Talk:Man/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

RFC: image in article

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This indentation is getting a bit unwieldy. I've posted my response to the left. Cheers,SAT85 (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to DavidOakes (restarting indentation) - I'm sorry to say so, but the point about non-censorship, which I did address earlier, is starting to sound more like a last-ditch alarm siren than a reasoned argument. Wikipedia's policy of non-censorship simply means that (for example) graphic depictions in anatomical illustrations can't be deleted to cater for prudish sensibilities (but more on this in a moment). It is not an invitation to pedophiles to post child pornography on the Children page. It does matter, in other words, if material is inappropriate. Have a look at the examples of stuff deleted on the Wikipolicy pages not for irrelevancy (like this one really should be) but purely for impropriety. So appropriateness matters. But you conceded all of this earlier; you're standing on ground you've already given up with the "not censored" reply, and it's unwinnable. The way forward now is pretty simple: (i) propriety matters; (ii) it's been explained at some length why explicit photographs are inappropriate on non-anatomical pages such as this, where they are not even called for scientifically. Britannica agrees (if you have another explanation for the evidence I gave above, please let us know), not only supporting the general view here, but bringing the image into direct conflict with the above-cited Wikipolicy. Hence, the picture must go.SAT85 (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No one has posted images of child pornography, and this is not the Child page. Let's stick to the page we're editing. I don't know what list of deleted images you're talking about, but if the list doesn't include this one and references to this article, I don't see the relevance. If you are aware of a policy that specifies certain pages are "non-anatomical," any information or images about anatomy forbidden, please bring that forward. If you have a wikipolicy that subordinates decisions about editing to what an editor may infer about Britannica's editors' attitudes, bring that forward. Find consensus that nudity violates propriety, get an admin to rule that this photo is fundamentally, intrinsically and irredeemably offensive, vile, dirty, that gender has nothing to do with anatomy. Wikipedia is not censored. What's unclear about that? Oh, and yes, it is conceivable that in some extreme case, an editorial decision could turn on consensus propriety -- this is not an extreme case, and your standards of propirety do not represent consensus. DavidOaks (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The point about the Child page and the deleted pictures is that non-censorship doesn't do away with moral standards. Now, you ask why there should be a distinction between anatomical and non-anatomical pages. Let me explain it this way: if you believe that public nudity is indecent, as most cultures do, there is a principle that naturally follows--anatomy normally concealed on the grounds of decency (and law, actually) should not be displayed in a public encyclopaedia unless it is integral to the subject. Based on this principle, which all professional encyclopaedias adhere to, explicit sketches are justifiable in dedicated anatomy articles, but not in more general articles such as Man. So in other words there is a natural connection between belief in the indecency of public nudity and opposition to this picture, or (to put it the other way around) support for the picture requires the assumption that--for example--stripping in the local shopping centre might not be the best idea, but it is not inherently indecent or immoral. Why should this frankly eccentric premise trump the almost universal view that public nudity is wrong?SAT85 (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just made a quick count of the opinions on this page: eighteen people want the picture removed; four think it needs repositioning; one thinks it should be kept if relevant; one has no qualms himself, but thinks that it's not essential and should be removed if the majority considers it obscene; and four (including you) seem happy with the way it is. SAT85 (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not ask why there should be a distinction between anatomical and non-anatomical pages. I asked you whether you were aware of any such. I am not. This discussion is about improving the article and about policy, not about philosophy or morals. If you are aware of a wikipolicy banning nudity, bring that forward. DavidOaks (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

These facts cannot be dismissed by simply sticking a "philosophy" label on them. Support for the photo stems from the assumption that public nudity is fundamentally unobjectionable, as explained, and therefore amounts to the promotion of an ideological POV, and a fringe one, too--which is prohibited by wikipolicy (WP breach #3). If anybody wants to carry on the crusade, please do so elsewhere, and allow Wikipedia to exhibit the accuracy, decency and professionalism of conventional encyclopaedias in this respect.SAT85 (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The number of people on the page don't count, only the people taking part in this RfC - and it looks like 5 to 3 in favour of keeping the image. But Wikipedia does not make decisions based on majority voting anyway, it works on policy-based consensus, which means that one policy-based X opinion would trump any number of non-policy not-X opinions. An independent person familiar with policy (probably an experienced admin) would be needed to judge if there is any policy-based consensus here. And if consensus is not reached in this RfC, the next step in the dispute resolution process can be pursued. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Boing. What does an opinion expressed inside the RfC count for that one outside it does not? If we are really interested in finding out what the Wikipedia community thinks of the photo, as we ought to be, we won't be artificially ruling out certain opinions because they are not expressed within some designated area. Besides, even granting this technicality, it is 5-4 inside the RfC and 5-5 since the RfC was proposed. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC is a self-contained stage in the dispute resolution process, which starts with its creation, progresses by the !vote method, and ends with an analysis of the !votes - hopefully leading to a consensus decision. You can refer to other opinions voiced outside of the RfC, but by definition they are not part of the RfC step of the process. It's a bit like in a political election, where you can't claim the votes of people who didn't vote but have previously expressed a preference prior to the election. (Anyway, I'm just trying to explain, from experience, how RfC works - if you wish to dispute it and change the process, this is not the place for that). Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:RfC page states that an RfC is a specifically informal request for opinions and arguments ("RfCs are not votes"); the idea is to get a sense of what the Wikipedia community thinks of the content in question, and why. Hence a contribution entered outside the designated area carries just as much weight as one entered inside. Regards, SAT85 (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's only your personal opinion that "a contribution entered outside the designated area carries just as much weight as one entered inside". There's nothing in the RfC guidelines that say that, and in practice you'll find that closing admins will judge the consensus based on what has been contributed within the RfC. Otherwise, how far back do you go? And is it fair to include/omit opinions that were/were not expressed prior to the RfC when there wasn't even a semi-formal attempt in progress to try to determine consensus opinion? It's just "common sense" :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not just my opinion; Wikipedia guidelines indicate that an RfC is just an informal call for comments. They contain nothing to suggest that any special weight should be given to contributions entered within the RfC as opposed to those outside. You ask: "And is it fair to include opinions that were expressed prior to the RfC when there wasn't even a semi-formal attempt in progress to try to determine consensus opinion?" Sure. Any opinion, regardless of the circumstances in which it is expressed, is useful in that it (i) may bring to light a cogent reason to retain/delete the content in question, and (ii) helps to give us a sense of what readers think of the content. And I agree with your comment that common sense should be used with respect to the weight given to very old contributions--whether they were entered inside or outside an RfC.SAT85 (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, this bit of the discussion started out by my pointing out to you that this is not a vote, so if you now agree with me and you're happy that we won't be deciding this on your original claim that there was an 18 to 5 (or whatever) vote in favour of removal, then I'm happy with that. On the grounds that this is just an informal discussion to try to achieve a policy-based consensus, I still don't see one to remove the image. Despite the presence of lots of words (with lots of repetition), all I still really see here is the "It's offensive and I don't like it" censorship argument. And in the absence of a consensus otherwise, the WP:NOTCENSORED policy takes precedence. Considering this discussion has pretty much stalled now, with nothing new being said, I'll take my leave of it for now unless something new is actually added -- and I think those wanting to remove the image are going to have to take the next WP:DR step, which is probably some kind of mediation, if they want to succeed. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct: consensus does not consist of taking a vote (though non-binding straw polls are common practice). And no valid consensus overturning established policy is possible; we can't have a consensus to censor without changing WP:Wikipedia is not censored first. DavidOaks (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My position only runs counter to WP:Not Censored if the removal of child pornography does, and clearly it does not. SAT85 (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You argue that, since it is conceivable that something might be removed, therefore there is no such thing as WP:Wikipedia is not censored? And it therefore follows that anything can (should?) be removed (if it offends somebody, sometime, somewhere?) That's once again Special pleading. If you wish to test this, go ahead. It's not the issue we're working on here (unless you wish to get a consensus on the specific question as to whether this photo represents child pornography). DavidOaks (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, and no. Does the removal of child pornography constitute a violation of non-censorship? SAT85 (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think that's a bit of a red herring. WP:NOTCENSORED does not say or imply that nothing is ever censored for any reason whatsoever. And just because one type of image (eg child pornography) might be censored for one reason (eg because it is illegal), that does not mean that all types of image can be censored for all types of individual reasons. What WP:NOTCENSORED is really saying is that inclusion of images is based on a number of criteria, including legality and relevance, and that decisions will be made on an individual basis by policy-based consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

