Talk:Man

Remove the pic

I concur, the Leonardo Da Vinci's picture and Michelangelo's David should be removed! THERE ARE CHILDREN VIEWING THE WIKIPEDIA AND THEY CAN GET A TRAUMA IF SEE SOMEONE NAKED! If you want my opinion, most of the pics in this article are not necessary, the arbitrary selection of "famous men" bothers me a little as it does in all the articles. --Hoygan!! (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Photograph of Michelango's David has been modified to avoid deletion. (Ben Dawid (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

Who is the idiot woman or emasculated guy who thought it would be a good idea to show a naked dude? Should have been hit with a brick. *facepalm* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handover111 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My younger brother saw the pic of the naked man and freaked out. And he is only ten years old. He did not need to see that. A pic with a man that is clothed would be just the same. --Creation7689 (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous..Please get rid of this photo! If there is was a photo of a naked woman im sure there would be outrage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.86.93 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No there wouldn't.

Why the hell is there a nude picture of a man in here?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.128.192 (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it's relevant.

Wikipedia knows what is happening. We have a class C for quality while at the same time a Top Class for priority. We should live with that for an open source, free encyclopedia. Mr. Wales, thanks for the opportunity.

Some features of this article are kind of uncomfortable for me. The definition of the features of a man were given by a woman. Thanks for the attempt but she is rather describing her prince charming than making a scholar, scientific or anthropological approach.

Without being too scientific I think we should differentiate the biological from the sociological, from the philosophical, from the functional in the family, from the purely sexual, from the stereotype, from the cultural and so on avoiding cross category judgments. To be shocking enough, being a man in jail, at war, as a parent with a newborn baby at home, in an uncompromised one night stand with a gorgeous woman, in your daily routine with your beloved and faithful wife and kids and as james bond are social roles so wildly apart that the attempts of definitions should be somehow structured in different points of view to allow justice.

In phylosophical terms the ideal of man is well defined in classical Greek culture with the concept of honor, virility, glory and so on. That is primitive but highly efficient in the sense of attending female expectations. A woman wants a man of honor. Still today the concept is applicable. But today there is the concept of new order, liberalism, equality between men and women, marriage and what women expect of it, divorce, pension, work, etc. The social trend makes pressure on man to get away from an honor based definition to a socially acceptable definition of man where honor is not the top priority. A lot of suffering today comes from the difference between the archetypes and the real life situations men and women are confronted.

Women are having the upper hand since they are more prone to express, discuss and evaluate feelings publicly.

Suggestions and critics from male and female readers are expected and welcome.

ManAtWork100 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree This is a very good comment. I completely agree.--Grondilu (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments seem sensible to me. What changes to the article do you suggest. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

^^^ that.

22 year old man image

What's going on with the image? Why is there some photoshop work going on to add hair? Are we going to add hair to the image used in the Woman article as well?

Matt Yohe (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why naked?

Surely a picture of a man wearing clothes will give you the same effect.

Sometimes I think Wikipedia is run by monkeys. Seriously don't care if Wikipedia is censored or not, use common sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.139.230 (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed nudity here is not justified. This is an article about man, not just about man's anatomy. Most human beings almost always wear clothes, so please consider using a photo of a dressed man. If you want to show a man, you have to show him as he can usually be seen. And this would be with clothes. Please. --77.196.30.154 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

GET RID OF THE PICTURE

REALLY. Children use Wikipedia. --79.13.175.167 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree - the picture is terrible and needs to go. A couple of arguments why: 1) Wikipedia is used all the time in schools and offices, where nudity and nude photos are not considered appropriate. 2) "Man" is a pretty broad and generic-sounding topic that should have a non-controversial article with non-controversial images. We can tell this is a controversial image by the number of posts about it. 2) Almost always when you see a "man" in the real world, he is not naked. Shouldn't the picture portray the subject as it is normally encountered? All of these arguments would also apply to the "Woman" article. Dunncon13 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a naked woman in the woman article. --97.112.49.34 (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

AND DON'T PUT IT BACK

Someone has been smart enough to get rid of the controversial and useless picture, and put a picture of a dressed man instead. Again : this is not a page about man's body or superficial anatomy.

Please don't put the 22 naked man image again. --Grondilu (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why we should change the image.

The picture is unaesthetic and encyclopedic. Wikipedia is supposed to emulate an encyclopedia, and when you open a credible encyclopedia to "male" you don't find a ugly pasty white unhealthy looking guy with baby fat. You find something that is coherent with a certain artistic design, like how all Wikipedia links are blue, mainly white background with then black print so it's easy on the eyes, etc. are images should correspond with that. It just looks really awkward. Just like you want decent writing, you want a decent images. Politically correctness, intellectually, is just stupid logic. Obviously every person who finds this page really cringes. I don't get why it has been up here so long. This page might be locked by some guy in his bathrobe that never leaves his house, I don't know, but someone with power just change it... The statue of Davis? Or a sketch drawing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How quaintly Victorian! Well, I didn't cringe. The picture (and the other one at "woman") actually reminds me of photos in one of our schoolbooks back in Scotland thirty years ago. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You fat old guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

True. Definitely too round! Haven't been able to get into my kilt for years. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Racial Exclusion

All images on this page are of white men or of statues men represented as white by white men. Seeing as white men are much less than half of all men on earth, it is not representative that all the images should be of white men. --97.112.49.34 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Images of more races and the removal of the nude white male photo would improve the article. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 01:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Important note to all editors

• WP:Wikipedia is not censored.
• There are only 3 photographs of men on this article, of which one is of Barack Obama.

Wikipedia is not censored. It is a central principle of Wikipedia. Please note that both the man article and the woman article display a naked photograph in the lead of the articles to show readers the physical form of a man and a woman (see the counterpart article, woman). Both of these photographs are the best examples on Wikipedia of the physical forms of a man and a woman. There are 3 photographs in this article of men, of which one depicts the United States president (who is black), another is of the pope, and the other is an example of the physical form of a man. If the race of the photograph of the physical form of a man was of another race then that could equally be considered racist. I see no problem with the photographs displayed on this article as images are chosen on relevance to the article rather than to please sensitivities. It is unfortunate if people have some how believed this is either obscene or racist. 88.106.81.80 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sure Wikipedia isn't censored, but even the article on fucking has a lead-in images of a 19th century aquatint of the activity and then some lions in the grass, not some pasty white people going at it. The problem people have, I think, is with the image itself, not necessarily with the notion of the image. Putting the image of Michaelangeo's David as the lead-in would still depict a naked, anatomically-correct man, and would also have some artistic merit to boot. Even the equivalent picture on Woman is at least moderately-well composed, even though that image has very obviously had the background removed in an image editor. To say that the selection of images on Wikipedia is done solely on relevance to the article would obviate the utility of featured pictures and all the different criteria for things like Image of the Day, etc. --69.136.181.80 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that his chest and abdomen are abnormally hairless? Still, to say Wikipedia is "run by monkeys" isn't fair as saying such a thing in insulting to monkeys.71.134.42.129 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UT

men asre mean

Choice of a picture

Best images candidates so far :

• File:Man and son.jpg
• 
• 

My preference goes for the rock guitar player. I like this picture not only because it looks great and is kind of fun to see here, but also because it illustrates very well how much the man concept is far beyond just the man body. And I don't care about his political beliefs.

On the other hand, the man an son picture is nice too, and won't offend anyone (hopefully !). --Grondilu (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This debate concerning the choice of the picture makes me realise the true meaning of the concept of point of view. When something is complex enough to have many aspects, there are necessarly many ways to see it. Man is such a concept. And any image that will picture only one man, will necessarly be a particular point of view of mankind. We just have to choose the one of least resistance, as someone suggested in the similar debate on Talk:Woman.--Grondilu (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia SHOULD use a neutral picture of a man, not a man doing something, or with anyone. IE Right now, that picture will piss off homosexuals and people who do not want to have kids. Stop being so damn complicated and offer a neutral picture. --95.236.4.241 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with the fact that the baby is not necessary here. It does indeed insist on the paternity aspect, which is a POV.--Grondilu (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No valid argument is presented above to justify changing the current pic. Please find something better to do with your time. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Both here and at Woman I attempted to address some longstanding, ongoing objections to images. The objections fell into two categories; some users claimed that certain images were 1) offensive and/or 2) insufficiently comprehensive (e.g., you can't have a young, able-bodied, white female nursing a child stand for a category that includes individuals who may be elderly, disabled, of various ethnicities, etc). First objection is easily handled -- Wikipedia is not censored. No need to explain its implications and applications. People just need to read it. We don't insist that only dogs with collars be displayed at dog, and the only difference between that example and this article is a cultural prohibition which is not and should not be binding on an encyclopedia. The second thing I've addressed by borrowing a collage framework from one of the ethnic group pages, where exactly the same problem occurs -- lots of different roles for group-members of various ages, eras, genders, etc. DavidOaks (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Important note to all editors

