This page was nominated for deletion on 16 November 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.
Note on demographic bias
The Wikipedia demographic
OK, a few more points. It's difficult to get this across because of rampant Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The typical Wikipedia editor is a childless single young male, and this is also (one supposes) the target demographic for pornography. Note the relative paucity of women, people with children, and mature people. Possibly at least partly a vicious cycle, as the frat-boy atmosphere that looks with favor on this sort of thing would tend to drive these people away. Herostratus (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
self reported online polls are a joke and meaningless. Hanging your hat on them while trying to toss around half-insults by the reference to things as a "frat boy" atmosphere, or your reference to things in the essay as "fanboy" context only weakens your argument and reduces your credibility.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Misogynistic section
I have attempted to make the misogyny section a little more reasonable. As you note, Wikipedia shouldn't take a position in the war between the sexes. The old wording did exactly that! I hope this change is more agreeable to you. Gigs (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gigs, Gigs, Gigs. You blanked the section and voted to userfy the essay. I'm having a hard time accepting you as a friend of the essay who is only interested in making it more cogent and persuasive. Let me ask you a question: are you in general agreement with the thrust of this essay, or not? And if not, why are you editing it?
You blanked the section earlier on the grounds that it was "polemical" (as well as "not really really related to the Wikipedia", which is ridiculous). Well of course it's polemical. The only questions are, is it good polemics, and does it use fair arguments. It does use fair arguments - this is not to say it's necessarily true, but that it's reasonable to say it's true, see the work of Gail Dines etc etc. As to whether it's good or not: your proposed changes weaken the thrust of the argument and muddy the terms, so they are no improvement.
We are not talking about "pornographic genres" in general, just about a specific subset. I am not talking about softcore pornography or pornography in general, and if we water down the text to give that impression, we are opening the section to objections like "Well, what's wrong with Playboy? I think the human body is beautiful" and so forth. But we are not talking about the beauty of the human body, we are talking about images of women being abused (in some cases, and the essay does say "many" and not "all"). We need to be as precise as possible in our terms.
We don't need to water it down with weasel words such as "Many consider" the images to be misogynistic etc. They are misogynistic, in the opinion of this essay. That's something that cannot be proven or disproven, and the reader can either accept that or not. But the essay is entitled to make its point forcefully. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do consider myself a friend of this essay. I would love to see all of these images off of Wikipedia as much as you do. But, as I mentioned earlier, I think the over-generalization on the misogynist point hurts the persuasiveness of the essay. Critical thinkers (which I like to think most Wikipedia editors are) have an innate aversion to things which they perceive as over-generalization and appeals to emotion. They then tend to disregard other, perfectly valid points. If your intent is to appeal to emotion, then great, but I think you are going to turn off a lot of people who would otherwise be inclined to join your cause. This is just my feeling, and I may be wrong, so I'm not going to forcefully change it myself. However, I do hope that you consider what I have written. Either way, I thank you for your hard work on the essay. Jrobinjapan (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, I agree with large parts of this essay. My recommendation to userfy was based on your reluctance to let anyone else edit it. If the essay were titled "images in obscure misogynistic porn subgenre articles" then it would be clear. (I'm not actually recommending such a mouthful as a title). But that's not what you've titled it. You've asserted that our coverage of hardcore porn is "mostly about obscure sub-genres of pornography", and then you go on to claim that those sub-genres are misogynistic. By extension you are calling "most" of our coverage of hard core porn misogynistic.
You claim to paint with a narrow brush, and you literally do if the reader ignores the title, carefully reads the non-bold intro, and rejects your assertion that most of our coverage is of obscure misogynistic subgenres. That's a lot to ask, don't you think? If you want this to be an essay about misogynistic sub-genres, then lets make that more clear. Gigs (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have a complete list of what articles are just about pornography and which are about real sexual activities (which may also be seen in pornography). I don't have this list because sorting these out, which I'm trying to do, is very time-consuming. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an image documents a real sexual activity in an encyclopedia, it is inherently not pornography, as it's purpose is Scientific, Literary, Artistic or Political in nature. If its only value lies in it being sexually explicit, or salacious, and has no value from the other aspects, then it is pornography. Regardless of the term, in any given article an image needs to be on topic, and illustrate that topic (or sub-topic) well. The editorial decision to include a sexually explicit image in such an article needs to be made based on the quality of the article, not based on religious or political reasons, nor whether it may offend some readers. If, by your personal terminology, anything sexually explicit is pornography, then we in Wikipedia do allow that material within Wikipedia, but only in very limited circumstances. Presumably if an image was off topic (suc as an image of a penis in the Dick Cheney article, or did not represent the topic well (such as an image of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the Great Apes article), or was gratuitously misogynistic, when a better image was available, then editors would use their editorial judgment to omit said image. The decision has to be made at that level. Censoring an image only based on the one characteristic that it is sexually explicit cannot be done without knowing the context of how it may be used. Atom (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on your proposal
I can see that you have given this topic a lot of thought, and have sincere and genuine concern for what is in the best interests of Wikipedia. You've even gone to the trouble of documenting and commenting on what you anticipate most of the disagreement with your position will be.
To start with you called the project "Wikipedia:Hardcore images" -- but then, immediately say "Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography" and then immediately try to define with "Hardcore pornography" is a fairly well-defined phrase".
Of course, you've jumped immediately from "Hardcore Images" to "Hardcore Pornography" in one fell swoop.
The first issue is that what we are talking about here really is self-censorship. What images do we wish to choose to leave out of Wikipedia for various reasons? That kind of voluntary self-censorship and restraint do we as a community desire out of the interest of keeping Wikipedia on the goal of being an encyclopedia, rather than other things?
The images that we choose to not be in Wikipedia cold vary broadly, and are not limited to what you call "pornography". That potentially includes images that do or could offend readers for wide variety of prospective reasons. It could challenge their views of morality or ethics, their political views, their religious views, or any number of other aspects of their life. "Pornography" frankly, is lowest on the list of possible reasons. Certainly graphics violence such as rape and murder would be worse. Blasphemy would be worse.
Next -- You use the term Pornography as if we all agree or understand the definition. You give a definition, and tell us that it is "well-defined". Of course we all use the same definition that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart used in Miller vs California. That is "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it." In fact, the only standard we have all (in the U.S.) agreed upon on for that is the Miller Test. That is a convenient standard, since Wikipedia servers are in the State of Florida, and bound by Florida state and U.S. federal laws (and hence, the Miller test.)
So, us self-censoring the broad range of potentially offense images on Wikipedia to focus only on "Pornography featuring sexual penetration and other sexuality explicit acts". "Explicit" is further defined as "very specific, clear, or detailed" and as "containing material that might be deemed offensive or graphic" is 'not okay.
The narrowing of your definition from the legal standard (Miller test) that we all agree on, to a narrower standard that is extremely subjective, and based on a specific list of content -- rather than on the context that a given image is used -- is not acceptable. Not at all. Not a little bit.
Using such a prospective subjective standard, we limit ourselves to the lowest common denominator. (and given a world with religions that require their women to be completely covered from head to toe) that common denominator is pretty low.)
One persons subjective opinion may be that because they personally find an image to be "erotic" or "arousing" in nature, that is is therefore "pornography" will not fly on Wikipedia.
An image that is directly related to the topic of the article it is in and illustrates the topic well (accurately) and benefits the article from an educational or encylopedic perspective should, as long it does not violate the law, be allowed in an article in Wikipedia. We should not give strong consideration to whether an image will be controversial, or whether it will offend "some" people, or whether "children" might see it. When given a choice of two or more images for an article that are equally good, of course, choosing an image that is less likely to offend or be controversial should be done.
A good example of this would be the article on sexual intercourse showing a real picture of a male and female (or more controversially, but just as appropriately two males having sexual intercourse.) Such photos would not inherently be pornography (although I suspect you would insist otherwise.) If used in the context of this encyclopedia, accurate, and tasteful. Showing a naked body is not erotica or pornography in an educational context. Showing one of the most common biological processes that we as humans experience is not pornography either. Yes, it could be "controversial". It could be controversial because the man is black and the woman is white. It could be controversial because the image *does not* show them using a condom. It could be controversial because the image *does* show them using a condom. It could be controversial because the man is "old" and the woman looks very "young". It could be controversial because it is two men. It could be controversial because the woman is on top, and not in the missionary position. It could be controversial because they are not married. It could be controversial because they *are* married, but not to one another. It could be controversial because they are married to one another, but they were having coitus for the benefit of the photo, and not to conceive children. There are numerous other reasons (as diverse as the diversity of humanity interacts with politics, religion and science.)
We at Wikipedia try to cut through all of that and warn people ahead of time that they could see controversial things in Wikipedia. We try to focus on our goal. What is our goal? Do we as editors know or remember that? Open and free access to the sum of human knowledge?
If we were in China, or Russia, we would have to accept the censorship (of all types of content, not just prospective erotic content), limiting that vision of "open and free and human knowledge" to some degree that was acceptable within those cultures and political structures. We do face the political reality and limitations of where Wikipedia *is* located. We do not have to limit ourselves based fear of controversy or bad public relations.
Out goal is to accumulate all of human knowledge and make it free and easily accessible. To stay on that task, we can't limit ourselves to trying to please and appease the specific moral tenets of every (or most, or the largest) religious groups.
You have gone to great lengths to pose this argument as something other than about censorship. But what it really is, at it's core, is an attempt to set up guidelines for Wikipedia editors to self-censor images that you or others subjectively describe as "Pornography".
To address your three main points:
There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to host these images. These few images are among the most contentious materials hosted on the Wikipedia, degrade the Wikipedia's reputation, create a political vulnerability for the Wikipedia, and drive away customers (including women; Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help).
We are not a business. Our goal is to accurately document human knowledge, not to drive up market share or broaden the diversity of our audience. It is about factually accurate coverage of *all* notable topics. It is what it is. We should not change it to get more women, or minimize political vulnerability. So, is your proposal be to limit some forms of contentious material(content) in order to gain more "customers"? Sort of an approach that although we had less documentation of the sum of human knowledge, since more of humanity read it, it would be more useful overall?
It is not a good thing for young people to be viewing these images. Other images on the Wikipedia may also be problematic, but these images are especially problematic since they depict extreme sexual situations, and they depict events that occur in pornography but not (at a verifiably notable level) in real life. A picture being worth a thousand words, this point may be lost on impressionable viewers.
You state an opinion that it is not a good thing for younger people to see controversial content. How do you know that? Perhaps growing up with a sense of reality, rather than being "protected" is better? Maybe reality better prepares one for life than fantasy? Perhaps children exposed to other humans who are also naked will help them grow up with an attitude that nakedness is a normal condition, and live a life finding nothing erotic about someone who is naked? What it boils down to, is that it is not our job in Wikipedia to project others from reality. We are talking about images here, not a car speeding in our direction. It is in fact, our job to accurately document reality. Should someone protect others? The reason that we have laws, and parents and counselors and Priests and Imam's is to seek guidance from others through our travels in life. None of those are our role.
If we wish to limit ourselves in some way, I suggest that we do it in the way we already are. We have laws in effect already regarding certain types of images, and defining what things are, in fact, obscene or not. We have a plethora of Wikipedia policies to insure our content is on task. That is, on a notable topic, with details in the article limited to the context of that topic, with content that is as accurate as possible, and images that support that topic and the applicable content on that topic. We have sensible editors that generally follow our community guidelines, and when given a choice of options in an article on content, choose the least potentially offensive content, rather than the more offensive.
Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women, and this is by intentional design (since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women). While it may be appropriate to display images depicting the degradation of women in certain historical or sociological contexts, its not appropriate to use them in what is a least a borderline "fanboy" context. In the war between the sexes, the Wikipedia should not be taking sides.
As a feminist, I am fine with misogynistic images when used in the correct context within Wikipedia. I am fine if it accurately depicts the topic as it is or has been in real life. Documenting misogyny helps to eliminate it, not to propagate it. If we should not be "taking sides" then we should focus on factual accuracy. Personally, I *do* take sides. Exposing bad things to the sunshine of reality is the best way to get others to recognize the truth of it. Jews do not want to hide and pretend that the Genocide of WWII never happened, they want to document every detail of the reality of that tragedy. We would not make editorial decision to eliminate references to Genocide in order to protect the victims. We don't need to make it a difficult issue. We are here to accurately document the sum of human knowledge.
You said: "I applaud and think is as good an expression of anti-censorship principles as any. And let us by all means take a stand to not redact our material in deference to the claims of ignorance, superstition, religion, tyranny, and profit. But hardcore pornography does not ennoble the human spirit. It enslaves, not frees, the mind. It tells a false story about human sexual behavior (and that for the profit of capitalists). It is not for this that we want to expend our supply of goodwill."
Well, I applaud you! I doubt many people would disagree with your words, and share your good-hearted intent -- as I do. We want to tell the true story of sexuality and sexual behavior, and not a false story. We want the capability to boldy document and describe human sexual behavior accurately, and in proper perspective. We don't wish to be limited by moralistic and life sheltered individuals who oppose any form of acknowledgment that sexuality exists. We should have no problem with any type of explicit sexual images within Wikipedia, as long as it is educational, and on the specific topic, and benefits the article by helping people to understand that topic better. As long as we are careful to make sure that those images are not, in fact, obscene, and are valuable to the article, that should be enough.
Atom (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know. This is quite long response and It's hard to digest it all. I do see some sophistry here, though: I talk about about images of women being degraded for amusement, and your response is "Perhaps children exposed to other humans who are also naked will help them grow up with an attitude that nakedness is a normal condition". We are not talking about anatomy pictures or the beauty of the naked human body here, and changing the subject in this way is not helpful.
We are not handwaving and talking vaguely of objectionableness in general. We wouldn't do that, because of course different people have different standards. We are talking about images which are problematic for specific, well-defined reasons.
Look. The river of sexual development is fed by many streams. And it is not fully understood. So we should be most conservative about the possibility of polluting any of those streams. This is our responsibility as adults. Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence seems more abstract. Of course we adults should all have s sense of responsibility. There are certainly a set of images which don't really have a need to be on Wikipedia. The ones of those that are sexually explicit should be the least of our concerns. Images that display graphic violence are much more offensive and damaging to all involved. Pictures of human skin are just that.
In my view the primary thing we should avoid is people learning about sexuality (which happens throughout the human lifespan) getting an unrealistic idea about sexuality. The problem with pornography in general, is that the people involved and the frequency of the acts involved are not representative of most people, or most human behavior. As for women being degraded for amusement, as a feminist, of course I agree they should be avoided, generally speaking. I think that accurately documenting history and how people have been misogynistic in the past is the best way to combat it in the future. So, for instance, although I abhor the sexual act now called Bukkake, documenting that a sex act intentionally intended to humiliate and degrade women exists and existed is important. That said, I am not sure how people learning that nudity is normal and healthy is connected to degrading women. Clearly images and artwork of human nudity abound in normal day to day life. Sadomasochistic images of non-consensual rape and bondage do not abound, and I can't see that such an image has a useful place within Wikipedia.
Part of the issue is moralists and ultra conservative religious types who classify anything that causes them or anyone else to be sexual aroused to be immoral, and therefore, pornography, and therefore, not useful regardless of any other context that image might have. What we can agree on, I think, is that we should never add an image to Wikipedia with the specific intent of causing sexual arousal. An image should be added to an article solely because it adds to the understanding of the specific topic of that article. If an image works well to help an article be understood, but also happens to be found to be arousing by some person, that is a personal issue, and not incorrect editing within Wikipedia. Otherwise, something as simple as an image of Mary Jane shoes would be omitted.
What I dislike the most about what you have written is your use of the term "hardcore pornography" and "pornography" as if the terms were clear and we all understood and agreed on what those terms meant. In fact, they are relative terms, and one image can be wholly appropriate in one context, and pornographic in a different context. The terms "sexually explicit" and "obscene" are better defined individually and within the law and would be more useful to use. As we could lay down 100 sexually explicit images on the table, and sort them by our subjective opinion of how graphic they are, from very low to very high, and try to draw a line on where the images were "too sexually explicit" for Wikipedia, you and I, (and many others) would likely agree that image #1 was fine for Wikipedia, and image #100 was to explicit for Wikipedia, and probably nothing else -- certainly not on where the line should be. For any kind of proposal on sexually explicit images within Wikipedia to succeed, it needs to be as objective as possible, and push away subjective criteria. As the term "pornography" itself is entirely subjective, it is not a term that will ever be useful for this purpose. The other factor is that the context in how an image is used is important. Without the context, there is no way to classify an image as being anything other than sexually explicit. And there is nothing wrong with something being sexually explicit. Atom (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy
This edit is exactly why I proposed userfying this months ago.[1] HS is not allowing others to contribute so this belongs in their user space.Cptnono (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Herostratus; Hostile edits to essays are not welcome. Write your own essay." I'm confused. This project is in user space. The edits I made I felt were positive and constructive, addressing the issues discussed while removing the feel that it was just one persons personal opinion. Are you trying to say that you own the article and no changes can me made except by you, or with your approval? If you want to move this to your talk page, then please feel free to express yourself. But in a project space it belongs to all of Wikipedia.
Also, I am not sure why you would consider those edits to be "hostile". I will try another edit that is more gentle. I hope that it does not step on your toes. Atom (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view this page is utterly ridiculous. It is not for Wikipedia to be claiming pornography is misogynistic; in fact it's not even for Wikipedia to be appearing to suggest that. Egg Centric (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, therefore userfy at the least. And it simply must be noted that this essay is in fact a polemic, it isn't just, or even primarily, about Wikipedia. Egg Centric (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the Wikipedia is not censored policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy."
If the issue were black and white, then there would be people for and people against. Non of us seem to be, in fact, for censoring Wikipedia. We all, for the most part, seem to be against images that are not appropriate for a given article. By policy, Wikipedia is neutral on images that have explicit sexuality. If the image is appropriate for the topic of an article, it may be acceptable. If the image is not appropriate for the topic of an article, then it may not be acceptable. The term used in this essay, hardcore pornography is subjective, and is used in the context by the primary essayist to mean "sexually explicit images that I don't like". As every editor can not like an image for their own personal reasons, it is not a term that can be useful to us. Perhaps some editors would like life to be easier, and have a very easy rule that no sexually explicit images may be used in Wikipedia. That is, however, not in alignment with current Wikipedia policy. To succeed in limiting images that are not in the best interests of WIkipedia, and yet not censor, we need objective criteria. This means there can be no hard and fast rule, that each and every image must be judged by the editors of a given article as to whether the image benefits an article or not. Whether the image is on topic or not is objective. Whether the image is sexually explicit or not is not a factor. Whether the activity and the image truly represent real life (versus fantasy/erotica/entertainment) seems to be a valid argument. Other objective and more concrete criteria could and should be proposed. But, the first thing that should go in this essay is the term hardcore pornography. I don't see any easy way to discuss a subjective term that varies bt context, generally in an objective and concrete way. Atom (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HS has just axed more contributions.[2] The essay was kept when the first deletion discussion came up. I think people were appalled since they assumed the request for deletion was some sort of censorship. "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." (WP:ESSAYS ) applies and HS has made it clear that the essay is locked down.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People. For starters, please stop making hostile edits to the page. Of course this is public space. We welcome discussions and edits intended to refine, strengthen, and improve the essay. However, this is not what is happening here. These are edits designed to attack and weaken the essay. This is no more acceptable than blanking the page would be. This would apply to any essay. You cannot edit WP:DICK to say "Actually, it's OK to be a dick" or whatever. So cut it out.
@Herostratus -- Well, I broke the changes I felt benefited the article into a series of small edits and explained each one. I reviewed them, and I don;t see how changing the style to be more like an essay, concise and cleaner is hostile. I did not change the intent of one single paragraph. What is it exactly about the edits that you disagree with? Since the policy is BRD then why don't you discuss them and other editors could weigh in? I know that with my edits -- it does not sound like you wrote it, but that is kind of the point. I have always had respect for your editing, and even supported you in the past. So, I am really at a loss to understand your hostility. Sure -- we don't see this particular topic the same way. But you will not that Not one word of the opinion I gave on the talk page was in the edits I made in the article. I feel that the edits I made truly strengthened the article. Atom (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see.
Your first edit, you removed the assertion that these articles are (arguably) fancruft. I realize that you to you this may be very very important stuff, just as Category:Pokemon may be to another user. This essay doesn't agree with you. They are fancruft. The other changes are arguably OK. Whether they weaken or strengthen the essay is a matter of opinion regarding prose style. But I absolutely question your motives.
Well, my feeling about that was that since fancruft is not a real word, and as slang, most people have no idea what it means, that it weakened your argument. As for motive -- If you had dealt with me more you would know that although I may disagree with you or others, that does not mean that I do not respect or like them. I hope for your success in all things. I hope to change others opinions through honest discussion. Such discussion has often changed my opinions. Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your second edit. Minor changes. In my opinion they slightly weaken the essay, making is just bit less forceful, but this is a matter of opinion regarding prose style. But I absolutely question your motives.
My perspective is that the word cost especially in the context where you use the word customers is oncorrect. Actually, in terms of $, it does not cost Wikipedia anything more, much less considerable cost to host the images. I did not argue -- clearly your meaning was not cost=$, but cost in terms of public relations, people viewpoint and opinion of Wikipedia. I tried to stay to whet I thought was clearly your intended meaning with my edit. As Wikipedia doe snot in fact have customers, that is why I changed it to readers. The term "most contentious" makes it sound like hyperbole, when saying contentious alone is accurate without a reader thinking you may be exaggerating. Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your third edit is a spelling fix of the second edit.
Your fourth edit. Not counting minor changes, this was to remove the text "...(including women; Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help)." You are entitled to think that the Wikipedia does not have a serious serious deficit of female readers. You are entitled to think that this is not a problem. You are entitled to think that this sort of thing is helpful to attracting female readers. This essay does not agree with any of those. You are encouraged to write your own essay making these points. And I absolutely question your motives.
Of course, Wikipedia's goal is not to attract readers, or build an audience, but to make an encyclopedia of everything. Our main objective should be being as accurate as possible with our articles, and not readership. Also, the statement itself is arguable, since we have no evidence that the kinds of images that you object to (whatever term we wish to use to call them) alienates anyone, women or otherwise. Now I know that you can argue otherwise, Argument is not my point. To make you message clear, putting things that othes do not believe to be true will not help you win your point. And, as I said, since most editors will say that your goal is not to attract women readers, it is not relevant anyway. As an ardent feminist, of course I care about how women readers may feel. But as an editor, we need to focus on the purpose of Wikipedia, not on how to market it best to any given target market. Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your fifth edit. You pared down some text. Nothing major, but I think it makes the point slightly less forcefully, although this is a matter of opinion regarding prose style. But I absolutely question your motives.
