious middle finger to the priests. Putting six such images in Muhammad, though, where such images are not the topic of the article, and most are there because editors think they look nice, or they are making a point about free speech, is gratuitous offense. We can exercise sensitivity and respect for the feelings of our readers by using such images only where they're important pedagogically, in the section Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad for instance, and not rubbing their noses in anachronistic and culturally inaccurate "illustrations" of myths and events.

Ludwigs2 seems to be arguing that because feelings like embarrassment and insult are subjective, we should ignore them in our readers, and heed the measurable cultural norms that have evolved to take account of those feelings in human intercourse. Here he represents the cutting edge of psychological and social science, something he traces back as far as the nineteen eighties. Actually it stems from the general repudiation of phenomenology in the early twentieth century and is the founding flaw of both behaviourism and cognitivsm. Ignoring feelings in science is foolishness of the highest order and leads to cultish nonsense like most psychoanalysis and Skinnerism. Please feel free to be human. If you know enough about Islam or religious belief to be able to, please empathise with a typical Muslim reading Muhammad. Do you feel insulted by the gratuitousness of most of the figurative depictions of Muhammad there? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sweet jesus, What kind of touchy-feely nonsense is this? Now editors should emphasize with the poor religious fundamentalists who demand that those of other faiths bend to their views? Not only "no" but "hell no". Tarc (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I knew you'd appreciate that one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, Tarc, there is some middle ground between spitting on people's beliefs and sucking their d@cks. You may not see it, but it does exist. --Ludwigs2 04:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's amusement to be found in both the interesting mental imagery there, and in the fact that you believe in censorship so much that you just did it to yourself...saying "no, we will not conform the project to your religious beliefs" does not equate to spitting on said beliefs. I have no doubt some have arrived at such an irrational conclusion...lord knows the likes of you have...but in the end, it is negligible. Tarc (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There certainly is a middle ground, Ludwigs2. It's exactly what I've been advocating: ignoring their beliefs completely.—Kww(talk) 04:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's all about us and them, isn't it. At least it sounds like it. --JN466 05:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I fell into the trap of continuing in form. Would "ignore all religious beliefs from everyone everywhere" sound less like and "us and them" mentality?—Kww(talk) 05:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No that's still 'us' (wikipedia) vs them (religions). The simple act of saying 'we ignore X' implies that X is not us and that X is not worthy of being part of us. it's inherently and unavoidably divisive.

I find it deeply disturbing that anti-religious sentiment is this intense on project. You collectively seem incapable of distinguishing between religion and religious extremism, and attack both indiscriminately. --Ludwigs2 13:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't attacked anyone, participated in an attack, or endorsed an attack. I've been explicit in stating that images intended to attack a religious group still count as attacks and need to be removed. There's a large, large difference between ignoring a belief and attacking it. The problem is not one of distinguishing between religion and religious extremism, it's in simply noting that religion is irrelevant to a secular project.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But in fact, you have attacked religious beliefs, simply by asserting that they have absolutely no value on project. You are vocally of the opinion that any excuse for using an image is sufficient to override any opposition which is in any way associated with religion. Neo-nazis and living serial killers have more protection on project than established religions, at least according to your logic. it's patently absurd and deeply prejudiced. You may not realize how absurd and prejudiced it is, but that doesn't make it any less so. --Ludwigs2 17:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Imagery and words are two different things. With words one can make assertions. One's choice of imagery is in part a matter of taste plus other considerations. We are not bound by the precedent set by other sources of information as to the images with which we illustrate articles. The option to choose images is protected by the policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. We obviously should not be aiming for tastelessness, or, to state that in positive terms we should be aiming to be tasteful. But even more important than any considerations concerning matters of taste are those matters of clear communication and being informative, educational, understandable. We have talented editors here. We don't have to opt for poorer choices in imagery as might be found in reliable sources when our own editors present better choices. We cannot know what reasoning went into the choice of images to illustrate articles elsewhere—and it doesn't matter. Some editors here are arguing that the choice of imagery exhibited elsewhere is indicative of "good taste". Two points: we haven't the foggiest idea what it is indicative of; and if it is indicative of "good taste" we don't have to follow the example set at that source due to our own policy which says that "Wikipedia is not censored." What we do have to be concerned with is the identity of the image that we choose to use. We don't want to use a photo (or other image) that is not what we purport it to be. That would be a big booboo. Images in most instances do not make assertions but there can be exceptions to that—for instance words can be found within images and consequently such an image can be assertive. Additionally even completely nonverbal images can in some (rare) circumstances be argued to be making assertions. I am not going to comment on that. I think that is a valid area discussion. But the proper place for that discussion is on article Talk pages where disputes over images are taking place. I clearly do not favor the suggested change in policy, whereby we would be expected to take our pick among the images used by sources. The choice of imagery an article employs involves considerations that our own editors are more than capable of addressing. These are considerations particular to our article. Clear communication of abundant information,visually, should be at the forefront of those considerations in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ludwigs2, I have stated that all images should be subject to exactly the same editorial decision making process without regard to whether they cause an offense based on religious grounds. For someone so eager to point out how others are twisting your words, you seem quite eager to distort mine.—Kww(talk) 17:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There are certain religious beliefs that society at large respects and there are certain ones that aren't respected as much. To take an example of a minor religion being followed dead Aboriginal skulls are returned for burial. However this doesn't mean that non-aboriginal skulls aren't continued to be displayed - which I'm sure more extreme aborigines believe.