Please desist from putting irrelevant and shameful nude pictures on non-pornographic articles such as this one. The practice is revolting to the civilised senses of the majority of users world wide, and pro-nudity editors need to find a better excuse for their actions than the lame 'Wikipedia is not censored' arguments. Bear in mind that non-censorship does not necessarily imply a free-for-all for depraved human expression. (Ben Dawid (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Please review the discussion here and wikipolicy on censorship. This is what human males look like. It's a small photo, and one among many displaying a range of cultural settings, periods, roles. DavidOaks (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A new wave of deletions has begun. Consensus is not a majority -- consesnus needs to be articulated within the purposes and principles of the project. The article leads with a definition focussed on sexuality; it takes a scientific approach. A small medical illustration is not only appropriate -- the article would be defective without it. Wikipedia is not censored, and even if it were, it would be v difficult to make the case that this image is prurient. DavidOaks (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that nudity in this context is sexual, and yet you forcefully - against the stated, vehement wishes of the majority - reinstate explicit imagery in a public place, known to be frequented by young children! (Ben Dawid (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

A topic defined intrinsically by sexuality (man vs woman, for example) would naturally involve some recognition of sexual differences, and that is appropriately illustrated by a non-prurient nude image. If you are awae of wikipolicy that states all pages should be made as inoffensive as possible, and all pages need to be safe for children, please bring it forward. If you are aware of a policy stating that Wikipedia is a democracy where consensus is determined by counting the number of editors expressing support on the various sides, please bring that forward. DavidOaks (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I regard the activity of Ben Dawid and WE223ws as vandalism; in that case, reverting their repeated deletions of legitimate content for reasons out of sync with longstanding wikipolicy doesn't fall under the 3RR rule. However, if an admin wishes to weigh in against me, I will not be offended. DavidOaks (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DavidOaks that the collage at the top of the page should include at least one naked man. It provides information in a visual way about the topic that none of the other photographs do. "Wikipedia is not censored" is not just a slogan, it is a policy that the community has considered carefully and agreed on, and it is worth reading the three paragraphs. If a picture is useful, the fact that someone finds it objectionable is unlikely to be a compelling argument for removing it. Grafen (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the following before posting any explicit images

• WP:Consensus.

This is not the place for lone ranger tactics. Wikipedia states clearly that "in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability", and: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles. Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken..." Let me suggest that those posting nude images here are riding roughshod over the legitimate concerns of the majority. (Ben Dawid (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

Good efforts have been made to maintain WP:GF assumptions, but the latest bit, vandalizing the image of Michaelangelo's David, makes it clear that this is vandalism or trolling, a waste of everybody's time. THe continued violations of wikipolicy will be reverted without comment. You think you've got a case, please contact an admin. DavidOaks (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is merely begging the question to state that "vandalizing the image...makes it clear that this is vandalism"; and furthermore it is a violation of common sense (let alone wikipolicy!) to revert without comment a contribution based on sound morals and backed with a good argument as well as general consensus. Wikipedia's WP:Images and media for deletion states the following: ‘To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created — see WP:burden of proof."’ (Ben Dawid (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

I think it's now obvious to all that you're enjoying this; now you're wikilawyering, on irrelevant grounds, either because you haven't bothered to read carefully (it's about non-free content) or because your real purpose is trolling. I resent the waste of time, but for the sake of community and benefit of others who may be reading: 1) "sound morals" are not a canon on Wikipedia. It is notoriously difficult to achieve consensus on these things. 2) "common sense" does not sustain exaggerated judgments like "shameful" "pornographic" "insipid" "unprofessional" with reference to a clinical illustration. 3) consensus is not a majority vote, and there can be no consenus that goes against wikiprinciples such as non-censorship. You are now far across the line into edit-warring. I have given good weight in terms of respectful response, but I regard this activity as vandalism. If you think I am wrong, you absolutely should contact an admin. DavidOaks (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that WP:Images and media for deletion is only about non-free content? The page claims to be about all "images and other media files which are unneeded". Also, I have used no such expressions as "insipid" or "unprofessional" - I think you're referring to some of the statements of the many others who also appreciate the fact that full-frontal nude photographs are not needed here. Finally, you say we exaggerate the "shameful" nature of the image, while you yourself misrepresent it here as a "clinical illustration". Please show some decency and leave the nudity to those who wish to find it (for whatever reason!) - we all know that innocent young children are bound to stumble across it here. (Ben Dawid (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

I am sure that there is a majority here who would support the inclusion of nude images if these are considered to improve the article. That is the only basis on which such decisions should be made. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought it obvious that, if the things which differentiate man from woman are invisible without clothing, then it's reasonable and necessary to include a clinical illustration of an unclothed male, most especially if it's 1/11th of a collage, and again if the only people who could see anything to offend them are those who made the effort to click on the thumbnail in order to enlarge it. This is the natural, culturally-neutral state of a human male. The article would definitely be defective without it. The only objections that have been raised thus far are culture-specific taboos, personal preferences and positions directly in conflict with wikipolicy. Those who wish to remove the picture need to make the case within wikipolicy and the purposes of an encyclopedia. DavidOaks (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

One more time -- those who want to delete the image need to frame their arguments, as I have done, in terms of policy and purposes, not their own preferences, and certainly not dtermination to censor the wikipedia or make all pages safe for children (which, BTW, this page already is, by most reasonable standards. My 7th grade library contained publications with anatomically correct photographs.) It would be irresponsible to illustrate "man" in an encyclopedia WITHOUT a nude image. I'm now repeating myself, but not getting responsible discussion in return. DavidOaks (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a photo of a naked man is appropriate for an article illustrating the concept of "man". It is not an explicitly pornographic picture, and it is but one that illustrates a number of features of "man". Objections to it need to be explained properly - just repeatedly asserting that it's "disgusting" or whatever is not the way consensus works here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC: image in article

There is currently an ongoing dispute regarding the inclusion of an image of a naked man in the infobox collection of images - see this diff. Several editors appear to feel strongly that it should not be included, while others believe it is appropriate, and a bit of an edit war seems to have broken out. I'm asking for comments in the hope that we can get some wider opinions here and achieve a consensus based on Wikipedia policy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Please add comments here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep the nude images. The one at the top does look kind of silly, since the others are mostly face pictures and at a larger scale, but I get the impression the underlying conflict is about the nude images in general (including a Michaelangelo sculpture further down), and so I vote to allow nude images per our policy of avoiding censorship, but could see arguments for removing or re-styling the image in the infobox. —Soap— 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. My own feeling is that the disputed images do offer something of illustrative value to the article, and there is nothing gratuitous about them - though if the consensus is to remove the one in the infobox, that will be fine with me. I've see no justification offered for removing the images other than censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. I do agree with —Soap—, above, that some sort of rearrangement might be an improvement. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Boing. As I see it, if this photograph should be included here, then: (i) the Irish People article would be improved if it included a photograph of a naked Irishman; (ii) the Swedes article would be improved by one of a nude Scandinavian; (iii) in fact, from a purely educational perspective, the Barack Obama page would be improved by one of the American President; (iv) the Cats article would be improved by the inclusion of a new subsection, "Abuse of Cats", with detailed photographs of dismembered cats. All of these ludicrous changes would be broadly "of illustrative value": particular ethnic groups have their own biological/anatomical peculiarities, as do American Presidents; an Abuse section on the Cats page would be relevant (given the prevalence of cat abuse) and the pictures would help to illustrate. Can anybody think of an objection to them (besides the invasion of privacy) that would not apply to the picture in question? [Edit: anybody?] Regards, SAT85 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think that there are fundamental differences between Swedes and Irish people that are not visible when they are clothed, then you would be warranted in finding nude photos to illustrate this important difference. Those who wish to remove the picture need to explain how doing so clarifies the subject of "man". DavidOaks (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi David. Whether the differences are fundamental is irrelevant. The fact is that there are differences that an explicit photograph would help to bring out, which is the essential reason given for including the picture in Man. But there's another reason why all of us, I think, instinctively know that an obscene photo would be stupid, unexpected and inappropriate on those pages, and I'm suggesting that it applies here. Further, assuming that someone modified the Cats article as mentioned, how would removing the images clarify the subject of "cat"? Regards, SAT85 (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an obscene photo would be a problem pretty much anywhere on the wikipedia, excepting perhaps in an article about obscenity. However, there is no evidence that this photo meets any of the usual tests of obscenity. A key indicator is the fact that this photo, and versions of it, are linked all over wikipedia, primarily for medical/biological illustrative purposes. "Instinct" is not something we can work with here, because quite clearly our instincts are telling us v different things and not leading to consensus. Still need to hear how access to knowledge and understanding of the subject are improved by removing the pic -- that's really the only standard for an ancyclopedia. DavidOaks (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I appealed to instinct in the hope that yours (or at least that of most contributors) would suggest the same thing as mine about the four alterations I referred to above, i.e., that while relevant and educational, they would be ridiculous, and that therefore the relevance and informative value of new material should not be the only criteria for its inclusion. I was drawing out another prerequistite which, though you apparently think it doesn't apply here, we all ultimately hold to: the content must not be in breach of propriety. Now it might be difficult to achieve consensus on exactly what propriety is, but (if I can say so respectfully) you've now jettisoned your key defense by agreeing several times that it is a consideration, indicating that "obscene" photos and child pornography would be inappropriate. Why, given that wikipedia is not censored? So, if you still want the nude photograph, you need to demonstrate that displaying it on a general, non-technical, non-anatomical page accessed by kids doing, let's say, a school project on "man", is not a violation of propriety.SAT85 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not our role to assist restrictive groups in restricting access to knowledge. How does removing the picture assist in the creation, organization and distribution of knowledge on the subject? DavidOaks (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