I felt that the more concise wording made your point better. Of course it is fair for you to disagree. Most editors would say that it needed a rewrite, IMO. You rewrite it then with your choice of words. It is a bullet point. So, cover one thing and say it well as concisely as possible. Trying to make multiple statements in a bullet point fails. Making a bullet point to long means your reader won't read it. As for my motives, I offered good edits regardless of what you perceive my motive to be. Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your sixth edit. You removed "and this is by intentional design (since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women)" then replaced "its not appropriate to use them in what is a least a borderline 'fanboy' context. In the war between the sexes, the Wikipedia should not be taking sides." with "it is not appropriate to propagate misogyny ourselves." The first removal weakens the point. The second reduction is arguable and is a matter of opinion regarding prose style. But I think that it makes the point seem much blander and less vividly and forceful. And I absolutely question your motives.
I was focused in this section on making it more concise without damaging the point that you were trying to make. It needs to be cleaner. First, fanboy is more slang that most of your audience does not get. No one believes that there is a war between the sexes and so that does not help you make your point. Perhsaps many people do not feel that pornography, in general, is designed intentionally to be misogynistic. They think that it is primarily about people trying to make money. Although I disagree with yo u on this point, I tried to follow what you intended to mean, and make the point in a way that would not make the reader doubt what you were trying to communicate was true. I know you are trying to discuss a particular kind of porn, that you call hardcore porn, but as there are no examples given, the reader associates what you are saying with porn in general, not just the specific misogynistic porn that you may mean. Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your eighth edit just removes some text. In my opinion makes the point much vaguer and is not an improvement. And I absolutely question your motives.
If you want your reader to understand you, make the point cleanly and concisely. My edit did that without harming your intended message whatsoever. Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your ninth edit is to remove the text ""Hardcore pornography" is a fairly well-defined phrase" and a paragraph supporting this, with an edit summary of "'Hardcore Pornography' is not, in fact, well defined at all. People can reasonably disagree pretty much anytime that term is used", which is not true, and I suggest you peruse any large dictionary or encyclopedia where the term is defined quite clearly. Obviously for the purposes of sophistry it is useful to muddy terms and argue that words don't mean what they do mean. This edit absolutely weakens the essay and attacks it at its core. And I absolutely question your motives.
We can agree to disagree on this. Since the term "pornopraphy" itself is a subjective term, and two different people can look at the same image as alternatively educational, scientific or artistic, and the other as pornography, adding the adjective hardcore does not clarify the issue. You will see my edit did not damage the point that you were trying to make, even though I don't agree. The second paragraph, although it has the aspect that you wrote it, does not clarify the first paragraph at all, IMO.
Your tenth edit is to remove a paragraph about the Wikipedia disclaimer, with an edit summary that it is not true. But it is true. Notwithstanding that this may be inconvenient for some. And I absolutely question your motives. Herostratus (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Disclaimer *does* say "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts." It does not, in fact, use the term "hardcore pornography". Other editors (like the ones writing the disclaimer) also have the view that the terms pornography and hardcore pornography are too subjective. In most editors opinions there are no pornographic images on Wikipedia, and hence, no need to warn people that it is there. There are images that some may find objectionable, or offensive though. If a sexually explicit image offends someone, that does not make it pornography. If an image causes some reader to be sexually excited, regardless as to whether it is hardcore or not, that does not make it pornography either. The paragraph is, again, too long, hence the need to make it more concise. The second paragraph add little value in making your point, IMO. Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an essay. Why are you so hostile to its existence? My experience is: people who cannot abide any expression of any view contrary to their own are people who are troubled by a quiet fear that they are terribly wrong. Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not hostile to its existence at all. I disagree with your viewpoint. At least if you are going to make the argument that there should not be sexually explicit images on Wikipedia, it could be made on a factual basis, rather than an elaborate "I don't like it" basis. As I edit primarily sexology and sexuality articles, I run into, time after time, people who confuse that they are surprised or offended by an image, and try to get it removed because they think it is pornography. I am find with helping you, and others, who want to remove images that genuinely do not need to be on Wikipedia. I'd love to have a policy that can help us do that using objective criteria, rather than based solely on whether an image arouses them or not. It could be that the next ten images that you object to that I would completely agree with you that they do not belong on Wikipedia. You raise many valid points in this essay, but you don't give us any solution or bring us any closer to solving the real problem. There are many people on the sidelines ready to take up your banner to move in and remove *all* sexually explicit images from Wikipedia, regardless of their merit or value. Your essay should not assist them in that goal. Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is counter to consensus and possibly confusing to new editors (not enough to be deleted apparently, although I still believe much of the votes to keep were knee jerk based). I believe it is also first stages of an attempt to change policy and since I find the premise ridiculous, I would prefer a better channel with more visibility so that the community could remind you of that. But my "hostility" towards it has nothing to do with you not allowing other editors to edit it. That alone is reason to userfy it even if I thought this essay was fantastic. Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps an admin could create an editnotice decreeing that only editors approved by Herostratus are permitted to edit this essay. I'll take it to ANI to make that request. Egg Centric (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that our German brothers are probably weary of the implication that peremptory and officious pronouncements are best expressed in their language. See Godwin's Law.
It's not true.
Look, here's an an example - the essay WP:COMPREHENSIVE. I don't agree with this essay at all, and in fact consider it loathsomely amoral (in fact its original title was "Wikipedia is amoral", as if this is something to be proud of). So should I go over there and weaken the language, intertwine arguments against the thrust of the essay into the essay text, rewrite or remove sections of text that make their argument too effectively, add quotations refuting the existing quotations in that section, and just generally seek to destroy the essay?
Of course not. Instead, I could write my own essay and add a link to at the bottom of WP:COMPREHENSIVE. And that's all I can do. How many times do I have to say this?
(Of course, I could correct grammatical errors and so forth in WP:COMPREHENSIVE or, if for some reason I wanted to, make other changes which improved the essay and made its arguments more cogent and compelling. However, even for that - since I hate the essay and openly say so, my motivation would (properly) be automatically in question and my edits would (properly) be subject to an extreme level of scrutiny from people friendly to the essay, and it probably just would not be a good idea for me to edit it at all.)
No, there's a difference between your example and this situation—you have clearly said that a specific user cannot edit this essay. Regardless of whether he/she is fixing a typo, rewording a sentence, fundamentally reworking the essay, etc., you have simply said "Plenty of other editors are welcome to edit it. Just not you." Do you see the difference? The reason this is now in userspace is because WP:ESSAY states, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." You clearly don't want at least one user to edit this. I'm not sure how this is difficult to understand? /ƒETCHCOMMS/17:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As long as editors are banned from a page because of who they are, not because of particular problematic contributions (supported by consensus) the page can't be in wikispace. ++Lar: t/c02:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have worked with this user for quite a long time. It is incontrovertible that he hates this essay with a passion and everything it stands for. The moment it was created he nominated it for deletion, argued vociferously for its deletion, and when it was not deleted he did not take this well. This is not even taking into account his edit history, talk page comments, and other actions elsewhere.
I actually did not nom it for deletion immediately. I even made it clear that I was not against the idea of such an essay in that discussion. SO how about you apologize for not being honest now? Furthermore, I have never made any malicious edits to it. It doesn't matter anyways, as soon as you started edit warring with others you proved that you WP:OWN it which means it goes in your user space. Next time make your point without crating a polemic essay that's intent is counter to current guidelines and policies while also refusing to let others contribute. Not my fault you made those mistakes so don't twist the history and current discussion by telling it any different than it is.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the place to object to parts of the essay? Indeed, I'm still unclear on whether I'm supposed to really! My objections are not about the policy, they're about the justifications (particularly the misogynistic bit) given which are not wiki related and are rather contentious. Egg Centric (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure. I understand that you don't agree with the misogynistic bit. If your general point of view is "I agree, in general, with this essay, as expressed in its nutshell, 'Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography'. But I think that the misogynistic bit is not true and, since its not true, it actually weakens the case", then we can talk about that. Maybe you can make a convincing case that none these images are misogynistic in intent or effect. Cites would be good here. Or maybe you can make a convincing case that, true or not, it's not tactically a good thing to say this. And so forth. So you can begin to lay out your case, I guess right here is a good a place as any, and let's keep the mediation simple with just me and Atom. (However, you can join it if you like, I guess; I don't really know how it works, what the practice is, or what would be best. Starting at WP:MEDIATION you can probably work through that.)
My view? Wikimedia certainly should. Wikipedia? Not sure. Certainly not in non pornographic articles. I'm uncomfortable with a blanket ban. Truth be told I'm not that bothered one way or the other.
I do not agree with you that the only reason for removing the misogynistic bit is because it weakens the case, however. Another good reason would be that it simply isn't true. Egg Centric (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is no need for mediation. If this is a personal opinion/essay offered on your user space, then more power to you. Please express yourself on the topic. Others should not interfere. If it goes back to main space, and it a vehicle for censorship then you will need to let all editors participate and express their viewpoints.
I would then work with editors, including those I don't agree with, in building policies to give us clearer guidelines. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality for where I tried to do this in 2005.) Certainly it should be clear to you that building an essay to further your cause to censor and remove all sexually explicit images in Wikipedia has very little chance of succeeding. That being the case, how can this debate result in constructive and positive changes to Wikipedia that limit the scope of offensive images (of all types -- not just sexuality) and give all future editors a tool so that there is less bickering and time wasted constantly debating image appropriateness? Atom (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Atom: Essays express points of view. They can be, if necessary, renamed so they do not appear to be the "be-all and end all" on a particular topic area but it is OK for them to have a particular view. If you disagree with the point of view expressed.... then rename the essay and write one that has the point of view that you think is correct. This is an essay, not a policy page. You can write a competing one that makes a different point but you should not try to turn what it says inside out. ++Lar: t/c22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following what you mean exactly. I mean I understand what you are saying, but it does not seem to apply to this situation. If you look at my edits, I made a number of edits that all supported the theme of the essay, not edits that contradicted the point of the essay. I was not trying to say that an essay must express all viewpoints, only that that would be a fair and constructive thing. Can you point to an edit that tries "to turn what it says inside out"? All of my edits were attempts to improve what the owner of the essay was saying. Do you really believe that the owner of the essay can and should revert an edit, or edits merely because someone who makes an edit is viewed as "hostile", or "does not trust their motives"? Shouldn't the edit be based on how it actually changes the content? Atom (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
H did an analysis of your edits. I find myself in agreement with him that this one, this one, this one and to a lesser extent this onedo start the process of "turning the essay inside out". That said, I find Herostratus's repeated use of "But I absolutely question your motives." to be counterproductive. Even if your motives are questionable, AGF requires that , we evaluate outcome, not intent, until it is blazingly obvious that good faith is lacking, and I don't see that in this case. To go forward constructively, I think you need to show how removing criticism of the disclaimer and other problematic edits actually advance the point the essay is making. ++Lar: t/c02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, Atom (responding here to Atoms post above), I can do that. I'm disappointed that you chose to reject mediation, as I think that it would be helpful in this case, I think this is bad form and may limit the usefulness of this discussion. However, we'll try to do our best under the circumstances. But first just to make sure that we're on the same page, let me ask you a question.
The nutshell and first sentence of the essay are "Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography" and "Articles about hardcore pornography subjects should not contain images which are, themselves, hardcore pornography."
Now, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you do agree with those sentences, and you sole interest in editing the essay is to strengthen the exposition of those points - to make it clearer, or more cogent, or more compelling, so that a person reading the essay is more likely to to come away with the thought "That is convincing. I now do agree that the Wikipedia should not include images which are hardcore pornography".