We can quite sensibly take a respectful line that is a compromise - e.g. by following our sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As a further thought I suggest we have a mediated discussion about pregnancy and Muhammad and see where we land up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So you would subject religious beliefs to a popularity test? On what other basis would would you argue that one religious belief was more or less important than another? I can piss off a member of a small sect with impunity, but I have to be careful about Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and Christians, because there are enough of them that they get published?—Kww(talk) 18:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No I'd subject them to the standards followed by our reliable sources - as I mentioned in my previous post, so I'm rather surprised you missed it.

Of note these standards only ever apply internally to the religion, there is no serious argument that images of Jesus should be covered to avoid offending the muslims, even though like Muhammad he is a prophet for Islam, and images of Jesus almost certainly wouldn't appear inside a mosque either. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Kww: You can keep expanding the list of groups we don't listen too indefinitely, but you are still setting up an 'us vs. them' context. So now are you saying that anyone who is offended by anything should not be listened to? if that's what you're implying, then you are effectively saying that we should ignore everyone who disagrees with you, because there does not seem to be any criteria except that you personally do not find the material offensive. In fact, since we can always find someone who doesn't find a given image offensive, we can add just about any image anywhere and protect it with notcensored, since the people who are offended by it won't count. so, let's change the lead image of human sexuality to an image of coprophilia or necrophilia (or even necrophagia), because those are all notable sexual tendencies, and wikipedia is not censored. If I'm misrepresenting your position, my apologies: I'm happy to reassess as you explain yourself more clearly, but as of this moment it doesn't appear that you've thought through your own logic.

@Bus stop: I cannot believe that you just said images cannot be used to make assertions; that's utterly senseless. are you suggesting that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons made no assertions? that the host of political cartoons you can find in newspapers don't make assertions? that the images of dismembered fetuses shown at abortion rallies aren't an effort to make an assertion? Images are FAR MORE POWERFUL communicators that words, because they bypass the critical filters that are in place when reading written text.

Besides, you are contradicting yourself. If images do not make assertions then they have no encyclopedic value (they are all purely decorative) and then we should clearly remove offensive imagery. further, you say "choice of imagery is in part a matter of taste plus other considerations", but then you go on to preclude all 'other considerations', which seems to imply that it's solely a matter of taste. so why is your taste in images protected where a Muslim editor's taste in images is precluded? you're talking in circles.

You guys are trying very hard to protect the wrong principle and it's tying you up in logical knots. think it through, please. --Ludwigs2 19:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs—I am addressing a proposal. Here is a link to that proposal. The proposal reads:

"Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources."

Actually I am only addressing the part of the above proposal which reads:

"…in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources."