David, it's clear that you are not really engaging. As I just said, increasing the availability of information on a subject is not enough. A picture of the President in the nude would strictly do exactly that on the Barack Obama page. Mutilated kittens would do that, under an Abuse subheading, on the Cats page. But both of these would be flagrant breaches of propriety (particularly given the likely readership of the Cats page--young kids and cat-lovers) and that's why they will never end up there. If nobody thought nudity was objectionable, and nobody cared about viewing legless tabbies, the additions might very well be made, which shows that propriety is the issue here. So, if you still want the nude photograph, you need to demonstrate that displaying it on a general, non-technical, non-anatomical page accessed by kids doing, let's say, a school project on "man", is not a violation of propriety.SAT85 (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

These very arguments have been addressed. What you think of as propriety does not seem to be a consensus view. Moreover, granting that there are things that would seem offensive and improper to just about any of us seems to be the argumentative gateway to saying that the fact an item offends somebody is grounds for removal. It's not going to work, because presence/absence is not the policy; rather, policy dictates that, in cases of dispute, we go through this process, and your view has had courteous attention. You can test this for yourself; if you post upsetting photos at cat, you will see a process much like this unfold, likely with a different conclusion, because the case for relevance would be harder to make. A structurally identical disagreement happened at a page for a city suffering urban blight, where some local civic boosters wanted only pictures of nice neighborhoods, and the conversation went in a very similar way -- it is not our job to prevent knowledge so as to protect people's sensisbilities. Again: one of the things that distinguishes man from woman is the anatomy which is not visible in a clothed specimen (as well as musculature, other aspects of dimorphism). If getting rid of the picture will help people to understand this fact better, say so and show how. As to propriety, the standards being forwarded are demonstrably provincial (look at the European pages I mentioned before). There is no reason for a child of any age to be protected from knowledge of that except for taboos which are not recognized as broadly as you seem to think. I really can't see that there's any burden of proof to show that something is NOT a violation of proriety. If there is a wikipedia policy defining "non-technical" pages that are supposed to be made safe for children, you need to bring it forward. It is also possible to begin writing an essay on the subject, which may move up the review-chain to become policy; that's how a lot of wikipolicies came into being. Try that. DavidOaks (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points: (1) It's unclear to me whether you still hold that the only requirement for new content is that it be relevant and informative. Do you recognise propriety as a consideration (whether we can achieve consensus on it in specific cases is irrelevant to my point)? This is the central issue. If you don't, if you have no objection besides privacy issues to Obama in the nude on the Barack Obama page, no objection to de-legged kittens on the Cats page, and no objection to child pornography in the relevant article, then I simply appeal to the Wikipedia community at large: is this really where we want the encyclopaedia to go? (2) Even someone who couldn't give a hoot for morality is likely to ask two questions when coming across the image. Why the prominence? The prominence given to the nude man is unjustifiable even if man is viewed purely as a biological organism--men pretty much universally wear clothes--just as it would look bizarre if an unshelled hermit crab were given the same prominence on that page. And why the photograph? Using a photograph--clearly more explicit and controversial than a drawing--when, as someone said below, "diagrams tend to be clearer" is unjustifiable even from a purely educational perspective. There is something else going on here, and it has nothing to do with the propagation of knowledge. [I'm not American, by the way. Also, it's probably not a useful tactic to apply psychological pressure to the administrators by anticipating the conclusion of this discussion.] Regards, SAT85 (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is all quite tediously repetitive, but everybody wants to make sure the arguments get good and fair airing. Yes, there is such a thing as propriety. No, that does not mean that anything which offends the standards of somebody, somewhere, needs to be removed. It means you get to have a conversation like this one to see if the thing you're objecting to rises to the level of abused animals and child pornography (in both cases assuming little relevance to the subject). The bar would be set pretty high. Again, anyone who has and wishes to include photos of anything anywhere is welcome to go through the process we're going through here. The discussion will turn on the purposes of the encyclopedia and the usefulness of the image wrt the topic. Not one of those moving fror the removal of the image has explained, in terms of the purposes of wikipedia and relevance to the article, how removing the image improves the creation, organization or distribution of knowledge. DavidOaks (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi David. I'm sorry that the discussion has become a bit repetitious, but that's simply because until now you have been dismissing any moral objections with the response that Wikipedia isn't censored and the picture contributes to human knowledge. We've now established what it seems to me was painfully obvious from the beginning--that propriety should be taken into account, after all; the line should be drawn somewhere. It's just that you don't want it drawn here, but you haven't explained why. Many others (not just somebody, somewhere: a majority, if you look at the commentary above) feel strongly that it should be, they've said why, and their stance is backed by every influential encyclopaedia that I know of, all of which would consider explicit photographs in areas like this inappropriate. If you can find a counterexample, let us know. Regards, SAT85 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - as I have said above, I think a naked figure of a man conveys useful information about the subject of the page in a visual way that the other photographs do not. And we should certainly have a real one as well as David, whose proportions are famously distorted (head and hands oversized, genitals undersized). I think the combination of many images in the first graphic was a smart move, as it was very difficult to find consensus for a single first image, but I am sure there is scope for improvement in the execution. Grafen (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So who do you think needs to be educated with images of nude males? Anybody who doesn't already have an idea of what they look like probably doesn't want to know. (Ben Dawid (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC))

• Keep -- per all I've said before. This is simply necessary for illustrating the topic. It's parallel to what's done at Woman. It is a simple photograph produced for clinical purposes like these. The same photograph is the basis for numerous medical illustrations throughout Wikipedia. DavidOaks (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Remove the nude images. Humans wear clothes in public for a number of reasons, including protection from the elements, and especially to hide the intimate parts from the view of other humans, for obvious reasons - think 'predator' and 'victim' for but one example. Thus public nudity is, as a general rule, illegal worldwide, and the normal, sane, mature-aged human being is never seen without some form of clothing. For these reasons ordinary users of Wikipedia (and especially children) find it shocking and disturbing to stumble across pornographic - remember that the nude adult figure generally screams sexuality (whether that fits with your ideology or not) - images when researching 'Man'. Further, the inclusion of a nude photograph at the top of this particular article pays homage to the beastly notion that the principle difference between men and women is the genitals! Even a fox is normally clothed with fur, so you don't have a hairless (or skinned) fox at the top of the fox article - why not keep to the same rules for this one? (Ben Dawid (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC))

Hi. I respect your thoughts, but I think it would strengthen your case if you could find any Wikipedia policies that support it. Wikipedia does not, as far as I am aware, have a "no nudity" policy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. Wikipedia does insist that content be neutrally presented, and this sort of in-your-face nudity inserted into an innocuous article presents a clear bias toward the notion that public nudity is right and normal, when it is, in fact, illegal. Wikipedia also denies being a vehicle for propaganda - pro-nudity advocates must go elsewhere to advertise their wares. Also, Wikipedia clearly states that, 'When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia...When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider: Changing the content of an article (normal editing)' - WP:What Wikipedia is not. This is compelling. (Ben Dawid (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC))