About anatomical illustrations elsewhere: Wikipedia's section on offensive content states that material likely to cause widespread offense or disgust should be deleted, even if informative, if a less controversial alternative can be found. This means that sketches or diagrams should be substituted for explicit photographs even on anatomy pages, in keeping with Britannica's practice and (I submit) common sense. Given the enhanced clarity of drawings, the only people I can think of who might object are wanton exhibitionists and libertarian proselytisers, who we all agree, I hope, can keep their ordure to themselves.SAT85 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a wikipolicy that defines "offensive" as "material which offends somebody somewhere, sometime" or which classifies nudity as intrinsically offensive (this being about most clinical and the least offensive nude imaginable), by all means bring them forward. DavidOaks (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get silly here, David. I'm not arguing for either of those things. Why not address some of the pertinent points instead of putting forward these straw men? (1) You haven't yet explained why the naked man should be the most prominent. (2) You haven't given an argument for the picture that would not lead logically to the inclusion of child pornography (wikipolicies state that the burden of proof lies on those supporting the image, so this deficiency needs to be addressed if the image is to be kept). (3) You haven't reconciled your insistence on a photograph vs. a sketch with Wikipedia's policy that widely offensive material should be deleted if a suitable (or in this case clearer) alternative can be found. (4) If Britannica does not regard explicit photos as out-of-place on their Homo Sapiens page, then why is the sketch there so obviously non-revealing? If they do, how is this not relevant to Wikipedia's policy that content should reflect what one would expect to find in a professional encyclopaedia? (It's also instructive to note (and relevant to both #3 and #4) that they use sketches rather than photographs even on anatomy pages.)SAT85 (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Each of these has been addressed specifically and repeatedly. But for your convenience, and that of latecomers to the discussion, I repeat the responses, and gather them in this one place: 1) the naked man should be most prominent because this is the neutral, natural, a-cultural form of the human male, and it displays those features which most clearly distinguish the subject from the most nearly related concept. It is also parallel to the practice at Woman. 2) This page is for discussions of how to improve the article Man, not for philosophical discussions. We are not talking about child pornography and this is not the child page; if you wish to know what will happen if you upload a particular image to a particular page, conduct the experiment. Most likely a conversation like this one will follow, to consider if and how the image improves the article; those objecting will have to keep their objections within wikipolicy. 3) if you can establish that this clinical image (widely used throughout wikipedia, parallel to the one used at Woman, also used at human, and more clinical than the images used at the articles corresponding to Man in numerous other wikipedias), meets the standards of "widely offensive," you may have a case; I think it will take an administrative ruling. I do not know by what logic you feel that a sketch will be more informative. If your purpose is to make things clearer, we can have a much larger image focused exclusively on the human male genitals, with labels, as suggested previously. I think that would be inappropriate emphasis, and would lose other aspects of gender dimorphism. If your purpose is to censor nudity, make the page child-safe or work-safe, that is a violation of wikipolicy and not a valid reason for making the change. 4) Your claims about Britannica's editorial policy are in the first place WP:OR and in the second irrelevant to wikipedia. DavidOaks (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) You argue that the photo should be the most prominent because nudity is man's (i) natural state. Not so. Even if you want to view man as a mere biological organism, men naturally wear clothes, just as hermit crabs get around in abandoned shells. That is how they are correctly portrayed in their feature image, and so the featured picture here should show a man as man is naturally encountered: with clothes on. (ii) Neutral state. Please clarify. (iii) A-cultural state. Culture is a universal, defining feature of human beings, and clothing is an essentially universal part of culture--the feature image should reflect this. Even the naked man pictured shows obvious cultural influences: he has shaven his beard off and cut his hair short--not exactly a-cultural. You also argue that the positioning of the picture is appropriate