I am arguing that any image can be considered for inclusion in an article. Correct me if I am wrong but you are arguing that only those images found in reliable sources can be considered for inclusion in an article. Bus stop (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong about what I want (this is not my proposal anyway), wrong about what the proposal says, and wrong about the nature of the problem that we are trying to resolve here. allow me to clarify:

• I personally believe that any image can be considered for inclusions. I also believe that any included image can be considered for removal.
  • The first is the current norm; we can argue for the inclusion of any image
  • The second is currently untrue: NOTCENSORED is frequently used to block all discussion of the removal of certain class of images.
• given that there is an irrational level of conflict over the second point, this proposal aims to change the first point, to keep people from stuffing articles full of unnecessary controversial images (with the consequent screams of bloody murder about censorship when anyone tries to remove them).

Images in reliable sources may not be a perfect metric, but at least it gives a guideline for what kinds of images are generally considered appropriate, and helps prevent us from getting into these mulish debates. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ludwigs2, I haven't tied myself into any "logical knots" at all, and have resisted the ones you try to impose on me. It's very reasonable, simple and consistent to ignore all religious thought in the formation of editorial policy.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@BusStop @Kww, are you arguing that an image of coprophilia or necrophilia (or even necrophagia) would be an appropriate lead image on human sexuality? Would you consider Piss Christ to be an appropriate lead image on Jesus? or a burning American flag to be appropriate for the lead image on United States? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of those do not address the point I am making, except for Piss Christ, which I would argue was intended as an attack image in the first place. A picture of Mohammed by an artist devoted to Mohammed, intended to illustrate an event in Mohammed's life, is hard to perceive as being intended to attack. It would be nice if we could discuss the other images in a general case without having to deal with it as a wedge issue. That's the real problem: any language that has been proposed is going to be used to champion a completely unacceptable consequence. I'm happy to support language about offensiveness and shock value so long as offense based in a religious belief is explicitly excluded from consideration.—Kww(talk) 20:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is true that only Piss Christ is the only religious example, but from the article "Serrano has not ascribed overtly political content to Piss Christ and related artworks, on the contrary stressing their ambiguity. He has also said that while this work is not intended to denounce religion, it alludes to a perceived commercializing or cheapening of Christian icons in contemporary culture." - so the artist doesn't intend it as an attack, but rather a criticism of the commercialisation of Christianity. EDIT: To expand, if you still feel it would be inappropriate because you view it as an attack, well given how well known it is that Muhammad images are offensive to Sunni muslims from that side of the table you could make a similar argument about images of Muhammad in the Muhammad article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead1—I think that under discussion is whether we should have language written into policy which rules out for inclusion in our articles those images which are not found in those reliable sources which treat the same subject matter as our article but in text form. The proposal is for the limiting of images for possible use to those found in the reliable sources that address the same subject matter as our article. I don't think it's a good proposal. I think that we have good editors here. I think some of our editors are better than the editors found at a variety of sources. At the least I think that some of our editors are the equal of those found at sources. It is important to take note of something: images are not words. Images and words are two different sorts of entities. The proposal rules out for consideration an incalculable number of images, some of which are inevitably going to represent better choices than those found at the sources that we would be forced to pick among. Arguably a good image could even be found at a source on an unrelated topic, or a topic somewhat removed from the specific topic of the article under consideration. The right place for discussing images is on article Talk pages. All images should be open to discussion. The proposal has the downside of ruling out too many images, some of which might be very good images for the purposes of our article. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like you to answer my question about you view as to whether the images I have suggested are acceptable for inclusion in the relevant articles. You have claimed that offensiveness should have no place in image choice on the project - if you really believe that you should have no issue supporting the inclusion of the images I have used as examples above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead1—in response to this post I would say that all such questions are to be addressed on the relevant Talk pages. You say in that post:

"@BusStop @Kww, are you arguing that an image of coprophilia or necrophilia (or even necrophagia) would be an appropriate lead image on human sexuality? Would you consider Piss Christ to be an appropriate lead image on Jesus? or a burning American flag to be appropriate for the lead image on United States?"