Confident assertions have been made on this page to the effect that Wikipedia has no provision against offensive content – ergo, those whose civilised senses are horrified by foul content on parts of the website where no sane man expects it have absolutely no recourse to justice. Has Wikipedia really got so far out of sync with society as to force us all to wallow in lowest-common-denominator muck once we step inside its bounds? Or are the rather lax regulations perhaps being twisted to the advantage of online libertines and perverts? Either way, perhaps it is time for some clearer guidlines, or even an international crackdown, to protect the innocent. At any rate, those on the side of common civility ought to make good use of any Wikiprovisions available for the cleaning up at least of parts of the site where explicit sexual or nude imagery is neither ‘relevant’ nor expected. Wikipedia forbids outright all content that is illegal in the US state of Florida – including ‘child pornography’ – and also ‘edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as...offensive language’. Obviously offensive imagery is also immediately constituted as vandalism (especially in completely non-controversial parts of the site) by well-intentioned users, but all efforts to remove it are constantly scuppered by a radical minority with a huge agenda and plenty of spare time. Remember that indecent exposure is a criminal offence, and let me suggest that forcing unwanted, disgusting, indecent images onto children or adults using Wikipedia for innocent research is getting mighty close to it as well. (Ben Dawid (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

• Question - have any pro-nudity editors been blocked by admins, or is it only those wishing to keep this page clean? Second question - since "Wikipedia is not censored", would there be any objections to graphic images of a skinned man on this page? It would indeed convey useful medical information about our subject. N.B. this is not a joke. (Ben Dawid (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC))

Diagrams tend to be clearer if you want to show anatomy, they can remove excess tissues and simplify important structures, but if you have a free image you feel would benefit the article please upload it (as a side note, there is a graphic picture of an anatomy taking place in the lead of the anatomy article, also check out the human skeleton riding a horse). To your first question, users are blocked for disrupting wikipedia, not for holding a certain viewpoint Jebus989^✰ 09:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Those pictures are not that graphic - diagrams are better, though, as you say - and of course, they are in places where one might expect them. My point (which I would have thought obvious) is that when unexpectedly confronted by overly graphic images, ordinary people will hardly sit there enjoying their educational properties. And surely education is the raison d'être of an encyclopaedia. However, educating children to accept evil by means of involutary desensitisation is nothing short of depraved. (Ben Dawid (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

Of course, that all depends on the entirely subjective opinion on whether you consider nudity to be "evil" - I personally don't. There's also nothing in Wikipedia policy that brands it evil, and I doubt you'd get a consensus that says it's evil. Much better to stick to policy issues and whether there is encyclopedic validity in having the image in this article, I'd think, as that's where I think the uncertainty lies. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well thankfully it's not up to a constantly changing, all-in online encyclopaedia to dictate morals - that is left to higher powers, including the state government Florida - but let's remember that the whole purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform human beings (not some robotic race of humanoids) who have a sense of right and wrong (whether they like it or not), and so Wikipedia rules regarding relevance, offensive content, what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia, etc., are sometimes inextricably related to morality in human society. (Ben Dawid (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

Well, again, that depends on whether you believe in the existence of a higher power, and Wikipedia does not adopt any metaphysical stance on the issue. (Of course, I doubt anyone would deny the existence of the state of Florida, but I think it's unlikely there's anything illegal about the image). I really don't think this will be decided on whether nudity is immoral or evil, which is subjective - but, as you say, on whether the image is appropriate/expected for the article it is in. And I do agree that an image can be appropriate in one article but inappropriate in another - if the consensus finds it inappropriate, that'll be fine with me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And further, even if we stick precisely to Wikipedia rules we cannot ignore appeals to common sense, the laws of nature & human societies, and the ultimate rules set up by God Himself, because although the laws and even the existence of God (or of the state of Florida for that matter) may be disputed by any who feel there is no proof for them, Wikipedia's rules themselves appeal to common sense (which obviously incorporates other laws outside of Wikiworld), and they also openly state this: If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. So really that takes us back to square one, where common sense dictates the argument and flatly contradicts the strict letter of the law arguments against any form of ‘censorship’ imaginable. According to Wikipedia, Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate. So, what a mockery it is of the guidelines of this very website to splatter the imagery in question into the path of unsuspecting women and children! Ben Dawid (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, indeed, yes, I do agree that common sense is very much an important part of the guidelines. It's just that "common sense" is very subjective, and we don't really have any arbiter of true common sense other than community discussion - and we can see from this discussion that there are some quite diverse views on what constitutes common sense. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the two parties at loggerheads here can't even agree on what common sense is then at least one side must be, by definition, mad (as in crazy, senseless). The kind of common sense I'm talking about (and obviously what Wikipedia is talking about too) is what normal people out in the real world use - people who profess to believe in God, and in right versus wrong, etc. - and it's based on sound judgement and life experience. But, admittedly, many people do not act on what they know is right. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good" (Psalm 53:1). But there is hope even for such: "I was found of them that sought me not" (Romans 10:20). Ben Dawid (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, if a community of people do not agree on what "common sense" is, then by definition such "common sense" does not exist within that community. "Common sense" has got nothing to do with being right or wrong. It's defining characteristic is simply commonality - it is that which is sensed in common. And the Wikipedia community does not define normal as "people who profess to believe in God" - Wikipedia is completely neutral when it comes to religion, and will not accept religious POV-pushing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so if Wikipedia ‘will not accept’ certain things, that means there is a form of censorship available for use here after all. Also you say that ‘Wikipedia is completely neutral when it comes to religion’; but forcing explicit imagery on an unsuspecting public is decidedly anti-religion, so your stance is clearly smacked down by Wikipedia policy. And by the way, I doubt you’d get a clear consensus on what exactly is ‘religious POV-pushing’ – it’s all just a matter of opinion. Also by the way, I know of no nation on earth where the majority of people hold atheistic beliefs. Ben Dawid (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting Wikipedia should be pushing atheist arguments either - just that Wikpedia does not accede to something just because a specific religious book (of which there are many around the World - Wikipedia is not an American Christian publication) demands or proscribes it. For a similar reason, Wikipedia allows images of the prophet Mohammed to be included, which would drive some Muslims into a state of apoplectic anger - but we don't censor such images just because their holy book demands it. Anyway, I do appreciate and understand your thoughts, and it's been an interesting discussion - but I don't think I really have any more to offer, and if the consensus is to remove the images then that will be fine by me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

People are not blocked for being "pro-nudity" or "anti-nudity", they are only blocked for repeated offences against Wikipedia policies, whatever their point of view. As for the second question, if you think such a photo would be a good idea you could always start a separate discussion section here to discuss it - policy-based consensus is, after all, the way we make decisions round here. (By the way, I've moved your !vote, as the convention is to add them at the current end of the list so that they appear in chronological order - though it makes no difference to evaluating the consensus). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You say that people 'are not blocked for being "pro-nudity" or "anti-nudity"', but when you gave We233ws a final warning before he was blocked you revealed your bias by saying to him: 'Wikipedia is not censored for anyone, so stop removing this perfectly acceptable image, and stop your edit warring.' DavidOaks broke the Wikipedia rules at least as much as We233ws and yet he was left to do as he pleased. (Ben Dawid (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