Is this correct? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. There is no need for a long exposition. I'm just looking for a simple answer, so that we can then move on to the next step. Herostratus (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did oyu get the idea that I have "rejected" mediation. As I said, as long as it was your personal essay in your user space, there was no sense. If you feel there is something to mediate, then as I said before, I'm happy to assist you. Atom (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted userfication
I reverted the userfication of this essay. It is an important essay, representing an important perspective, and is the sort of essay which I think is consistent with the mission and purpose of Wikipedia. I encourage Herostratus to avoid language which might be incorrectly construed as ownership of the essay, and I encourage those who disagree with the essay to either write their own essay or, if you agree with the thrust of the essay but would like to reword some parts of it, to work thoughtfully here on the talk page and through careful and compromise-driven editing to the essay itself to improve the arguments that it makes.
I hope there is no reason for this to spin out of control into an argument that will end up in front of ArbCom. My reversion here should not be regarded as a dictate or pronouncement of any kind, and if the essay should be userfied, it should happen through some orderly process (and I will !vote against doing so).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with this restoration. The essay survived an earlier MfD with flying colours. I do not find that as it stands it is polemically written, and would invite those who disagree with its message to write an alternative essay; both essays can link to each other. --JN46614:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of this essay is misleadingly small. It is not an essay about hardcore images. It's an essay about "Herostratus' personal definition of hardcore" which pretty much amounts to only bukkake. There is no compromise or consensus, the entire basis of the essay is defined by the owner of the essay. Within this contrived framework, there is nowhere that this essay can realistically go. Userfying this essay and starting an actual essay about exercising editorial discretion with hardcore images would be the way to go. Gigs (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At present the community seems to be divided on what exercising editorial discretion in this area means, or should mean. Somewhere down the line, we may well have a policy or guideline on this that is supported by community consensus, but while consensus is unsettled, separate essays are the easiest and most effective way forward. --JN46621:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that this essay is in no way representative of a reasonable position in this divide. Herostratus intends this essay to only apply to "specific misogynistic sub-genres that do not occur outside of pornography". This isn't a normal definition of "hardcore" by any measure. It's not a workable starting point. Gigs (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The essay says, "Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women, and this is by intentional design, since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women"; it does not say that all hardcore images are misogynistic. I think there is no question that pornographic genres like bukkake, gang bangs or scat have a misogynistic element to them. --JN46601:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was a recent change. I tried to change it to "many" in the past and was strongly opposed by Herostratus that said that this essay only applies to misogynistic pornographic sub-genres that do not occur in real life. Gigs (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would, Jimbo, refer you to WP:BRD and the discussion at the end of User_talk:Herostratus/Hardcore_images#Mediation as well as the discussion at AN/I. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about "discussion" and WP:ESSAYS here? I'm not, as some people are, arguing over the content of the essay, simply over its location, which, according to the behavior of Herostratus and the policy at WP:ESSAYS, should be in userspace. I wonder why, Jimbo, (and this is not intended to be disrespectful) you continue to make these sorts of unilateral decisions despite the criticism you have received in the past. It is clear that your revert of the move was done at your discretion, without clear consensus, and apparently without looking over this talk page to see that attempts to compromise have failed. Herostratus is essentially controlling this page and reverting edits he dislikes. This page is not appropriate for projectspace not because of its content, but because of its authors actions and behavior. I request that you, Jimbo, provide a more descriptive rationale for this move back into projectspace. Particularly:
How do you interpret WP:ESSAYS' statement, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit belong in the user namespace"?
Why do you think that your personal opinions on the content of this essay (which I am not questioning) allow you to ignore lack of consensus on this essay's location as well as the obvious OWNership issues and move the essay while discussion is ongoing?
I hope I am not coming off as unnecessarily accusatory or being rude, but I see little policy-based reason for this move. While it is true the initial userfication move was a tad hasty, I am a strong believer in WP:BRD and do not think adequate discussion has yet ensued. /ƒETCHCOMMS/01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your specific questions: (1) There will be no OWNer ship of this essay; I have asked Herostratus to refrain from any remarks that would give that impression. He has already said that he welcomes other people to edit, so if there was a problem at one point, that seems to be resolved. (2) I interpret the statement about essays that people don't want others to edit belonging in userspace in no controversial way; it simply doesn't apply here - others are welcome to edit the essay (3) My personal opinion of the content of the essay is irrelevant to this discussion. It is a valid essay, like many others on the site, and userfying it without first gaining consensus to do so is wrong. Nothing in policy justifies attempts to shut down an opposing viewpoint by userfying an essay of this sort. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid excuse for censoring this essay in that fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to censor this essay, and while the ownership issue may (as you claim) no longer exist, I am still curious as to why you decided to circumvent ongoing discussion of this issue and essentially promised that Herostratus cannot bar people from editing this after you moved it back? Surely it would make more sense to wait for Herostratus to first agree no ownership will take place if the essay is moved back, let the discussion conclude, and then move it back? You say that userfying it without consensus is wrong; you reverted the userfication against consensus as well; how is that right? BRD, is, while not policy, something I expect you to follow as well; we all know that this sort of move warring can be disastrous and that you're lucky there's been some agreement over the ownership problem after the move. /ƒETCHCOMMS/15:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are accusing me of here. I am following BRD to the letter. "1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)" Someone did something bold: userfied an essay without there being any consensus whatsoever to do so. "2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person." That would be me, a Most Interested Person. "3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, " - that's what we are doing now, and indeed, I said in my original post about this "if the essay should be userfied, it should happen through some orderly process".
I'm sorry, I think this is just an interpretation issue. I'm looking at the situation differently than you, and your point makes sense now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/17:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content disclaimer section
The content disclaimer section of the essay quoted an old version of the disclaimer. I've updated this to reflect the current wording of the disclaimer: [3] Given that the current version of the disclaimer says that "some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts", the criticism expressed in this part of the essay was no longer as well founded as it was at the time the section was written. I've had a go at updating the wording. [4] Please review. Thanks. --JN46615:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you. By the way JN, since you're apparently watching this page, would you be so kind as to as to take a look at Cyclopia's recent edit? Cyclopia's edit history shows that he extremely hostile to the thesis expressed in this essay, and he's part a group that works with some of the other editors we have seen here. Since I am effectively locked out from editing this page (part, a less sanguine person might suspect, of the point of that whole exercise), it would be a kindness if you would take a look at that. Herostratus (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, you are half right. I am indeed very much against the thesis expressed in this essay (and I find its arguments especially weak: you could have done a better job), but I am part of no group at all -I happened to see the discussion related to this essay and I have fixed a couple of things. If there is a group working to maintain such content on WP, let me know -I'd love to join it I'll probably either request a move to Wikipedia:Hardcore images are inappropriate or put a section in favour of such images (so to speak) -the title as it is leaves the reader think that this is consensual advice on sexual images, which is definitely not. I'd feel nice to have an essay covering both points of view. --Cyclopiatalk19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclopia, we can have two essays. Each will link to the other, but please let this essay say what it wants to say. Thank you. --JN46620:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term Hardcore, or Pornography are not appropriate as an article title. The issue is broader, and that is: What kinds of images are acceptable within WIkipedia? As pornography is not a static or objective term, it is useless. Also, it only applies to sexually explicit images, and we are okay with sexually explicit images as long as they are relevant to the topic. We don't belive in censorship. Other images outside the range of sexually oriented images are more important to address. Images that are offensive or obscene of other reasons that because they are arousing. Hate or violence oriented images for instance. So, the correct term for discussing this topic needs to be used, and not a narrow term. Atom (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you think that their goal is not really to improve Wikipedia, but to censor sexually explicit images, but under the guise of, what, misogny?? Atom (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that or I would violate WP:AGF. What I mean is that this essay has a narrower scope and there is nothing wrong in that per se : I agree that the discussion could be wider, but this could be in the scope of another essay. --Cyclopiatalk22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reflects the editorial judgment of reliable sources. : Canard often repeated as an argument for this kind of cases but absolutely wrong and misleading. Wikipedia reflects the content of RS. Almost all other policies and practices of WP are not shared by RS, sometimes explicitly (Wikipedia is a wiki ; we don't accept wikis as RS as a rule: does this mean that we should stop to be a wiki to "reflect the editorial judgement of reliable sources"?). A lot of RS do not care for NPOV, V or the like: it's us that we care. Scientific journals are among the most respected RS, yet they almost only publish what we would consider WP:OR if published here. If you want to make an argument that WP should reflect not only the content but also the practice of RS, then do so, but do not state this as fact, because it's a total falsehood. --Cyclopiatalk22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the wording. [5] While we do not follow the editorial judgment of any individual source, we do try to map the editorial judgment of the overall pool of reliable sources available to us in our textual content. This is the fundamental premise of NPOV: views that are very highly represented in published sources are given priority over views that are rarely voiced. --JN46600:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. It is again wrong, in the meaning that it is not what we do. We map the content. We do not map any other aspect of editorial judgement. Again:
We are a Wiki, no RS is, so we're not mapping any "pool"
We require verifiability on other sources ; RS often not
We do not allow OR ; RS do it (more often than not they are OR from their point of view e.g. scientific papers)
We require NPOV ; RS often don't
etc.
There is no such thing as the "judgement of the overall pool"; and in any case nowhere WP attempts that. We stick to sources for the content; but what and how we present content, is independent. Again, the rewording is still false and misleading (I don't want to sound rude, but unfortunately it is). --Cyclopiatalk00:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is correct inasmuch it refers to editorial judgment regarding content, rather than editorial process, and we are talking about content, not editorial process. Cyclopia, your editing here is now disruptive. You are free to disagree with the argument made in this section, and are welcome to argue otherwise elsewhere, but please let the argument stand. --JN46601:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is disruptive is your baffling misunderstanding of how WP works. What we write reflects RS, but how we do, and especially how we illustrate an article, that definitely we do not -it is a decision between editors. Do we look at how RS section content to decide how to divide articles in sections? Do we ask our featured pictures to be similar to ones already reported in RS? Also, illustration often follows different rules: for example, do we refuse all original photographs, drawings and diagrams because they are original content? Your argument can stand even without stating a falsehood: you can simply argue that it should be that way for images instead of saying that it is. It's not matter of disagreeing with the argument (I do, but that's entirely another matter); it's matter of not misleading readers by presenting as fact something which is not. --Cyclopiatalk01:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essay, not a guideline or policy. It is clearly marked as an essay. I think editors generally understand that essays are not binding (unless they acquire a status close to that through community consensus). Look at other essays, like WP:COATRACK: it makes definite statements ("Coatrack articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy") which are based on the authors' interpretation of policy and do not necessarily enjoy full community support ("What if most of the RS coverage is about a scandal?"). Your interpretation of policy may differ from mine, but that does not prevent each of us from stating our interpretation in an essay. I actually look forward to your outlining your understanding in an essay. I think it will be intellectually stimulating. It will further debate, and I will not delete what you write because I think it is "wrong". --JN46603:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* I am not trying to censor your opinions, nor interpretations. I am talking of something different: You state factually something which is untrue. Essays may be biased as much as they like, but they cannot be false. If I write in an essay "Wikipedia encourages original research and detests verifiability", you would be more than right in deleting it, and I couldn't say "oh but it's just an essay" to justify my assertion. Essays play a role in WP and ought to be factually correct, to avoid misleading people who read them. Again: if you want to say that Wikipedia should behave in some way, you're more than welcome to do so. But you (and anyone else) is not welcome saying WP behaves in a way as it is was common knowledge, while this is false. This borders on bad faith. --Cyclopiatalk03:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is untrue or false in your opinion. It isn't in mine. Essays are opinion pieces and they are clearly marked as such. --JN46603:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be serious. I listed above a half dozen counterexamples. It is not a matter of opinion. That organization of WP content is a mere mapping of RS practices is a blatant falsehood, not an "opinion". You can be of the opinion that it should be, but if you are of the opinion that is you are either deluded or in bad faith. --Cyclopiatalk03:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclopia, please read some other essays that are welcome in project space:
Wikipedia:Anti-Wikipedianism ("Wikipedia is the best website in the entire universe, with a better userbase and better content than any website in history and it is under persistent attack by the far copyLeft"),
WP:ANAL ("Wikipedia has a basic guideline that suggests you must not be anal").