Has anybody suggested that those images be used at those articles? Have I suggested anything like that? No—of course I have not. But let us suppose for argument's sake someone did suggest the above images for those articles. Do you think that consensus opinion would be reached favoring the inclusion of that imagery? I don't think so. That is why I said in my first paragraph of this post that any such questions should be addressed at the relevant article's Talk page. What you are doing is presenting hypothetical situations—but those situations are not realistic. Such situations, were they to occur, would be resolved in an instant. If such images were suggested, they would immediately be rejected by 99% of Wikipedia editors. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think some of our editors are better than the editors found at a variety of sources. is a complete contradiction of what it means to be a tertiary source. We cannot exceed what other sources already do when they do use imagery to represent a topic, just as we cannot establish conclusions that aren't already in existing sources. Images are just as powerful in terms of providing opinions and certain points of view in addition to education value. Hence, when we use a type of image not found in the types of images already used in sources, we are potentially introducing bias that should not be in a tertiary source. This is why the first question asked when there is a debate over the types of images being used or not being used needs to start with reviewing what image types are used in sources. Then the question of whether there are valid claims of objectionable content vs education value can be asked, but not before then. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Masem—as a general rule, though there are exceptions, words need verification in reliable sources; images do not. We make editorial choices concerning images that don't necessarily require reliable sources connecting the image to the subject of the article, as long as the identity of the image is absolutely known. You and others are presenting the argument that certain images are found in sources that are very much on the same topic as our article. That is a valid argument on the face of it and at first glance. But other editors may not find that argument convincing or persuasive for a variety of reasons. That is why there is no cause for codifying it into policy. It is an argument best made on an article Talk page. We should not be elevating one argument above all others in the way that you and several other editors are suggesting. Sources may not have the same scope as our article. Sources may not have the same policies at their point of origin as our site has. We have a policy that tends to disregard the parochial interests of some subsets of people. Our policy of WP:NOTCENSORED tends to bypass the niceties that other sources may incorporate into their presentation of material. We are certainly not permitted to assert in words that which cannot be verified in sources. But the swapping out of images for ones that we, for a variety of reasons may find preferable, is oftentimes acceptable. These are matters for article Talk pages. It may be time-consuming. But the solution should not be to offer a non-level playing field to future editors. Bus stop (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

I think mediation is the right answer here. Supposedly 100,000 words have been split over Muhammad, therefore the current discussion process clearly isn't producing sensible results. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've suggested mediation multiple times on different pages; no one on the other side wants to do it. Mediation doesn't work unless all sides enter into it in good faith. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should at least have a serious attempt at formal mediation. If people refuse to walk away from the debate or to engage with some sort of mediation process then that becomes a conduct issue which can be addressed by Arbcom.

I think it is worth waiting until the RFC is closed which gives people a chance to consider their options of this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is clear enough on the matter, 3-4 holdouts doesn't get to squat and demand that they be met halfway, when what they demand is so ludicrously out of proportion with the goal of the project; to inform without fear of censorship. Tarc (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I rarely agree with Tarc, but I've got to say this whole process has gotten out of hand. Please accept there is no consensus for these changes--NOTCENSORED, as written, has the backing of the community and at this point further attempts by the same folks to change it are likely disruptive. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Put this issue to bed, trying to invoke more processes wont get around the clear consensus. Medcom cannot overrule a widely advertised, high participation RFC even if they wanted to. Monty₈₄₅ 02:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation would be a waste of everybody's time. The only issue is that a half-handful of editors refusing to listen to things they don't want to hear (and in at least one case having repeatedly failed to hear on every single occasion for several years) and it would be seriously unlikely for them to start listening now. Thryduulf (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there is no consensus here, and constantly whining that there is isn't doing anyone one damned bit of good. I swear, you guys really can't argue a point worth beans. Quit with the mindless grandstanding and talk like reasonable people. --Ludwigs2 02:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Lugdwigs2, most of us have been. Mediation isn't an option here: no mediator is going to be able to unilaterally change WP:NOT, nor could they agree to do so. What needs to happen is for the people proposing a change to recognize that there is no consensus for the change they have proposed, and its extremely unlikely that any variation of what they are proposing will gain consensus. Continuing to argue for the change when it is obvious that point has been reached is simply tendentious editing.—Kww(talk) 03:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

By contrast, Kww, I think what needs to happen here is for the people opposing any change to recognize that they are doing damage to the core principles of the project: to wp:NPOV, to the wp:5P, to foundation principles and resolutions, and to the ability to write an accessible, usable, reader-friendly encyclopedia. Or are you suggesting that some purported consensus amongst a limited number of 'advocates for controversy' can overturn the core purpose of the project? What's happening here is that you and the other opponents are (in a noble but misguided battle against what you perceive as censorship) making articles actively hostile to significant portions of our readership, without any meaningful justification for doing so. That is simply wrong.