For the sake of fairness, I voluntarily put myself in the corner for 24 hrs. :) DavidOaks (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It was really the edit-warring I issued the warning for, as that editor was in breach of the WP:3RR rule for having reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period without discussion, and it was that breach that they were blocked for, not for their pro/anti nudity opinion - my motive was simply to stop the edit war and get people to talk here. The reason I did not also warn DavidOakes is that he was urging people to use the Talk page here for discussion, which is the correct approach, whereas We233ws was openly refusing to use the Talk page and was instead trying to dictate the outcome. However, I accept my wording was poor - I should have said "stop removing this image without discussion or consensus", for which I apologize. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral while wikipedia is not censored which I agree 100%. However I am unsure of the point of the image's inclusion here is necessary. It seems an odd inclusion when compared with the other individuals in the infobox. I can support its inclusion if its the only one Image there but its just a tad odd to include it in the middle of a bunch of clothed men. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Remove on two grounds. (1) Accuracy: ordinary men do not, as a rule, get around in the nude; they wear clothes. Does anyone expect to see a skinned dachshund as the feature photograph in the "dogs" article? If you counter that clothing isn't part of the biological makeup of the human male, I'd encourage you to look at the main image in the "hermit crabs" article. (2) More importantly, ethics: some pictures are simply inappropriate for a publicly-accessible encyclopaedia, particularly in general articles like "man", which unsuspecting minors will be viewing. What would happen if I modified the "cat" page with a new sub-heading, "abuse of cats", and educated readers with pictures of dismembered felines? (After all, Wikipedia isn't censored.) There is an ethical line that can be crossed even by content that is strictly relevant to the subject. This obscene photograph crosses the line. [The administrators might want to note that most people who are disturbed or disgusted by the picture (including kids) probably don't hang around to contribute to this discussion page.]SAT85 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep any nude images that are relevant to the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Remove this despicable, irrelevant picture. If you guys like nude pictures you need to get a clean mind – and stop masking your real reasons for keeping the picture. JehoshaphatJIJ (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Do you have any Wikipedia policy based reasons for removing the picture, other than your own opinion that it is despicable and that those who disagree with you have dirty minds? I ask purely because policy based reasoning carries more weight towards consensus than personal opinion, so you would strengthen your case if you could add some policy based reasons too. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an obscene picture, of a kind not found in any respectable encylopaedia. It gives Wikipedia a dirty image, and I think you all know its wrong - I appeal to your consciences. JehoshaphatJIJ (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I could understand an objection that this image wouldn't appear in an encyclopedia under the heading Man, but then traditional encyclopedias wouldn't have a separate article named Man anyway. But you seem to be saying you want the naked images removed everywhere, and backing it up with a claim that a 'respectable encyclopaedia' would not have them. Every encyclopedia I've read, whether electronic or paper form, contains detailed images of nudity in the articles about human anatomy. The best ones would have glossy inserts with the different organ systems, which is one thing we haven't got even today on Wikipedia. The only examples of "censored" encyclopedias I know of were programs like Compton's which had an option for parents to disable the access to the human anatomy section. But they're still in the program; it was up to the parents to activate the option that would keep it "kid friendly". We do the same thing by leaving it up to parents whether or not their children can access the site and the images on it. —Soap— 20:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as a No then - that you don't have any policy-based arguments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The question is whether we can agree that there are good reasons to remove the photograph, a couple of which I've given above, not necessarily just wikipedia-policy-based reasons. And I agree with JehoshaphatJIJ: it seems strange, on the face of it, that anybody would be desperate to include a photo of a naked man here (in a general, non-anatomical article)--nobody seems determined to display a shell-less hermit crab at the top of that page or a skinned poodle at the top of the dogs page. It apparently hasn't even occurred to anybody. But there's something else about a nude guy, isn't there? Regards, SAT85 (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good comparison. It would be quite unhealthy for those animals for them to be like that, as well as unnatural, whereas it is not unhealthy (nor unnatural) for humans to be unclothed. There have been cases of people who had historically been unclothed all of the time, such as the Andamanese, and had no problems. You might find it uncomfortable to walk through a field of sawgrass with no clothes on, or take a camping trip in a cold climate, but that goes to show that wearing clothes is healthy for us too. Just not all of the time. —Soap— 17:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DavidOaks' reply too, which I didn't realize was related to this question until just now. —Soap— 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) A photograph of a naked hermit crab would be a good idea, as is one with the shell -- illustrating natural state and characteristic behavior. A skinned poodle probably wouldn't illuminate much, unless there were a point to make about musculature. But animal articles regularly feature skeletons, and Raccoon includes a photo of the unique penis-bone. Your earlier point -- pictures of abused cats may well be useful in an article on animal abuse; I could imagine a photo of an injured dog illustrating the mention of dogfighting which I seem to recall was once part of the article on canis familiaris. Back to this one: I would agree that it would be odd if the nude photo were the only one. It's not. It illustrates key features of the subject which distinguish it from a nearly-related category, and which are concealed by the cultural choices (which are duly represented in other pix). We need to hear how the subject will be made clearer, more complete and universal by removing the image, how the availability of information will be improved. DavidOaks (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My point was that a hermit crab without its shell would look silly if given the same placement, which indicates that fair, sensible judgement is being obscured on this page by ideological motivations, or possibly something worse. And I agree that images of tortured cats might be acceptable in an Animal Abuse article, where readers would likely expect them. But the comments at the top of the page show that the nudity here was generally unexpected. I hope I've answered the point about the image's informative value above, where you acccepted that propriety is to be considered as well.SAT85 (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's ill-advised to suggest ideological motivations, on grounds both of wikiquette and the obvious invitation of a tuquoque response. We are not here to help those who wish to avoid encountering information any more than we are to here to help them prevent others from encountering information. You and several others have made it clear that you object to the picture and want it censored on the grounds of your moral convictions and your willingness to censor Wikipedia. You may find the line on propriety empirically by posting flagrantly irrelevant and noxious photos; the exercise has no relevance to the present question. Your concerns have been addressed respectfully and repeatedly, and with such care for sensitivities that we are far over the line wikipedia draws for talk-page use -- i.e., for specific conversation on how to improve an article, not for broader philosophical discussion. If there is a wikprocedure equivalent to hollering "call the question" I'd do so. DavidOaks (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the sort of ideological POV-pushing apparent in the prominence of the image, which would be odd even if nudity wasn't objectionable. Secondly, both parties are approaching this dispute with their own convictions on morality, as we discussed above--you think child pornography and abused animals, even if relevant, cross the line, but not this explicit photo. Several contributors have defended the view, supported by all influential print encyclopaedias, that it does. No notion of propriety can be simply considered the Wikipedia default, since Wikipedia has no official standards: these have to be thrashed out and defended in individual cases. Thus, someone needs to show why child pornography should be excluded, but not this image. Regards,SAT85 (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You have stated Several contributors have defended the view, supported by all influential print encyclopaedias, that it does [cross the line into objectionability]. As I mentioned before in a reply to Ben Dawid, most print encyclopedias would not have a separate article entitled "Man" because it would be duplicating information already in articles like Human society or Human anatomy, and in a paper encyclopedia, saving space is very important. You can't really base an argument on "What a mainstream print encyclopedia would have in its Man article" if there isn't an encyclopedia that has one. Of course, if you look up Human anatomy in the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will find detailed drawings on glossy paper of all the major organ systems, including the unclothed skin; in fact that has traditionally been one of their most useful features, since you won't often find glossy overlays even in an anatomy textbook. So I don't see any basis for a claim that mainstream encyclopedias would agree that nudity "crosses the line into objectionability", which seems to be the core of your argument. —Soap— 17:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Soap. I think you've fairly much answered your own objection when you observe that in a technical article on human anatomy, Britannica has "detailed drawings"--not photographs, which would be gratuitous even there. My point about Britannica (and just to clarify, it's not central to my argument) is not that all nudity would be completely excluded--just that in general articles like this one Britannica's editorial policy would absolutely rule out the photograph in question. Check out the Homo Sapiens article in Britannica Online, which corresponds to the Humans page on Wikipedia (there's another one on Human Beings, but without pictures, apparently). You have to subscribe to view the full article, so I'm not sure how many more images there are, but have a look: notwithstanding the more technical title, the picture displayed is deliberately discreet, even though it's just a sketch. Unfortunately, as so many others have pointed out, the nudity here is groundless and makes the article look dirty and unprofessional. SAT85 (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So to clarify your opinion, would you not object if we featured a detailed sketch of a nude man in this article instead of a retouched photo? —Soap— 10:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no justification for any nudity at all in this article, as per Britannica's policy. But sure, an anatomical sketch would be less obviously obscene (especially if positioned more appropriately). SAT85 (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And now to clarify the other side -- an anatomical sketch would be better than nothing, but a distinct loss of quality from the accuracy we now have. As an entirely separate matter, making such a change would be quite explicitly done in order to comply with censorship -- that is, a direct violation of qikiprinciples. Bad editing, bad precedent, bad policy. DavidOaks (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to worry. A diagram would be much better if, as you say, you really are interested in educating readers on human anatomy. It would at least get rid of the awful, amateurish impression of a white guy with his pants off. SAT85 (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The grounds of objections keep shifting; but all seem to come back to purely personal objections, along with the willingness to impose those standards on everyone else, and in so doing block access to knowledge. That cannot be the basis of editing an article in wikipedia. Can you give some standard according to which this is "dirty" but a diagram is not? Can you give us something beyond your own judgment that says this is amateurish? That would be grounds for replacing it with a better image. and would be reason, certainly, to delete this from the many, many wiki pages on which it appears as a medical illustration (and it has not, so far as I can tell, attracted that adjective elsewhere). Can you explain why "white" is a problem? Seems to me there are plenty of non-white people present, but if you want to get a license-free photo of a black man, you should go ahead. But that would be in direct conflict with everything you've said to date. In fact, you're tactically arguing both sides for a strategic goal that is anti-wikipedian. And the time has really come to point out this evidence of non-WP:GF. I point this out with reluctance, and with a firm purpose to target the policy mistake here, rather than the person. I have tried really hard to find a steady ground in the accumulated arguments, but the only consistent stance is one in direct conflict with core wikipolicy: wikipedia needs to be censored. DavidOaks (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we've dealt with most of this above. Firstly, the grounds of objection aren't shifting; the picture is uncalled-for on a number of levels, none of which has been successfully addressed. Secondly, any explicit image that can't be justified is bound to look dirty, which on this page includes sketches; it's the unexpected, gratuitous element that has provoked such a reaction here, in contrast to the response on anatomical articles. But, even so, a diagram would be less overtly obscene, and would also improve the clarity of presentation, which is what you insist you're concerned with. And lastly, a word on good faith: I don't think it advances your crusade to suggest that the editorial stance of Britannica, the world's most respected encyclopaedia--which a lot of us happen to share--is simply obscurantist or in some way anti-Wikipedian. [P.S. Just ignore the white adjective. I'm not taking issue with the naked man's ethnicity. I was simply describing the picture.]SAT85 (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the grounds definitely shift, as demonstrated. Now the grounds are that we should make decisions based on what-would-Britannica-do? The whole point of what we're doing is to be something Britannica is NOT. Otherwise, the best thing to do would be to buy a subscription to the online edition, & save oneself the grief of dealing with non-Britannic ways of dealing with knowledge. I still insist on an objective definition of "dirty" or "amateur," one that disqualifies this photo for all the other pages where it currently appears (because we can't have amateur pix) but that makes it ok at the same time on "technical" pages -- I also requested the wikipolicy differentiating those as well, the one that says which pages have to be made safe for children and represent the exceptions (how many?) to the core wikipedia-is-not-censored policy. My point is, at every turn, what you are proposing violates policy. DavidOaks (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not arguing that Wikipedia should strictly follow the Britannica model, and for example relinquish its defining policy of allowing everyone to contribute. It's a bit more nuanced than that: there's a dispute here over whether (among other things) the picture is inappropriate at least on this page. You conceded earlier that this is a legitimate concern, but for an undisclosed reason your answer is "no". Others think that it is, and compellingly, the editors of Britannica agree; their sense of propriety is the same. The suggestion that they are just in the business of concealing knowledge hardly needs to be answered. So, considered in the light of Wikipedia's policy that content should reflect what a reader would expect to find in the same place in an Encyclopaedia, this is absolutely fatal to your case, and the image must be removed.SAT85 (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We have no idea whether or not Britannica agrees that the picture is inappropriate for this Wikipedia article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, their policy here is clear (and exactly what I would expect). See my earlier response to Soap: for example, they apparently don't even consider the article Homo Sapiens in Britannica Online (equivalent to Humans in Wikipedia) anatomical or technical enough to justify nudity: instead it features a man from side on, with his closer leg discreetly forwards. And it's not even a photo. There really is no excuse for retaining the picture, especially given the policy mentioned above. Regards, SAT85 (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that we have no idea whether or not Britannica agrees that the picture is inappropriate for this Wikipedia article. And Britannica has no say in Wikipedia policy or decisions anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the editors of Britannica browse through Wikipedia during lunch break to make judgements on individual pages--their policy is clear, and it would rule out the picture. The significance of this is that it puts to rest any notion that the opposition here is grounded on a provincial or idiosyncratic sense of propriety. Taken together, as I said, with Wikipedia's policy that articles should reflect what an encyclopaedia would have on the same kind of page (e.g. Homo Sapiens), this is uncontestable. SAT85 (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, as I said before, there is no Britannica article entitled Man. But just for the sake of argument let's suppose we were talking about the Wikipedia article Human, which contains the same images that appear on Man and Woman. Britannica is fundamentally a print encyclopedia, and does not normally duplicate content of any kind between one article and another. Whereas we try to provide a map for every article on a city or town, no matter how small, the EB generally does not. For example their article on Kinshasa has just one small black-and-white picture and no map of any kind. Applying the argument you're making above would seem to imply that you'd be in favor of the deletion of the map and all or most of the pictures in our own Kinshasa article, and likewise for all of our other city and town articles. After all, they're not in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Am I correct that this is your opinion, or do you believe that principle only applies some of the time? —Soap— 12:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither. The issue here isn't one of titles--it's about a principle: Britannica (which, let's face it, is hardly prudish) has an editorial view of propriety that excludes nudity from general, non-anatomical articles on the human race. There's no difference in principle between this page here and their Homo Sapiens entry besides the less technical connotations of "Man"; clearly then, if Britannica did have an article with the same title, one would not expect to find nudity there, let alone explicit photos. This has nothing to do with space-saving, since Britannica does have a picture on Homo Sapiens, but the point is that it's conspicuously and deliberately non-revealing. So really, (i) the photograph here is gratuitously obscene, (ii) it's suspiciously positioned, (iii) as demonstrated, it breaches wikipolicy; and therefore, frankly, it's got to go. SAT85 (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed about principle. All arguments return to the assertion that the picture is obscene. That is not a consensus, as evidenced by the widespread use of this image and its derivatives throughout wikipedia (that also handles the "amateurish" claim). But because you personally judge it obscene, you want it removed. That is censorship. You assert a division between technical and non-technical articles; the former have to be made safe for women and children. That is censorship. You not only create a policy of editorial restrictions for Britannica based on your inferences from browsing, you want to impose it on wikipedia. That is censorship-- and inept at that. You are universalising what "one" expects to find in a given place from what YOU approve of, and want to set that as the limit for what OTHERS are permitted to see. That's censorship. Against that: Wikipedia is not censored. Now, on the other side, it has been explained how the image advances understanding of the subject. You have not explained how removing it does so. That is the ONLY basis for removing it within wikipolicy. Besides these things, nothing new or relevant has been introduced. DavidOaks (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, DavidOaks....The "derivatives" you are talking about like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Health_effects_of_pollution.png are indeed widespread but they do not show the male genitalia like the picture here does. The full complete picture is only shown in a relatively small number of articles besides this one. However, the fact that the picture is used fully or partially in other places does not significantly help to justify its inclusion here; this article is primarily sociological and does not need anatomy pictures to further address its points. Furthermore, you have not sufficiently demonstrated why a picture would be more effective than an illustration even if such anatomical information were needed here. We233ws (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So there should be no illustration of gender as a biological concept? Given what you (pl) have been arguing to this point, I'm really surprised to hear the suggestion that gender is purely or primarily sociological; those who think that genitals have nothing to do with gender don't object to much of anything sexual. But then you're going to say that the gender aspect is to be illustrated with a diagram, so it...IS...about gender affter all? This is what I meant by observing that the grounds keep shifting. But maybe the article should develop a section on the social construction of the concept; the 11/12ths of the photos in the collage show gender-coded clothing in support of that principle. But then we come to another view -- why is a diagram an improvment? Since your purpose cannot be censorship -- that's against wikipolicy -- it must be as previously stated, to make things clearer. This surprises me again; it's not consistent with what's been argued before, but ok. And as has been repeatedly said, the main purpose of this article is not anatomy == anatomy is a feature of the subject. But if you think that the male genitals deserve close-up treatment, in fact we have photographs much clearer than any diagram that would certainly provide that kind of detail -- for example "Labelled flaccid penis.jpg" But-- just speaking for myself -- I'd consder that an emphasis out of proportion. Not obscene or even in poor taste, just out of proportion. DavidOaks (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