because it corresponds to the setup at Woman (hey, can't we only talk about THIS page?): but two wrongs don't make a right. Lastly, the fact that nude photographs are also displayed at Human puts a question mark over the excuse that this one is required to illustrate "an important distinction from a closely related category, Woman" (and this wouldn't counterbalance the opposing considerations anyway). (2) I asked for a defense of the picture that would not justify child pornography on the child page, and you again counter that the request is out of order, since we are talking about THIS page. No, we are talking about how the weakness of your key argument (that the photo increases the availability of information on the subject) is patent when it is applied elsewhere. Remember that the burden of proof lies with you, and that in the absence of a compelling rationale the picture will have to be deleted. (I'll respond to the rest later). SAT85 (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll be happy to note that 11/12ths of the collage show men in their cultured and clothed state, as do all the other photographs on the page. Your position is not only represented, it is by far the dominant one. Plenty of cultures historically and at present dispense with the covering specifically regarded as essential in modern, western and industrialized societies -- beware NOW-ism, ok? Do have a look at that human page -- both male and female pix are there. DavidOaks (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The most prominent position, obviously, is the top left, where the nude photograph is. But since you consider this to confer no special emphasis on it (it's just 1/12th of the arrangement, you say), how about we start by moving it half way down on the right hand side? You mention that some other cultures have pretty much dispensed with clothing: however, they are in the minority, and the man pictured is not even from one of them--he is a Westerner who has taken his pants off for the photo; if you want to upload a picture of an African tribesman in traditional costume, or lack thereof, and position it more appropriately, it might be harder to object purely on the grounds of encyclopaedic accuracy. (I note that you again decline to address question #2.) Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Hermit crab is a good analogy. The Hermit crab evolved to make use of a natural feature of its environment - shells and similar receptacles - without any fabrication or cultural decisions needed. Human clothing, on the other hand, is a cultural development (and even today there are cultures who adorn themselves with little more than a bit of decoration), and clothes are fabricated by humans - there are no "ready to wear" clothes just hanging round in our natural environment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Where humans and hermit crabs get their "clothing" is beside the point. The point is that a shell, like human clothes, is not part of the biological structure of a hermit crab, and yet since they are typically encountered wearing one, that's how they should be portrayed in a feature illustration. We're sensible about the hermit crab page, so why not apply the same level-headed accuracy here as well SAT85 (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you think the difference is beside the point, and I think the difference between the evolutionary development of the use of naturally occurring items and the cultural development of human clothing is a very important distinction. We'll have to disagree, and whoever analyzes the outcome of this RfC will hopefully take into account both opinions. (And by the way, I think a photo of a "naked" hermit crab would actually enhance that article). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to the question of what the lead image should portray--it should represent the subject as it typically appears. See the Bedouin page, for example, where a Bedouin arab is shown in all his traditional finery, none of which is genetically pre-determined. I really can't see that it would affect the choice of a picture on the Hermit Crabs page if we discovered that their use of shells is stimulated by the imitation of other members of the species (like the distinctive song of the Australian Magpie) rather than instinctive. SAT85 (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Garments are a reasonable way of visually distinguishing Bedouins from non-Bedouins. The way that males are distinguished from non-males is primarily clarified by unclothed specimens. However, there are also gendered codes of clothing, and certainly in the present, people appear more often clothed than not clothed, so 11/12ths of the collage is entirely in keeping with what you want. However, since that is clearly unsaisfactory to you, the only possible conclusion is that you are of the view that there are no visible anatomical differences of significance between males and non-males -- you'll be needing WP:RS for that -- and/or you wish those differences to be concealed -- in which case you are once again encouraged to review WP:Wikipedia is not censored. DavidOaks (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to Boing's argument that human clothing is unimportant in a lead image because it has no clear promptings in genetics. To answer your other point--as I said elsewhere, if you think the image has no special prominence (in contrast to what you have argued up until now), you presumably won't object if it is repositioned. SAT85 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and can you direct us to a Wikipedia policy that supports your claim that "the burden of proof lies with you, and that in the absence of a compelling rationale the picture will have to be deleted."? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: I should have said that my view is that neither side is assumed "correct by default", and so the burden of proof does not exclusively lie with either side. The way consensus discussions work is that both sides must convincingly make their case, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And the other two points: (3) I asked how you reconcile your insistence on a photo vs. a diagram with the wikipolicy that widely offensive material should be removed if a suitable alternative is available. You seem to concede that there would be a breach of policy if it can be shown that the picture is in fact "widely offensive", which I thought was fairly obvious: the reaction on this page, for example--eighteen readers calling for the image's deletion, verses seven or eight who want it to remain--shows that the disapproval is absolutely widespread, and the image thus contravenes WP:PROFANE (WP breach #1). As to whether photos or diagrams are clearer for educational purposes, open up a biology or anatomy textbook and have a look at which are typically used for illustrations. (4) Kudos for thinking of WP:OR--you nearly drew that pesky three-lettered acronym from me. The fact is that there are only two ways of demonstrating that material is contrary to what one would expect in a professional encyclopaedia (and thus violates policy) and they are (i) ring the editors of the e.g. Britannica and ask them to to confirm their standards (a bit over-the-top), which leaves (ii) build a case about expectation from relevant articles, as I did. If you can't do (ii) then as I see it the wikipolicy here is pointless. Let me just add that you do your position a disservice by consistently trying to rule these questions as out-of-order instead of addressing them head-on, and until that happens, it can be regarded as established that Britannica considers explicit photos to be unjustified in general articles such as this, and that the picture therefore breaches wikipolicy (WP breach #2) and must be deleted. SAT85 (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to get an admin to affirm that this picture is intrinsically objectionable. Given the fact that it's pretty clinical and appears without controversy in numerous other places, you're effectively seeking a ban on nudity. Britannica has no relevance here. DavidOaks (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We are seeking the exclusion of gratuitous nude photographs, as per professional encyclopaedias. And if you still want to retain the picture, you need to address points #3 and #4 above and thus reconcile your stance with Wikipedia's policies on obscene material and on what one would expect to find in a conventional encyclopaedia. I really hope that any admins involved are following the arguments here, because the way forward now is pretty clear. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you are not asking for consensus on a definition of "profane" as "stuff which happens to offend a given individual." You are going to need an admin to rule that this image is intrinsically offensive, because you're not getting that consensus here. DavidOaks (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two thumbs up.SAT85 (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read wp:no disclaimers in articles We just keep quoting and explaining existing policy to editors who seem to think exceptions have to be made when they don't like something. We don't make things safe for work, we don't make things safe for children, we don't have a hierarchy of articles divided into technical and other, we don't withhold information from people because there are people who don't like it. When you have an argument that is not advancing censorship, please bring it forward. DavidOaks (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point is that if your arguments lead naturally to the inclusion of child pornography, there must be a problem. And non-censorship doesn't mean that anybody can upload anything provided it's broadly or even strictly relevant. If it does, then it's against Wikipedia practice (including the practice of founder Jimmy Wales) and contrary to quite literally everybody's principles (barring psychopaths), and needs to be modified.SAT85 (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, Dawid, your comments even remind me of the faviourate words of the Lord: "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zucchinidreams (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, whoever you are. I don't really know which of my comments reminded you of the final verse in psalm 137. That is a psalm about the persecution of the Lord's people by the Babylonians — a barbaric, heathen people who used to smash infant Jewish heads against the stones to kill them. So the Lord says that 'blessed', or 'happy' (asher in the original language), would be the man who repayed the Babylonians with this rough justice. But as far as you and I are concerned, my friend, the sixth commandment applies: 'Thou shalt not kill' (Exodus 20:13). Ben Dawid (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the personal attack, it won't happen again. I was merely angered that a non-representative religious text was being used to keep one image of a free-for-use wikipedia- I overreacted, sorry.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is appreciated. Ben Dawid (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)