I mean seriously: you even recognize that these images create a hostile atmosphere, and yet your response to that seems to be to suggest that readers who are upset by such things are stupid and/or evil. Please buy a mirror and click this link. --Ludwigs2 04:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC-related PROPOSAL: Add WP:ASTONISH to the hatnote and call it a day

This is related to the RfC a few sections up. If this proposal is adopted it may moot most of the issues raised in that RfC.

Adding WP:ASTONISH to the hatnote will make it clear that, while Wikipedia is not censored, it is not a place to deliberately put more-shocking photographs when less-shocking photographs will have identical encyclopedic value. If there is an editorial dispute over whether a particular controversial photo adds value over a less controversial substitute, well, that's what the article's talk page is for.

Basically, adding the hatnote makes the guideline clearly say:

• Content with higher encyclopedic value are preferred over that with lower encyclopedic value [something the guideline already says quite clearly].
• In the case of a tie, use the less-shocking content

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Support adding WP:ASTONISH hatnote

• Support, as proposer. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, this seems pretty much common sense to me. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as the originator of the RfC you're talking about. We can discuss how far this alleviates the concerns in that RfC, but it is certainly a good idea regardless. --Ludwigs2 04:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, sure, why not. --JN466 05:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Maybe because of any or many of the reasons given in the multiple Oppose comments made below. This Support post (and the other simplistic ones around it) are almost insulting to those below who have clearly put a lot more thought into this issue. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. Not so sure I'll be calling it a day. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose adding WP:ASTONISH hatnote

• Oppose Despite many pleas to this principle in other RfCs I've been part of, it rarely helps. WP:ASTONISH refers to "the average reader", but doesn't define one. Many editors who argue for more conservative images tell us that, while they are not personally offended, there are people in society who will be offended by an image. It's a third person type argument, presented as if they are being thoughtful on someone else's behalf. It's all so very vague. Completely open to ongoing debate and discussion. This proposal will NOT resolve problems in this area. I see it as just another attempt to push Wikipedia towards Conservapedia.
• the underlying argument of this position reconstructs the problem by inappropriately mixing the epistemic with the editorial level on a model basis and the proposed paragraph doesn't offer substantial value, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think WP:ASTONISH has much relevance as currently written. Sure it wouldn't do much harm to hatnote the current version, but I fear it will be a back door to the censorship proposals above. The understanding of the principal of least astonishment, as used here, is far different then the one used at that page, and I would strongly object to some of the understandings being hatnoted. As the target is not a policy or guideline, it is not subject to the same level of scrutiny. As a matter of prudence, Policies and Guidelines should not incorporate by reference material that is subject to lesser scrutiny, which I think it is the only meaningful result hatnoting it could have. Monty₈₄₅ 05:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• oppose as per all my previous comments. We go with the picture that best illustrates the topic. Period. Also I'm going to suggest we stop it with this topic for a long while. I think consensus is clear enough. Hobit (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are already links to the relevant guidelines and howtos in that section's hatnote:
  See also: Wikipedia:Offensive material, Wikipedia:Options to not see an image, and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles
  I've moved some essay links from there to the bottom of the page a while back, although WP:ASTONISH was not among them. There were 6 links in that hatnote on Nov 5 [43]. Please don't add anymore essay links to that section's hatnote per WP:CREEP. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Especially when that essay has been mal-used in some discussions on Wikipedia already (to wit - that sentences in a lede which accurately reflect the content of the body of the article should be watered down so that no one is "astonished" by statements supported by the article). Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. And frankly, I would argue that its only purpose for addition is to try and legitimize a POV viewpoint in an essay by trying to give it the weight of policy. Thank you, but no. Resolute 14:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry but there are a hell of a lot of hat notes already, and WP:ASTONISH is only an essay. That said I certainly don't think this should be an opportunity to shut down further discussion. Consensus isn't clear at all, and if someone wishes to apply a clear consensus either way get an uninvolved administrator to close the relevant discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:ASTONISH is fine right where it is, as a sub-section of a MoS supplement. I do not see good intentions in the drive to elevate this to inclusion on a policy page. Tarc (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I contributed to WP:ASTONISH and even I don't think it's much cop. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)