DavidOaks, let me address your points. "So there should be no illustration of gender as a biological concept?" I only said that such illustrations (or photos) of the biological concept of "gender" should not be included here; they belong in articles which interest "Wikiproject Anatomy." This project is of interest to "Wikiproject Anthropology" and "Wikiproject Sociology" and thus does not need to include information that is already explained in many other more appropriate articles (albeit it would be appropriate to link to such articles (if they are safe for work)). And I never said I don't think "gender is purely or primarily sociological." However, if I did, I would find offensive and object to your sweeping generalization that "those who think that genitals have nothing to do with gender don't object to much of anything sexual." Is that an axiom that you can prove? You didn't even use a qualifying word like "usually" or "sometimes." Then you believe you can fortune tell and read my mind by saying that "But then you're going to say that the gender aspect is to be illustrated with a diagram." I do believe that sex has something to do with genitalia but I also believe that this article is not the place to show it so comprehensively so this point about illustrating it with a diagram does not apply. The rest of your points simply elaborate on the premise that I want an illustration here which I do not. Let's get over our hangup about this photo, omit it, and move on! We233ws (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is really getting silly. Yes, there seems to be a hangup at work, but censoring wikipedia is not the way to address it. Of course Man/Woman is biological, anatomical, as well as sociological and anthropological. Also historical and political, linguistic too -- and all those things need attention. You want no reference to anatomy whasoever, while another who wants the photo removed thinks that a diagram would be ok, but not a big one, not one that would actually provide information. And things have to be safe for work? Please, please go back and read WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Projects that include a given page do not exercise constraint over that page's content; Daniel Boone is alllowed to contain information and images not related to Missouri, even though it's within that wikiproject (and others)...And oh, if you're a gender-bender who happens to be prudish, well, in my personal experience, that's unusual. Actually, my point in demonstrating the ever-shifting justifications for removing the photo is simply that the flagrant inconsistencies of logic indicate that the only real program here is one of censorship.DavidOaks (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