Wikipedia:Discrimination ("Discrimination policy is on top of any other policy in Wikipedia and it reflect the Human rights that the editors and readers of Wikipedia have as human beings and thus it reflects the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)")
This essay is tame in comparison. The standards you are seeking to apply are not those that commonly apply to Wikipedia essays, and your desire to apply such standards arises from your deeply held beliefs about what Wikipedia is and should be, and the fact that they are at variance with mine. Please tolerate dissent. --JN46603:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing me that other essays are crap; this is not a valid reason to make this one deceptive as well. I am tolerating dissent: again, I am not saying to take down the argument, I am not trying to silence you and I've said it multiple times -to make me look like I am trying to shut up dissent (which would be ironic since I'm the one who is against censorship) is also malicious and in bad faith. I am trying to avoid that false statements are deceptively included like they were fact. Wanna argue that they should be fact? Go for it. Wanna argue a total upheaval of WP? Please do. Want to make an essay on "Why everything Cyclopia thinks about how WP should be is wrong"? I beg you to do it. Wanna lie saying that your opinions are already fact? No thanks, this I will oppose, no matter what argument is being made. --Cyclopiatalk12:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that Wikipedia maps, or summarises, reliable source coverage is a core principle of this project. If you want to do something else here than what reliable sources are doing, you should state where exactly you would like to depart from practices of reliable sources, and why. Remember, I am talking content here, not process. I'm listening. --JN46613:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The idea that Wikipedia maps, or summarises, reliable source coverage is a core principle of this project." : Deceptive (again). Wikipedia uses reliable sources as, exactly, sources for textual content (WP:RS, WP:V) and in general to assess the balance of content in case of competing viewpoints (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE). Apart from that, practices of style -that is, on how to structure, format and present content, are mostly assessed in house, to my knowledge (perhaps with the exception of WP:COMMONNAME). For example: When we decide how to divide an article into sections, it's for sure not common practice to look at how RS divide the subject into sections: sometimes the whole exercise could simply be meaningless, given that we collect material from multiple sources and we structure it and present it. For images the editorial latitude is even larger, given that we readily accept user-generated photographs and diagrams. What you imply about using the photographic coverage of RS as a gauge for our photographic coverage does not exist (to my knowledge) in any accepted known policy or guideline of WP: the quantity and type of images that we put in articles is and has always been an independent editorial decision of ours. RS play a role in deciding if an image is germane, or if it's reliable, of course: but they never decided if we put images or not, or how many, or how large -just like they do not dictate how long our articles are or how . We simply never did that. You may disagree with this (lack of) practice, and there may even be good reasons to disagree: but that's how things are. Is it clearer now? --Cyclopiatalk14:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When we are condensing two dozen books and 20 newspaper pieces into an article, we cannot use the same chapter headings, headlines etc. as our sources. We do our best, devising some sort of structure that will result in a clearly organised, legible article. The aim is to give the reader an encyclopedic and neutral summary of coverage in the most reliable sources. We are not trying to differ in systematic ways from this coverage. What you are saying is that when it comes to illustrations you want to reserve the right to be systematically different from reliable sources, and define standards according to your personal preferences; standards you are fully aware are systematically different from those used by mainstream sources. That is POV pushing, and improper. --JN46621:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is that when it comes to illustrations you want to reserve the right to be systematically different from reliable sources, and define standards according to your personal preferences; standards you are fully aware are systematically different from those used by mainstream sources. That is POV pushing, and improper. - I fail to see how it could be POV pushing (since editorial decisions on structure of content are hardly a content POV): I am simply describing what happens: we already reserve the right to be systematically different from RS and define standards according to our (as a community) preferences. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Can you find a single policy, a single guideline saying that we should tune the number of images in articles according to the number of images in RS? I doubt so.
I'll try to convey what I mean by an example. The vast majority of scientific peer-reviewed papers about paleontological findings -the most authoritative RS on the subject- do not include colour life-like illustrations of the organism reconstrunctions -in fact, they can even include none at all in the main text [6], [7], or they could include black and white sketches ([8]). Yet our articles on extinct animals -and nearly all our featured ones- include colourful illustrations that appear almost surely nowhere in these reliable, authoritative sources. Now, be honest: are you going to argue that we should remove such illustrations, to follow the editorial judgement of authoritative scientific journals? And most importantly to the issue at hand: do you still think that, as a fact, we strive to be systematically similar to RS when dealing with image coverage -that we "take the lead", to use your wording? Or perhaps we don't,after all? --Cyclopiatalk22:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument, even more strongly, could be made for extrasolar planets, where we include regularly artist impression of the planets (based on...almost nothing) even if they appear, again, nowhere in the vast majority of academic reliable sources. (There are even more reasons to take these images down than hardcore ones: after all a real photo of the sexual act is for sure a honest depiction of the act, while the planet impressions are just sloppy guesswork, most of the time.) Now, do you still believe that Wikipedia "maps" the editorial judgement of RS when it comes to illustrations? Again, one could argue for that to happen, but it is not what happens right now. To state that we do that is to propagate a falsehood. --Cyclopiatalk22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, I just used dinosaurs in a discussion elsewhere as an example of the exact opposite point you are trying to make with them: because our illustrations of Stegosaurus do indeed look just like the illustrations of Stegosaurus you find in popular-science books, which are reliable sources. Images are content. Your position is, as far as I can see, this: "Yes, reliable sources discussing pornographical genres eschew adding photographs to their publications. However, I want Wikipedia to be different." How do you rationalise that? Where is the policy support for that? To me it looks like you wish to impose your personal and off-mainstream preferences on the project. --JN46601:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, how do you rationalise your wacky idea that it is common practice for WP that RS decide if we have to put images in an article. It is you that have to show me the policy for that, because it is you that state this like it was a fact. A RS can be used to decide if an image is proper or not (like your Stegosaurus examples, to check that it looks like the ones on the sources). But we don't collect statistics on RS that talk of Stegosaurus, see that there are on average 1.75 images per source, and decide to put 2 images instead of 1 or 3. You are confusing completely (and maliciously, since you're not stupid: sorry but I can't assume good faith anymore) decisions on whether to use images at all or not versus decisions on the consistence of an image with published ones. The second thing depends on RS. The first, not.
And no, my position is not "I want WP to be different". Or better: this is also my position, but that's not the point. You are free to argue otherwise. What I am objecting is that WP is already different: WP does not count images on RS to decide how many images to put in an article (and if we did so, your Stegosaurus images would go probably down the drain, by counting the average number of them in RS). Therefore you can't deceive people in stating as common practice something which is clearly only in your imagination. Show me the policy/guideline that says "The number of images in our articles reflects the number of images in RS", and I'll change my mind. I'm not saying something "off mainstream" and personal, nor an opinion: I am saying objectively what is our practice. --Cyclopiatalk02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I did not read the entire discussion but I felt compelled to comment on the actual idea that if reliable sources do not include images then we shouldn't either, as I find it absurd. The reason other sources do not include images might be a matter of the custom (e.g. it is not customary to include photographic material in field of Operations Research. It is customary to include photographic material in Wikipeia) availability (we have access to images sources might not have) or practicality (purely textual databases can't or couldn't in the past practicably include images), none of which should apply to Wikipedia. Sources can and should help in deciding if a certain image is a reliable depiction of the subject, but no more than that. Whether "sexually explicit still shots from pornographic movies or other hardcore pornographic images" should be used or not is another matter. I personally don't think explicit material should be used, but definitely not from this reason. --Muhandes (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Muhandes. Could you also confirm that such a protocol is currently not followed on WP, according to your experience, and therefore it shouldn't be presented as a fact? --Cyclopiatalk11:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus and all, I wonder if it would be helpful to add a paragraph on Wikipedia community demographics. For the most recent survey, see http://www.wikipediastudy.org/ as well as the recent press coverage on the gender gap. The typical Wikipedia contributor is an 18-year-old single male. This may create a susceptibility to systemic bias in community decision-making, which needs to be tempered by reference to reliable published sources. Views? --JN46621:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what's the problem with that? It's not the requirement of every private organization to be a perfect representation of the demographics of the world. It's called personal choice and many factors go into why someone may come here or may not come here and why they may edit or may not edit. The inclusion of a few hardcore images may not even factor significantly into anyone's decision. According to that survey only 3% checked the box for "other reasons" for not editing and there is no indication this had anything to do with it at all. Any statistician will tell you that online surveys are not terribly reliable to begin with anyway, so trying to use them as a measurement for who is coming here is flawed, much like this entire essay.--Crossmr (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course our demographics do not have to be the same as those of society at large. They likely never will be, although in some ways it would be desirable. However, we do reflect published sources and their "demographics", as it were. If our demographics lead us to make choices that differ from the mainstream choices of reliable sources, then that is something we need to look at; it's a WP:NPOV and WP:OR issue. Remember that WP:NPOV is defined by published sources, not some abstract sense of neutrality. --JN46600:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Average contributor and who takes part in any discussion are not necessarily the same thing. If you question the neutrality of any article feel free to bring it up on the article's talk page. You're looking for a problem without any evidence that one exists other than biased studies that still don't indicate that the symptom you've chosen has anything to do with the problem you've imagined.--Crossmr (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic value?
The essay says now:
On the other hand, in return for the extremely small encyclopedic value imparted by these images, we have that...
This essay expresses an opinion -fine- but this is another opinion introduced as fact to support the agenda of the essay. That these images have "extremely small encyclopedic value" not only is an axiom without any argument in its support (let alone proof); but it has no bearing of most of the other arguments (one could argue that even if they're valuable, it's better to get rid of them or, viceversa, one could argue that even if they are of little value they are however fine and useful), and it is extremly debatable in itself. Perhaps it could be the subject of another essay, but all the encyclopedic value thing seems just bad rhetoric. (Also the following sentence The point is, these are not vital articles. They are marginal articles makes a distinction between vital articles and marginal articles that makes no sense -nobody said that WP should be made only of the WP:VITAL). I think the argument could be 1)rephrased better, without necessarily neutering it: for example one could argue that they are superfluous rather than of small encyclopedic value etc. and 2)it would be better to provide an argument instead than axiomatic assertions of this kind. --Cyclopiatalk21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[9] - okay, I can live with that. Incidentally, just as an aside, pornography articles are some of the most widely accessed articles in Wikipedia. Even an article on a subgenre like Creampie (sexual act), for example, gets significantly more daily views than the article on Hilary Rodham Clinton. [10][11]; the Creampie article is ranked 2,029, Clinton's is at 4,228 in our list of most viewed pages. It is actually important that we have good and well-researched content at these pages. The argument that these pages have low encyclopedic value is debatable, but is also defensible, depending on your definition of "encyclopedic". (That is a point you could make in your essay.) It is a fact that most published encyclopedias do not have an article on Creampies, and there are really few sources about it (I know, because I researched and wrote that article). So from the point of view of reliable source coverage, we are catering to a fringe topic there. --JN46622:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite self-contradictory that on one hand it is a fringe topic but on the other it is more read than the article on Hillary Clinton. Don't get me wrong: I understand you talk "from the point of view of RS coverage", but this statistics contradicts what the essay says about those being "marginal articles", because for the users it seems they feature in the top 0.1% of accessed articles. This emphasizes that we're not talking of superfluos rubbish but of something that it is much expected to be covered. --Cyclopiatalk23:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many topics without RS coverage that we could write about and which would get lots of page views, but notability is established by sources. --JN46623:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're talking of notability; non-notable articles get deleted. What we're talking about is what is an arbitrary distinction between "important" and "unimportant" articles. Since the topics at hand look notable, your pageviews argument seems interesting in making the case for these articles being indeed "important" (even if I personally refuse it as a reasonable distinction for content) --Cyclopiatalk01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these articles are important, for the reasons stated. Cyclopia, rather than arguing here, please write your own essay. I am sure it will be cogently argued. I will read it with interest, and I will not come editing it to change its fundamental premise and arguments. Please do the same for Herostratus and me here. --JN46601:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the point is not changing premises and arguments. The point is stating as true things that are false. Opinion -fine. Misleading or false statements -not fine (at least not in Wikipedia: space; you're free to say whatever you like, more or less in your user space). And also remember WP:OWN: until this essay is out of userspace, editors herein can freely discuss its "fundamental premise and arguments". --Cyclopiatalk01:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problems about "misogyny" argument
It seems that the section on the "misogyny" also is poor. It says for example:
[...] since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women.