DavidOaks, if you were to include illustrations of all those aspects (those you allude to and more) about "Man" you would have far too many photos for this article especially at the size it is at right now (there is not enough written content). The article's written content has to be increased; yet even so, I do think that there should be limited written content about the biological aspect of "Man" but I think that it should be equipped with a link to the appropriate articles where it can be thoroughly fleshed out (i.e. in the article "Marriage" there is written content but no picture of polygamy in the "Marriage and Religion" subsection). The point is that there has to be a main focus for this article (sociological/anthropological) because otherwise all the countless aspects of "Man" (if they got equal amounts of content and not small summaries with links to other pages) would make this page far exceed Wikipedia standards for length. Furthermore, the picture is out of place and inappropriate in the top-left corner of a collage of images of clothed men (with their whole bodies not shown to boot); for the sake of organization, you would need to move it down to wherever anatomy is addressed. However, for the sake of consistency all the other aspects of "Man" (many of which do not have any content in this article) would need a picture which would prolong the article's size so yet again this image must be removed. We233ws (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) A photo of a polygamous family would be entirely appropriate to marriage -- go ahead and put it in; I expect it will be retained. But that's not the article we're editing here. If you have photos illustrating the linguistic aspects of "Man," well, that challenges my inventiveness, but give it a shot. We already have photos illustrating the sociological and anthropological range; in fact, they constitute 11/12ths of the collage. The article is well-focussed, and illustrated appropriately to that focus. It would be strange if the primary basis on which "man" is distinguished from related concepts (Woman) were not illustrated. The collage addresses various appearances of men. The natural and culturally neutral image should lead. But if you think the concept is exclusively or even primarily anthropological and sociological, by all means get consensus on that particular question. We can then include a photo of gay men, maybe "The Bowery - 10 cent Turkish Bath.jpg". But I don't think that really addresses your concerns. We can have lots more pictures of naked men if consistency is your primary concern, although I think that would be inappropriate in terms of emphasis. We can also have more full-length pix if you think Jim Thorpe isn't enough. I don't think you'd get much controversy. But I really don't think that is the issue for you. You want to censor. We don't do that. DavidOaks (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay fine, I will shift the focus to censorship if you want (even though this issue of appropriateness in lieu of censorship has still not been resolved). How come there are so many companies, public libraries, and other institutions that have regulations against showing nudity on their browsers (hence the acronym NSFW)? At this point I get the sense that you have absolutely no tolerance at all for censorship of nudity and you treat absolute openness to nudity like a morally imperative command. Just because Wikipedia has a policy of no-censorship does not mean that the policy is immutable or that everyone should be forced to accept it without question. You have a valid argument in stating that it contributes anatomical value for learning; however, if that information is appropriate in this article, there is no reason why it can't be accessed by a link with a disclaimer (i.e. in the anatomy section it would say "for a picture of a naked male click HERE). That way people who are at work or people who just do not want to see the photo (as evidenced by all the sections in this Discussion page) are able to read this article without being coerced into seeing the photo. If you are against disclaimers because you think they are a form of censorship, then I am sorry but you have little respect for all the countless people (not just in predominately anglophone countries but in India, Islamic countries, China, etc.) who do not share your view. You make this article more difficult to access by not realizing that there are many situations (i.e. work, being around children) where even nudists would not want to see the picture. Why do I need to go further? We233ws (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And to answer your two questions. (1) I explained earlier why the picture looks dirty. (2) Why 'amateurish'? Because it looks homemade. Maybe it's not, but you almost get the sense that the rather pasty-fleshed subject has just grabbed a camera, stepped out of his underpants, and taken a snap. I can't really elaborate beyond that, sorry, except to say that perhaps any nude photo is bound to look amateurish here given that no professional encyclopaedia would allow it. SAT85 (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Re 2: I disagree - it is clearly well lit, and the background is expertly masked - an amateur "stepping out of his underpants and taking a snap" would not produce anything like that result. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it was a slight exaggeration. But it does look like a careful home job. And he needs to go outside more, preferably with his trousers on. SAT85 (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

But going outside more with his trousers on wouldn't make him look any less pasty for a nude shot ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A sort of Catch-22. Or maybe just another good reason not to do it at all. SAT85 (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, once more: say somebody finds a photograph of Diana, Princess of Wales taken after the fatal car accident in '97 and uploads it? How would its removal enhance access to knowledge? SAT85 (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It would result in a conversation like this one. If you are curious, conduct the experiment, if you have such a license-free photo. I'm not particularly eager to see this happen, but if you are, give it a shot. The argument that assuredly would NOT win the day would be "there shouldn't be pictures of death or gore" "the page must be kept safe for those who don't like (fill in the blank)" or "this is vile/dirty/disgusting to me and therefore nobody is allowed to see it." DavidOaks (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect, you didn't answer the question. How would its removal enhance access to knowledge? My point is this: every objection that you have so far levelled at the removal of the image applies to the removal of the image I just suggested and to your stance on (e.g.) child pornography. Don't you see the problem? SAT85 (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not see any legitimate problem here, but I see the false dilemma. We are talking about THIS page, and the fact that you and some others object to a clinical illustration of a nude man as a thumbnail making up 1/11 of a collage illustrating the concept of "man," and the rationale advanced has been to protect women and children and the sensitivities of those who think that nudity is...well, bad somehow. I have answered your question numerous times, although I certainly understand why you don't like the answer. Nonetheless, it remains the same -- if you wish to know how the policy problem would play out in a particular situation, make the experiment. I do not know what the outcome would be, nor do I care, though I might be made to care if the argument were that nobody should be allowed to see things I object to, or that children must be protected from (fill in the blank) in articles of type (fill in the blank). I have told you two or three times what the process would look like. Here, we have a body of opinion -- along with clear reasoning -- as to how the image advances understanding. You could address that. Or some of the other questions I've asked, which are about this article and specific wikipolicies, not hypothetical operations upon others. If there's anything to bring forward that is not a rejection of wikipolicies or the imposition of personal tastes as moral absolutes, it's way past time to do it. Otherwise, it's way past time to regard the discussion as finished. DavidOaks (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear to everyone what will happen if the pictures are posted. That was why I proposed them. But I'm asking you what should happen, and why, and that's because, as anybody who looks back through your postings will see, every argument that you have so far directed against the removal of this image applies to those images there as well. Sure, the operations are hypothetical, but they illustrate a crucial flaw in your reasoning. So unfortunately, the question remains to be answered, and the obscene picture should be removed. As to the rest, including the caricature of my position you offer, please see my response above.SAT85 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No caricature; you are arguing for censorship, and that is against policy. You want to argue that the positions here should be tested against their hypothetical playout in some other article. I don't see the point of that discussion when THIS is the one we're talking about. DavidOaks (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that there is now a surprising level of general agreement on the policies that apply, and there is just a striking difference of views on the image itself. I am surprised to find that there are people who sincerely believe that that image is obscene and disgusting. Personally, I do not find it either of those things, I do not think I know anyone IRL who would do so, and I would have no worries, for example, about my children looking at it. So I have learned that people are more varied than I had realised.

If the Wikipedia community took the view that this image was obscene, disgusting, etc, then I think it would be right to remove it. There are articles where extreme images are justified as essential but I do not think this is one. Having a picture of a man naked does contribute to a better understanding of the subject, but if the image was obscene, it would probably not be justified as essential. However, my feeling - from reading past discussions on similar issues - is that the Wikipeida community as a whole does not consider pictures like this one obscene and disgusting. Grafen (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I should just add here that for practical purposes the obscene picture does in fact inhibit the dissemination of knowledge on the subject of Man: many people, especially children, are likely to point the cursor to the Back button on their browsers on seeing the nudity without reading even a paragraph of the article itself. (In fact, anyone working or studying in an environment where nudity is considered inappropriate is likely to make a hasty exit without benefiting from the text.)SAT85 (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And as Einstein said, "Knowledge exists in two forms: lifeless, stored in books, and alive in the conciousness of men. The second form of existence is after all the essential one; the first, indispensible as it may be, occupies only an inferior position."SAT85 (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Have you seen what's just happened folks? Some people who want to remove the image in question have decided that consensus is beneath them, and have again decided to unilaterally dictate that the image is to be removed - and have gone back to edit-warring to remove it again. And the article has been protected again. Nobody will win by trying to force their view on the community. So please just carry on discussing it here and wait to see how the consensus turns out, don't claim that the consensus supports you when it clearly does not, and wait for this RfC discussion to complete. If you carry on trying to dictate the outcome, all you'll do is get the article repeatedly protected, and perhaps even get yourself blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

  Presumably he's doing it based on the assumption that the old posts up above from 2009 can be counted as "votes" for the removal of the image, which, of course, they can't. —Soap— 17:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise

Here is the current Gallery

"[[Image:Naked human male body front anterior.png|x97px]][[Image:ChiefJoseph.jpeg|x97px]][[Image:Chinua Achebe - Buffalo 25Sep2008 crop.jpg|x97px]]<br/>[[Image:Douglas nicholls.jpg|x113px]][[Image:Ole Henrik Magga 140x190.jpg|x113px]][[Image:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg|x113px]]<br/>[[Image:Errol Flynn1.jpg|x99px]][[Image:JimBrownByPhilKonstantin.jpg|x99px]][[Image:Einstein1921 by F Schmutzer 4.jpg|x99px]]<br/>[[Image:Jim Thorpe football.png|x177px]][[Image:Man and son.jpg|x177px]]"

I propose moving the nude photo of the guy to be the last photo of the group. i.e.

"[[Image:ChiefJoseph.jpeg|x97px]][[Image:Chinua Achebe - Buffalo 25Sep2008 crop.jpg|x97px]][[Image:Douglas nicholls.jpg|x113px]]<br/>[[Image:Ole Henrik Magga 140x190.jpg|x113px]][[Image:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg|x113px]][[Image:Errol Flynn1.jpg|x99px]]<br/>[[Image:JimBrownByPhilKonstantin.jpg|x99px]][[Image:Einstein1921 by F Schmutzer 4.jpg|x99px]][[Image:Jim Thorpe football.png|x177px]]<br/>[[Image:Man and son.jpg|x177px]][[Image:Naked human male body front anterior.png|x97px]]"

Thanks for considering.--Talktome^(Intelati) 06:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. The question, however, is not about the placement/arrangement but the existence of explicit imagery on the page, so what you suggest is not in fact a compromise between the two parties here. Since, as you say, the picture is not the most important thing in the world, let me suggest a compromise involving the removal of such imagery at least from such a page as this, where it violates even Wikipedia policy (i.e., the use of good judgement, being thoughtful and considerate, what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia, etc., etc. - see discussions). Ben Dawid (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We're still waiting for a response to the position that the picture assists the purposes of the encyclopedia by helping to illustrate the subject. The responses have been exclusively expressions of personal taste, private religious/moral conviction or assertions of norms -- none of which strikes me as compelling or even likely to be accurate in terms of general opinion (have a look at, for example the German, Esperanto, Norse, & Gaelic versions of this article). And the idea that editorial decisions should be made for the purpose of keeping information away from women is really opposed to the purposes of the project. Harming children would be a compelling concern if the image even came close to standards of pornography or depicted someone likely to be below the age of 18 in a sexuallly explicit way. Doesn't meet that test. The talk page is for improving the article, not conversations about philosophy. A purely private agenda has been given patient and respectful hearing, but it really is time to close this. DavidOaks (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, also, it strikes me as rather ironic that while defending the explicit content as relevant to the article you actually attempt to censor the ensuing discussions as irrelevant! Where has common sense gone, man? Ben Dawid (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

But, of course, it’s only your opinion that those who disagree with you have not adequately stated their case. I think the burden of proof is on those supporting the imagery, and my opinion is that your position has been comprehensively refuted and that even Wikipedia policy is against the inclusion of controversial material in a completely neutral article. Inserting it here, and shamelessly lobbying for its permanent inclusion, is what I would call pushing an agenda. I think we’re on to something, though, when you agree that harming children ‘would be a compelling concern if the image even came close to standards of pornography’. However, there are no fixed ‘standards of pornography’ in Wikipolicy whereby anything harmful to children might be automatically removed, so we have to use common sense here. And when it comes to the protection of children in this area it’s far better to be safe than sorry and to refrain from uploading sexually explicit content to articles known to be frequented by unsuspecting minors. You’re arguing on really dicy ground here, especially since you admit there would be problems if such imagery depicted anyone under the age of 18. For everyone’s sake, let’s be responsible, let’s be considerate, and let’s not fight too hard for our own personal rights. Ben Dawid (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it is not surprising that a few European versions of the article might have explicit content; but in this case the exception only proves the rule. Ben Dawid (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a matter of opinion that the key and repeated question continues to be neglected: how does removing the picture increase the amount of information available on the subject? DavidOaks (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect, it is only your opinion that your constantly repeated line is the key question – in reality it is beside the point. Even regardless of the question of obscenity, there is the matter of how real human beings obsorb information, and removing a glut of 'information' is necessarily going to improve an article intended for teaching other human beings. Besides, quality counts just as much as quantity. Let’s say some clown uploads a thousand different nude images to this article, and insists they are relevant; can you demonstrate how removing any of those pictures might 'increase the amount of information available on the subject'? Not really the point, is it? Ben Dawid (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly a consensus to keep the image. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly a consensus to remove the image. Witness the fiery messages further up on the talk page, perhaps from people who were so disgusted with the obscene content that they haven't come back. Ben Dawid (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if you could prove that a silent majority in favor of removal of the image exists, they would have no voice in this discussion anyway because they chose not to say anything. Moreover, merely having a strong opinion about something does not give one's vote more weight in a discussion; only making reasonable, policy-based arguments can do that. Frankly, arguments like ergo, those whose civilised senses are horrified by foul content on parts of the website where no sane man expects it have absolutely no recourse to justice. Has Wikipedia really got so far out of sync with society as to force us all to wallow in lowest-common-denominator muck once we step inside its bounds? Or are the rather lax regulations perhaps being twisted to the advantage of online libertines and perverts? and However, educating children to accept evil by means of involutary desensitisation is nothing short of depraved. (your words) would be simply ignored or even deleted from the discussion in most content disputes, but I'm being sensitive here, assuming good faith, and not removing them. However, that doesn't mean that appeals to morality grounded in the pre-assumption that nudity is sinful are going to get us any closer to actually removing the images. I encourage you to stop the accusations of immorality and focus on making arguments based on Wikipedia's pre-existing policy. —Soap— 11:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Those gathered fragments of my expressions (as well as all my Wikipedia policy-based arguments) have been drawn out by the nature of the issue at hand, and I have assumed all along that both parties are free to express their thoughts on the appropriate Wikipedia talk page without fear of censorship. I am sorry that you don’t care for appeals to morality, though it is pleasing to find that some of those statements and questions have not been completely ignored. And thank you for your sensitivity. Ben Dawid (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment on this latest exchange. I personally do not believe that there is anything wrong with nudity, and I do not think the image under discussion is in any way pornographic. However, I recognize that there are some people with strong religious motivation who genuinely believe that showing such images is evil, and that the POV that says they're OK is depraved - in fact, for any metaphysical position that one might care to adopt, I'm sure there would be someone who would find it depraved. And so I'm really not offended by honest generalized opinions regarding morality, evil and depravity - as long as there are no personally-targeted attacks, and I don't think there are, then I'm happy for people to be open and honest about their beliefs. Whether such an approach is constructive is, of course, a different issue altogether, and I don't think it is - the strength of emotion put into a comment has no bearing whatsoever on evaluating the consensus (and, I think, is actually likely to be counter-productive). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

DEFINATELY ADD THE NEIL ARMSTRONG PICTURE

How come it's not there?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.153.26 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

Friendly note -- in general, we don't edit comments on talk pages. Sure, fix spelling or format, indents, but don't go back and change whatcha said. And never ever ever what somebody else said. And with that, 'nuff said. DavidOaks (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi David. You might be referring to the fact that I (i) tweaked a couple of my own sentences stylistically to make them a bit more sensitive, and (ii) replaced one of my own words with a better synonym. If anyone has objections, I'm happy to put the original wording back. Regards, SAT85 (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please make the nude man image larger, it's totally encyclopedic and educational

Wikipedia is not censored for children. The image of the nude man should be the largest and most prominent image in the article, since, hey, the article's about men, right? Anyone who searches the web for "man" or "men" is probably visiting this article because they want to know what a man looks like naked. I mean, they should probably visit an article specifically dedicated to that, like Sex differences in humans or Body shape, but why not put a bunch of pictures of naked men in every article tangentially related to men just in case? Anyway, it's only fair. Wikipedia's pedophile editors would fight to put a picture of a naked child in the article on children, so why shouldn't Wikipedia's exhibitionists get a chance to flaunt their stuff, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.58.79 (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)