This is
Culturally biased. What seems misogynistic to some woman could be perfectly fine or even positive to another (e.g. a facial is considered a pleasurable sex act by some women and demeaning by other)
Untrue for many images. I doubt that autofellatio or cock and ball torture, despite being among the most controversial cases of "hardcore" sexual images can be seen as "misogynistic": they feature only males. Perhaps are they "misandrystic"?
(1) I don't think it is culturally biased; it is a very widely held view. Most women who take part in the making of facial videos for example do not do so because they enjoy it, but because they are poor (hence so much porn production in Eastern Europe, e.g. Budapest, because women there will subject to degrading acts on camera for a couple of hundred dollars). There is trafficking involved. The realities of porn production may be quite different from what you imagine. --JN46623:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, people do facials in their own bedrooms, not only in front of cameras. I know that porn production often involves trafficking or degradation; but this doesn't mean that the sexual acts are degrading per se. A sexual act is neutral in itself; it is the context and the intentions of the partners that make it pleasurable or miserable.
This essay specifically addresses articles about hardcore pornography subjects, and it states so in its opening sentence. It is not about articles discussing voluntary and private sexual behaviour. --JN46603:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just about anything done per the definition of "hardcore pornography" in this essay can and is also done between consenting adults in private who enjoy it.--Crossmr (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trafficking, while I would not claim it doesn't happen, is mostly non existent. There are plenty who are willing to be prostitutes. As an aside, it is bizarre to claim that just because the subject of the photo would not do it were it not for the money that it is in some way wrong. And even that makes no difference as to whether the images are empowering, degrading, or somwhere between the two. EggCentric19:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Mostly nonexistent"?Really? I think you're confusing it with the old "white slavery" scares, because human trafficking is a HUGE problem in parts of Asia and Africa. The illegal sex trade in Southeast Asia is scary if you've read anything about it. The US has also had an increasing problem with young girls being forced into prostitution in various ways. Just because it's fairly rare among white people doesn't mean it's "mostly nonexistent". Edit: Some more light reading on all those just itching to become prostitutes: Forced_prostitution, Prostitution of children, [12], [13], [14]Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address argument #2 first. You have somewhat of a misrepresentation of the quote, Cyclopedia. Since the full quote is: "Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women, and this is by intentional design, since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women." The meaning is clearly that many of the images are misogynistic, because the genres THOSE images represent are misogynistic. Not all hardcore images; those that are of misogynistic acts.
As for point #1, while you may disagree, the association of certain acts with mysogynism is extremely prevalent. A google book search for "misogyny" and "pornography" turns up a large number of hits. We know that some of these acts are intentionally painful and/or crude towards women, which is very often going to be interpreted as misogynistic, even if some disagree. It's just ridiculous and biased in another direction to try and discount this viewpoint just because "some people" might not feel that the acts are misogynistic. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε23:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point #2 taken: the sentence is ambiguous because it seemed to me to imply that all hc pornography is misogynistic, but if it instead refers only to a subset, fine.
About point #1: I do not dare to deny that there is a lot of literature about misogyny in porn, and I do not deny either that it could be like that. What I mean is that interpreting sex acts as intrinsically misogynistic is an arbitrary interpretation. For sure there is a lot of factual misogynistic aspects in the pornography industry, and also it can be right that porn genres could be misogynistic (e.g. rape fantasy stuff), but the sex acts themselves (and thus their depictions) cannot be. Thanks for the reflections however. --Cyclopiatalk23:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're point, but I think you're over-philosophizing this. The point of the argument is, certain images will be widely perceived as misogynistic/degrading to women, because the acts are widely perceived as misogynistic/degrading, in turn, which is because the acts are often intentionally misogynistic/degrading. I think it's unnecessary to go dancing around this whole chain of logic, though. It's an essay, which is intentionally an argument for a particular viewpoint. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε22:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond and reputation
hardcore pornography images go beyond images of common sexual behaviour if what is depicted in hardcore pornography photos per your definition which includes "penetration", is not common for you, then you're doing it wrong, plain and simple. It might be different then common images here, but not common behaviour.
in regards to These few images are among the most contentious materials hosted on Wikipedia, degrade Wikipedia's reputation, create a political vulnerability for Wikipedia, and drive away customers (including women; Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help). these kinds of witch hunts like the one little crusade Jimbo ran on commons also degrades the reputation of the project and drives away "customers". I prefer to see them as readers, or editors. I guess I don't monetize every set of eyes like some people around here. As for who is reading the encyclopedia, I don't recall having to set my gender anywhere to read it or create an account so you honestly have no idea who is doing anything here.
In the war between the sexes, Wikipedia should not be taking sides.Yes, they certainly shouldn't. And censoring the encyclopedia to apparently try to make women feel more comfortable because you have some imagined fantasy where it's fact that women don't come here because a few articles have "hardcore pornography" images on them certainly wouldn't have anything to do with that would it?--Crossmr (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the women I know are sex positive, and aren't offended by the kinds of images that are being discussed. Driving away customers or alienating women is not our charter or concern. As Jimbo wales has said, Wikipedia is not a repository for pornography." A sexually explicit image that is on topic in an a given article is not pornography. We will not find any useful purpose to this article until we start using the proper terms. I think we all know that we are not going censor all sexually explicit images from Wikipedia carte blanche. As always, this needs to be taken on an article by article basis, and each image properly judged as it is introduced to an article as to whetehr the image adds value to the article or not. Whether it is sexually explicit or not explicit is not a factor in that. Whether it accurately illustrates the topic of the article or not, and whether it is the best image available for that illustration are valid criteria.
When it comes to women, certainly you realize that the main point of feminism is to give women the right to control their own bodies and their own lives. Do you think feminists want us to "look out for them" and remove what we (men) think may be objectionable content that might offend their delicate dispositions? {sarcasm} Each editor should for speak for themself, and not try to censor what they don't like on the pretense that they are "protecting" others. Atom (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support
I support the essay's general direction, with little quibble. We do legitimately have a concern for the diversity of our readership and editing pool. We write articles to reach people, sometimes everyone but usually with an emphasis on some people more than others. An article about widgets is likely written for people interested in widgets more than for people with scant or no interest in widgets. What topics interest readers is often a reflection of their demographics, addresses, and other characteristics, and readers' success or failure in finding what they're interested in influences whether they return, and thus what topics we choose to write about affects the composition and size of our readership. An article of mine was deleted because—and this is my interpretation of conflicting statements—it was too strongly illuminative of women's power, especially in its title. The recent public discussion about the paucity of women Wikipedians came just in time for me. A workplace a few years ago had a life-size poster of a woman in a bikini posted in a men's workroom. It disappeared by the next day. Likely, corporate policy forced its take-down as a result of law against sexual harassment due to hostile environment, which drives women out of workplaces or, when not out, to lesser efficacy at work. This Wikipedia essay reflects a similar need, probably not a legal need but a need to build and retain a more diverse range of readers, editors, and admins. It's not the only thing to do; more steps are needed; but what it proposes is helpful. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm much more concerned about male behavior towards women on Wikipedia than pornographic images per se, I think the real issue is to make sure that the ever increasing number of women here are made aware of some of the worst abuses so they can go into the articles, remove WP:UNDUE, unencyclopedic/gratuitous and otherwise inappropriate material, and support keeping it out. Posting links to relevant articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism and asking for a review is one way to go. (And don't you dare take those pictures out of the Human penis article!! And why doesn't if have any penises of color??) CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is turning into an active discussion about some issues in general. Which is fine. So, although its off-topic from this page (but so is much of the above, which is fine), take a look at Snowballing (sexual practice). It's not an article about pornography but rather (according to the article) a "human sexual practice", so its not covered by this essay. But close enough.
Now, its possible that the article shouldn't exist (there are no good sources showing this as a notable practice in any population), but that's debatable. Maybe it shouldn't include an image, but that's debatable. But if it is going to include an image, why does it show two women? Such sketchy sources as there are indicate this as an activity among, and only among, gay males or heterosexual couples. So the image is, all other considerations aside, not even accurate.
So why is this image used in this article? I think most of us can figure that out, can't we.
An RfC on removing this image is currently running at 7-2 in favor of using it.
However, to the credit of the Wikipedia community, none of the RfC comments supporting use of this image are "What's your problem? I'd hit it!" So let us be grateful for small graces. Herostratus (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like you're assuming further bad faith which is what this entire essay seems to be about. I haven't really seen you provide any actual solid evidence that women are being driven away from wikipedia in droves because of a few "hardcore" images in articles, nor any evidence to support any of the claims you've made. You are borderline running afoul of WP:CANVAS by bringing up a running RfC here. It's not on-topic as you've admitted. I do notice you continuing to cast aspersions with your assumptions of bad faith with your rhetorical question about why you assume the image is there. This is about the third blatant time I've seen you do this and frankly if you can't make a point without making little digging insults and casting aspersions it's probably time for you to hang it up.--Crossmr (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why is this image used in this article? I think most of us can figure that out, can't we. You're making negative assumptions about the users here, constantly trying to label them and their edits with disparaging terms.--Crossmr (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, it is a common that someone who is offended by sexually explicit images assumes that others, especially women are offended by sexually explicit images. Or that production of "pornography" is done without the consent of women, or if they did consent, it is because they were cooerced in some way (finacially for instance.) I am certainly not an advocate of pornography, but I am an advocate of letting people have freedom of choice. Atom (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and it is equally common that the people who think pornography is inoffensive and natural assume that the people who say they are offended by pornography, and find it demeaning, and think it inappropriate for an educational work, secretly agree with them that it's inoffensive and natural.
To make a comment that's a bit more on target, I also don't think pornography is anything close to the biggest reason aren't editing wikipedia, if only because most women won't bother to go to the articles that have offensive photos. So at the very least you must modify it to say something like images that may offend women who happen to see them should they chance across those articles. And of course, not all women will be offended by all images if they are relevant to the article; just the ones that clearly are there for WP:Undue/gratuitous titulating reasons.
The real issue is getting women more assertive, more comfortable with making changes and deleting things they don't like - and dealing with the incivility of some males about it - be it attacks on controversial women, articles with inaccurate information regarding welfare state programs or wars (be it pro or con), or WP:Undue sections trashing ad nauseum men or women for, say, some legitimate criticism of the state of Israel. (Just to mention the type of controversial NPOV editing I keep getting attacked for.)
So to say that some women find are offended by theses graphics is fine; to say that we should encourage and support them speaking out on wikipedia against what makes them uncomfortable is fine. Changing the balance of power in many articles is certainly one of my goals.
However, to say all "hardcore pornography" images should be deleted is a personal opinion that should be IN BOLD in that template and even in the first sentence of this essay. What is soft vs. hardcore can be subjective, especially in the "middle ranges." I think some reference to reliable sources in the essays is of value, recognizing that even WP:RS are going to have wildly different opinions. Overall the focus should be not removing all such images, but removing the most WP:Undue/gratuitous ones - if you want the essay to have any credibility or effectiveness. Also, strong religious, feminist and other reasons people are opposed to what they perceive as pornography should be mentioned for context; and civil liberties/libertarian views on freedom also should. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i assume you mean they are better essays or information? I read above: Herostratus that said that this essay only applies to misogynistic pornographic sub-genres that do not occur in real life. If there are sufficient WP:RS, a fantasy sexual practice (and I'm sure the couple articles mentioned are more than fantasies) can be as or more notable than a real one. So the question is, what images go along with it. Again, the important thing is to note that women (or Christians or feminists) may have a very different perspective and that they may/should as readers/editors affect the consensus on which and how many graphics to use. Just saying delete everything or delete notable fantasy stuff, will lead to a vote of delete the essay. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Carol has said here. I'd like us to do some work on these points once the signal-to-noise ratio on this page has improved a bit. Just as a point of clarification, what I understand Herostratus to mean by "misogynistic pornographic sub-genres that do not occur in real life" are sexual practices that are commonly shown in pornography, but do not show up as significant forms of sexual behaviour in surveys and the like.
The point about reliable sources is that we should not be more (or less) liberal than our sources in our illustrations. --JN46622:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the balance of power in many articles is certainly one of my goals.Sounds to me like you want to use wikipedia is a battleground, which its not. While it's true that some people may try to own an article, like say this essay as an example, I've never tried to identify the other person as anything other than another editor unless they've made a point of bringing up their gender or something else to identify them by. Any article that is appropriately edited per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV shouldn't have any "power issues" and if you're concern is more with shifting power than editing to our core polices and guidelines then I have to question why you are even here.--Crossmr (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that his real intent is to remove images in any artcle where there is explitic sexuality involved. That is essentially his definition of pornography. As for "occur in real life" I think that he may believe that, for instance, Bukkake, and Creampie are only fantasy and do not actually occur normally.
As for how women might feel about the article, The opinions of women span the spectrum at least as much as the opinions of men. Implying that women would be averse to article with explicit sexuality in them (just because they are women) is silly. Many sex positive women produce their own pornography, and they certainly would find no offense with explicit sexuality, where appropriate, within Wikipedia. On the other end of the spectrum are up-tight conservative Christian types that would be shocked that the pregnancy article shows a woman naked. We don't censor on Wikipedia. Whether an editor, or a reader is surprised or offended by an image in an article is not a factor. Whether an image is appropriate for the article based on the topic and the other content, an editorial quality decision, is more pertinent. My bet is that if 51% of the editors on Wikipedia were women, we would probably have more images in articles that were explicit. Atom (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fascinating assertion. Did you, by any chance, consider comparing the genders of the people involved in this discussion with their apparent views? It might help you find out whether your hypothesis has any connection to reality. As your first data point, I would not promote or increase pornographic images in articles. The other two women who have commented on this page are CarolMooreDC. It should not take you very long to find the correlation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory hardcore pornography images
This essay contains what God told me to tell you:
Wikipedia must include images of hardcore pornography. (You think God made it so a vagina and breasts were about the first things most everybody experiences after the womb for nothing? Take a hint.)
Articles about hardcore pornography subjects must contain images which are hardcore pornography as that is obviously the clearest way of explaining that subject. Anything else just begins a process of mystification which makes the subject ever so much more interesting and thus immorally makes more desireable. We are here to explain and not to provoke interest by making something into a mysterious interesting taboo to be giggled at in the shadows.
Because: sex is the most powerful of life's behavior patterns having, in fact, created almost all life forms.
These few images drive viewers to Wikipedia where they will find themselves sucked into Neutral Knowledge that will enhance all mankind.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and young viewers with slight vocabularies will especially need these images.
This essay is only about "misogynistic hardcore images of obscure pornographic sub-genres that don't occur in normal private sex". The scope is misleadingly small, and renders what it's saying pretty much irrelevant, except to 3 or 4 articles max. Gigs (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know what activity hasn't occured in normal private sex. Seriously though, maybe the editor could give examples of what articles he intends to censor? From his perspective, images in the breast article could be pornographic. Atom (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. Without a reliable source for what is and what isn't "misogynistic hardcore images of obscure pornographic sub-genres that don't occur in normal private sex", it is possible that this essay concerns zero images on Wikipedia. How is gay men cumming on a gay man "misogynistic"? How is a fictional narrative, illustrated with Hollywood props (i.e. NOT real cum) with actresses typically paid way more than the males, "misogynistic"? If assertions were proof, we would not need juries. Personally, I find bukkake just weird ... and no more arousing than many other weird things some others find arousing (like smearing other stuff on the skin from ketchup to shit or licking boots or the praying mantis eating the mate's head (hey, don't blame me that God invented cannibalistic sex)). Our job is to explain. Some things that need explaining are so weird that only an image will adequately communicate. At age five, I could have used an actual photograph of a human birth, as no explanation provided me seemed remotely possible. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is interesting. The main purpose of the Bukkake article in the first place was to document Misogyny, as the act has historically been intended to be many men humiliating a woman. Others came into the article who were offended that it was racially prejudiced against Japanese people, even though the act preceded the fil Genre which orgiginated in Japan. Because of the nature of the act, and especially the language barrier with Japanese, it can't be well documented, which has forced material out of the article. Other editors came along and tried to turn the focus of the article to be the film genre, rather than the act itself, which I turned back. The thought being that it is not something (and was not something) that actually happens in real life, but is exclusively a fictional act portrayed in films. I guess the purpose being that if it was not a real sexual act, that it was not notable as part of sexuality, but as part of pornography, and so any image should be excluded. The irony is that an article that should be about documenting how men subjugated and humiliated women in the past (documenting misogny) has had that part stripped from the article, and now being called misogynistic because the recent film genre focuses on the historical misognystic act.
In my view, we should realize that by whatever name it is called the act existd in history, exists now (in real life and in fictional films) and is a remnant of Misogny. We DO wish to document misogny, but we should not propogate misogny. In any event as an encycopedia, documenting thet act as best we can is appropriate. As for images in the article. Generally I am a strong advocate of a good lede image, as it can evoke, at a glance the topic of an article for most readers. In this particular case we have people offended by an image of what appears to be misogny, and wanting to remove images of that because they do not wish to propogate misogny. Should we remove images in articles regarding Holocaust victims? The article should focus on the act as history, rather than as a film genre. Althoguh documenting film genre's is pertinent in Wikipedia, it is not my interest, nor will I go to any great effort to propogate or document pornography. If someone else wishes to do that, more power to them.
The main thing people debating this topic should recognize is that "pornography" and "sexual explicit images" are not identical. Yes, Sexually explicit images can be pornography. And, a sexually explicit image that has great Scientific, Literary, Artistic, Political, Educational or hHstorical value could be used by someone as pornography (in another context). But, if an image is useful in the contexts I just mentioned, it is inherently (in those contexts) not pornpgraphy. As every image is completely dependent on the context on which it is used, every article has to have editorial discretion in determining if a given image offers the article Scientific, Literary, Artistic or Political value in the narrow and specific use/context of that article. That means there can be NO broad, hard and fast rule to eliminate an image in advance. Without the context, an image can not be labeled as pornography. labelling an image as pornography only on the basis that it is viewed by one or some as "sexually explicit" is not, in and of itself, sufficient.Atom (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been asserted that the idea that Bukkake is a continuation of an ancient Japanese ritual of humiliation is an urban myth dreamed up by a bukkake porn site owner, which found its way onto Wikipedia. There is an absence of reliable sources on Japanese culture stating anything about such a historical practice; at least no reliable source to that effect has been presented. All the sources cited by the article use the term as a pornographic genre. At the moment there is good consensus on the Bukkake talk page to have one image illustrating this type of pornographic scene, but not two largely identical ones. That is a compromise I sign up to; the drawing is artistically well done, and is the sort of drawing a sexology manual might use. I would not support the inclusion of a still colour photograph or a CC-licensed video clip from a bukkake video in the Bukkake article. I don't think the community would either, NOTCENSORED notwithstanding. --JN46618:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The theory that it is an urban myth is undocumented and unprovable. The theory that it is a cultural practice exists, but has not been sufficient for inclusion into the article at this point. I would support a real photo of the real act, but not a clip from a porno video. For it to be acceptable, it would have to be directly on topic. There are many other articles within the sexology and sexuality area that have real images, rather than line drawn images. Also, as there is an RfC outstanding on the Bukkake article, there is at this point no consensus on the images whatsoever. You pushing your view aggresively and listing several other people who have said only tsngentially related things about the images could hardly be called consensus. Atom (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background
I disagree with this revert.[15] A major concern with this essay is that it is not inline with policy and guidelines. Pointing to these standards is appropriate since it clears up any confusion the reader may have. It also links to discussions that people might be interested regardless of their position. I did not bad mouth this essay or "undermine" it with my edit. I simply expanded on information that the reader should be aware of if they are considering the question of such images. I would appreciate it if the reverter detailed their issues with the subsection since it is only of benefit to the reader. Do we not wish to give the complete picture to the reader who may not be familiar? I think it also acts as an important disclaimer. If this clarification was in the essay then I would be happy in supporting it being in the main space instead of userfied.Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was as much the location as the content that was the issue. Slipping that large section in near the top of the essay was clearly designed to break up the argument this essay puts forward. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not at the top or even that close to the top. It was the second subsection of the first section. No other section seemed applicable. At the bottom would be fine too, but I don;t think it would be better layout wise. Note that the lead is the bulk of his essay. I didn't even touch the lead which is where most of the conerns with it are. So why don't you partially revert and move it when you get back from your RL business?Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reintroduced the paragraph, albeit a bit reworded in a more nuanced fashion. Other editors are welcome to edit it but it is only fair to give the reader a background on the ongoing discussion. I'll go so far to give an "advice to the enemy": it could include Jimbo's quotes and statements on such images, if you feel they may be useful, for example. --Cyclopiatalk01:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the issue? Essays don't have to be inline with policy or guidelines. They don't have consensus. They may represent minority viewpoints. Nowhere do they have to present an opposing or undermining argument. That section only and blatantly serves to undermine the opinion presented in this essay. I don't have an opinion on the essay, and from my point of view there are multiple users who feel they have the right to try and counter or weaken the essay. It's a shame. Jimbo probably did more harm than good by keeping it in the WP space. Though there's no basis for "banning" such editors, it really should be in the user space with a redirect. At least that would ensure that its original opinions wouldn't be destroyed. The fact that the reinstated paragraph actually used the term 'purports' makes it immensely hard for me to believe that all the users involved are acting in good faith. SwarmX08:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted, per Sxeptomaniac. Please, as suggested by Jimbo and others above, write an alternative essay to this one, laying out the arguments in favour of including hardcore images, photographs, videos and so on in Wikipedia. This essay will link to it, and I would appreciate it if your essay could likewise link to this one. This is the best solution at this time. --JN46618:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Loving the edit warring. I think I might join in. The background does not undermine the essay. The background simply provides details on how the standards are applied and does not dispute the moral objections laid out. This is turning into a vindictive game for some it appears since it improves the article.
I would also like the recent revert to be explained. The text has not been disputed but the placement. BRD was also handled well with another editor making changes. The straight revert was bad form and per usual, admins should be holding themselves to a higher standard instead of edit warring. Admins who edit war should lose access to the tools.Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not realize until just now that someone had actually moved it down. So there is no reason provided for its removal that has not been addressed. Please do so or I am reverting.Cptnono (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Essays are there to present a point of view, and the concept of Wikipedia essays explicitly protects Wikipedians' right to express minority points of view in them. The argument that you are making is not in line with the point of view expressed here, a significant part of which is that the Wikimedia community consensus is itself biased, and cannot help but be biased, by our skewed demographics, and that real-world standards should take precedence over community preferences where those are found to differ. Just as Wikipedians' personal points of view are not the criterion for article content, but reliable source coverage is, community consensus should not be the final arbiter here, because a community which produces things like this, and considers them in line with the Foundation's educational goals, is guilty of immaturity and poor judgment.
So, once more, please write your own essay arguing your own point of view, and leave this essay to express its point of view. The two essays can have symmetrical titles, and the shortcut can be changed to a disambiguation.
May I ask why there is this reluctance to write an alternative essay? Cyclopia said he would do so; but I see nothing in his editing history to suggest he started one. Perhaps you might want to link up with him. This essay expresses a specific point of view; if you don't share this point of view, and are uninterested in presenting it in as convincing a manner as possible, please don't contribute. --JN46612:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the edit. I did not make any "argument". I simply laid out the relevant background and said that there was not consensus to remove such images and that it has been an ongoing discussion. So you still have not addressed what was wrong with it since it looks like you just assume it is there to counter the essay. Can you reread it and let me know where I made an "argument" against this essay?.Cptnono (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reread it. You are linking to a number of guidelines that are already linked below at the bottom of the essay (if any are missing, please feel free to add them); you are linking to a one-sided selection of discussions that resulted in "Keep" for images (I could list counterexamples where images were removed); you are linking to a number of failed or stalled proposals here and in Commons; and you give a one-sided account of Jimbo's actions in Commons, which actually did result in hundreds of images being permanently deleted. All in all, the way you presented and selected your material amounted to a pleading in favour of the status quo, and this is not what this essay is about. --JN46620:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't start the essay because I am pretty busy in real life -in fact I was just checking the watchlist in a pause for the first time in a couple of days. I am still planning to do that. --Cyclopiatalk22:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My material did not amount to pleading for anything. It is how you read it. Linking to that long discussion ad making note of Jimbo's previous actions actually give the arguments in this essay some merit. So how about you suggest some rewording instead of just assuming the point was to make any point besides "This essay proposes argues for something that does not have consensus". How about just adding that line in the lead. It is the way it is and it should be spelled out to the reader to prevent any confusion. I would still prefer some links since the reader should have all available info provided but they can always look it up themselves. So so far your reasoning is not sufficient for removal. more than one editor (I think 3 but will have to double check) have looked at the section and worked on it to be worthy of inclusion. While you and one other editor have simply assumed it had a purpose of combating this essay. I made a point of not saying "these images have consensus" or "this essay is wrong" so what is the actual problem? How would you reword the proposal? Or is it that you will not agree with any proposal?Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the single debatable example given below, we don't actually have stills from porn videos, or embedded CC porn videos, on the site right now, to my knowledge. To the extent that this essay says we shouldn't, it is actually pretty much in line with community practice. Also note the 2005 goatse poll, which was overwhelmingly against showing the image in the article, and opted for an external link only. An uploaded version of the image was deleted last April; deletion discussion here. --JN46619:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable level
What is this supposed to mean? There are practices documented by Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin at a significant level (More than 1% of sample say) which we would not wish to illustrate, and some we would be forbidden to. RichFarmbrough, 16:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Forbidden??? Give an example. Sexual mutilation of non-consenting young children? Photo of circumcision. Prostitution of prepubescent girl? Photo from the movie "Pretty Baby". Mass murder? WWII photos. Give an example. I'll bet there is some image from reality or art that we could use. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What change would you propose? Widen the essay's scope? (Note that there is currently a discussion on the Bukkake talk page whether bukkake occurs at a notable level outside pornography.) --JN46619:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it is just an essay, using vague terms like "notable" does not help. And I think it is beside the point, my disinclination to see a picture of something is not based on how common an occurrence it is, nor is the notability or the practice outside pornography. For example the practices in Operation Spanner, were exceedingly uncommon, but they are still notable. Certain forms of body modification ditto. That is not to say we should illustrate them with stills from pornography , which would be copyvios anyway. I am rather neutral on the main debate, since it seems to centre around posturing and ideology - mostly the images in question have been drawings which were neither offensive nor necessary. RichFarmbrough, 19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thoughts on this essay
Having just come across this essay, I broadly agree with its argument: that hardcore pornographic images should generally not appear on Wikipedia. (I would say '...except where they are absolutely required for encyclopaedic purposes, and even then we should use the minimum necessary'; but I think that exception would cover very few images, and quite possibly none at all. I'm struggling at the moment to think of a hardcore porn image that would be absolutely necessary for encyclopaedic purposes, but I can't rule out the fact that one might exist.)
However, I don't think this essay actually makes its point very well. The first point - that there is a considerable cost to Wikipedia of hosting these images - is a strong one. The second point, that young people should not be exposed to these images, is a pretty strong one as well (though no doubt they could find them easily elsewhere on the Internet if they want to; but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should include them). The weak point, I think, is the third one - that 'Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women'. That's firstly, a statement of opinion rather than fact - there are some who might disagree, and ultimately the description of an image as 'degrading to women' is a matter of personal opinion - and secondly, not a very good argument.
Wikipedia contains plenty of images already that are (arguably) degrading to certain groups, and intentionally so. For example, these images are intended to be degrading to black Americans [16],[17] (Lynching contains more potentially offensive images I won't link here.) These images are intended to be degrading to Jews: [18],[19]. These images are intended to be degrading to Japanese people:[20],[21]. This image is intended to be degrading to Irish people:[22]. This image is intended to be degrading to gay people:[23]. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy contains some highly controversial images which were intended to be degrading to Muslims, and are still on Wikipedia despite considerable objections to them. This image is intended to be degrading to women, the very subject of this essay:[24]. Taliban treatment of women also contains some images which depict the degradation of women.
Those images are all accepted on Wikipedia because they have educational and informative value when used in an encyclopaedic context. As I said, I'm sceptical that any hardcore pornography images could be justified on that basis; but those images at least show that the fact an image is degrading to a certain group (or widely considered to be) is not sufficient reason, by itself, to remove it from Wikipedia. When it comes to hardcore porn images, the difficulties they present for Wikipedia, and the problems with children viewing them, are the real issues; their possibly 'degrading' nature is a red herring. Robofish (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Some thoughts:
I am struck by the fact that almost all the examples of degrading images you link to are historical images from times gone by. The recent anti-gay image, on the other hand, shows placards; it does not show a naked gay man being brutalised. Imagine a cartoon drawing of a gay man being tortured or beaten up used to illustrate an article on anti-gay sentiment; would we host that?
I think the second and third points are linked; our pages are viewed by millions of male teenagers (the pornography pages especially!), and teenagers' sexual fantasies these days are formed to no small extent by the Internet.
As for whether it is a matter of opinion, the cited footnote does provide evidence that this misogynistic element is recognised and aspired to within the relevant sections of the pornography industry itself; it's something feminists and pornographers agree on.
There are currently lots of discussions about the gender gap in the press and on the mailing lists, and how to close it. Women editors (and female readers who might become editors) naturally see degrading images of women in Wikipedia quite differently from male editors, especially where their inclusion has an appearance of being gratuitous. I don't think the degrading nature of some of these images is an irrelevance in this context. --JN46619:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely we would (do) show pictures of someone being beaten or someone who was killed. See Rodney King and Manadel al-Jamadi.
Teens with rampant hormones are unlikely to come here for visual stimulation. And claiming that the distinction between an illustrated page and an unillustrated one is such that it will "form their sexual fantasies" if illustrated is to do a disservice to those readers.
The "relevant section" of the porn industry is so-called "gonzo" porn. Despite Gail Dines theses in Pornland being that gonzo porn is ubiquitous and changes the sexuality of those growing up with it, she also remarks that "men today are more responsive and thoughtful". Regardless of the misogyny of all or part of the porn industry, writing about it, with appropriate illustrations, does not make Wikipedia misogynistic any more than writing about it it makes Gail Dines misogynistic.
The phrase you use is "appearance of being gratuitous" - I think this is well put. In general, however, we do not actually have a problem with people wanting to use stills form hard core porn. What we actually have are long running disputes over some line and fill drawings on a couple of pages.
"What we actually have are long running disputes over some line and fill drawings on a couple of pages": You're essentially correct there; I'm not even sure these line drawings would necessarily fall under this essay. The best I can do for a porn still right now is File:Giga_omorashi.jpg; this is from a Japanese film production whose gimmick appears to be forcing women to pee themselves. Again, I'm not sure if that qualifies as hardcore; but as sexual behaviour goes, it's one that is unlikely to occur in this precise configuration off-camera (to a notable extent).
The point about the gay bashing example was that we wouldn't create a drawing illustrating how to bash a gay person; that's different from showing an image of a real-life victim of a beating. Not important here though. Cheers, --JN46619:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources section
This section makes a useful point, but so wrapped up in Wiki-speak as to obscure it - the final sentence delivers it reasonably well.
"To be true to its basic mission, which is to reflect reliable source coverage in a neutral manner, Wikipedia should take its lead from reliable sources in this topic area, both for illustrations and textual content."
Rather than reliable sources (which might well include hardcore pornography, depending what it is a reliable source for), though, an explicit appeal to the type of material mentioned in the section "reputable publications" or "reputable educational and instructional material" would be an improvement. (And of course dumping the Wiki-speak at the same time.)
Our basic mission is to write an encyclopedia, not summarize and copy the style of reliable sources. These are closely related but not the same thing. Even if every mainstream news article says that "Bob Politician called Mr. Black 'the n-word'", Wikipedia still says "Bob Politician called Mr. Black a 'nigger'". We are not bound by a code of contemporary political correctness that other sources might be, and we do not sacrifice clarity to avoid offense.
Sex educational material in the US in particular must necessarily walk a fine line, sacrificing much clarity and candor, in order to sell to school boards who are very sensitive to public scandal. They are absolutely not a role model. Gigs (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't thinking of educational handouts for teenagers. I was thinking primarily about what a scholarly work might do, in a "Journal of Pornography Studies" or "Journal of Sex and Society", and secondarily of 'serious' books (think "History of Playboy" or "Pin-up Girls from WWI to the Cold War"). If Gigs (a reasonable person) immediately thought the opposite, then we really need to clarify that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably either request a move to Wikipedia:Hardcore images are inappropriate or put a section in favour of such images (so to speak) -the title as it is leaves the reader think that this is consensual advice on sexual images, which is definitely not. I'd feel nice to have an essay covering both points of view. --Cyclopiatalk 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minstrel_PosterBillyVanWare_edit.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birth-of-a-nation-klan-and-black-man.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EwigerJudeFilm.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Der_St%C3%BCrmer_Christian_blood.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tokio_Kid_Say.png){kind=link}
![[21]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anti-Japan2.png){kind=link}
![[22]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TheUsualIrishWayofDoingThings.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WBC_protest.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Women_suffrage_cartoon.png){kind=link}
