Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Sun tanning

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requests for mediation/Sun tanning page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Is this where outside parties add comments?

I've never participated in a mediation before. Where do outside parties add comments? Padillah (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that first it has to be decided if the admins want to mediate this issue. I do know that the front page is not the place to rehash the issues themselves, ~~in spite of efforts by some to do so.~~ I am not sure if they allow non-admins to participate at all, as this is the first time I have had to come to mediation. ~~At this time, they haven't decided to accept this instance into mediation yet.~~ PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pharmboy

Thank you for considering my opinions. The issue is about the lead image for the article Sun tanning. The long standing lead image was a young lady tanning in a swim suit, on a towel, on a lawn. It is a fairly simple and pleasant image that demonstrates sun tanning in the most general way. Dandelion/Dandelion1 changed the image to one that showed women tanning topless on a beach, at first by deleting the old image without explanation, then by moving it. There is nothing in the article that even discusses nude or topless tanning. In talk, a concensus felt like the image was too explicit to be in an article where there wasn't even a single mention of the general nature of the image. During this talk process, only Dandelion/Dandelion1 was in favor of including the image in the current article.

During talk, several options were offered and several reversions took place. One person suggested adding a new section within this article that covered the subtopic of tanning topless. I suggested creating an article on Sunbathing (which is often done topless and is currently a redirect) and provide context for the image. There exists very valid reasons why an article on nude or topless sunbathing is a good thing. Then, within Sun tanning (the article in question) there should be a section with a summary, and then there would be context for the image in that section. The history shows that Dandelion/Dandelion1 clearly expressed an unwillingness to create context in any form for the image.

I understand that nudism is important to Dandelion/Dandelion1, and that he has contributed a lot to Wikipedia on the subject of nudism. But it appears he has a history of confrontation and unwillingness to consider other perspectives. At this time, without a reasonably developed section on the topic of nudeness (and preferably an actual article) to justify the image, using a nude image can only be seen as agenda driven. My position is that Wikipedia isn't and shouldn't be censored, but an article should always provide the proper context for any image. When using images that are explicit, either showing violence, nudity or are politically charged, particular care must be taken to insure that the purpose isn't political or constitute advocacy, and it maintains a neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Five pillars is very clear about this.

In summary: The long standing image is of very good quality on all counts. The new, topless image is not "better", it is out of context, and Dandelion/Dandelion1 is the singular voice for including it. Addtionally, when you consider the lack of context, the ongoing discussions and overall history of Dandelion/Dandelion1, it supports the conclusion that the purpose for including the image is agenda driven. This violates NPOV and is a conflict of interest, thus ineligible for inclusion. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dandelion

There are several users who have blocked attempts to include images of nude and topfree sunbathers. These users have cited "precedence" on choice of the leading image and on the article's discussion pages on the topic. No good arguments have been made to anoint some traditionally used "lead images" as more appropriate or suitable than others. I do not believe we have reached the gold standard for this page yet and I believe it is entirely inappropriate to begin making arguments to establish some images as more appropriate than others without good reason.

I do not agree with the proposed idea that we should create a separation, which I believe would only be invented for the sake of segregating dress choice, between the terms "sun bathing" and "sun tanning", which both reflect the same activity. There is no real difference between the two terms and one could never argue with any images that one is "bathing" more than "tanning" and vice versa. This proposal, I feel, is purely a smokescreen for creating a "separate but equal" approach to segregating out content by one group over another.

Some have made arguments that nudity or topfree pictures are too explicit, shocking, and even out of context of sun tanning. Because they feel the images are inappropriate for the sun tanning page, they do not want to see them included.

Looking at the galllery of sun tanning images, however, reveals that several users are uploading images with a diverse range of dress preferences. The image tags "sun tanning" and "sunbathing" have not been rejected for images showing top free or nude sunbathing/sun tanning. The images reflect an undeniable reflection of real human preference when it comes to sun tanning and dress, and so I believe it is entirely appropriate to include images of both in the article. To exclude one or the other completely seems to be very NPOV and biased and not in the spirit of the Wikipedia project.

My understanding is that Wikipedia is not censored to favor one point of view over another, that the images disputed are well within the context of sun tanning and in order for this article to be in a NPOV we should allow inclusivity in regard to images depicting the activity, with and without dress.

What I see, is a clear attempt to block inclusion of nude and topfree images on this sun tanning page. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a NPOV source of information, this overt push to censor must not stand. Real cultural global practices need to be reflected.User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Padillah

As a third party I'd like to interject a couple of comments. First, no one has tried to censor any input made to the article. The only rejection that was being raised was to include a topless image for no readily apparent reason. The argument has been completely misconstrued by some of the participants and the personal attacks resulting from that misunderstanding will be dealt with separately. The first argument is about image use policy, specifically point 10:

Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article.

Topless images are explicit. The image gallery has the content it has simply because it has no context and, therefore, can contain anything that could be mildly construed as tanning. Inclusion of the gallery images only defeats the argument that someone is trying to censor images, if we were we'd start at the gallery. Since the gallery remains, we are obviously not trying to censor. Whereas Wikipedia is not censored it also isn't a platform for naturist ideals and as such doesn't require the inclusion of nude images where ever the possibility exists (hence the "naked hot dog" argument). Just because an activity can be done in the nude doesn't mean it must be shown being done in the nude to understand the concept. Take the article on Bicycling, where it's true that cycling can be (and is) done nude, the article doesn't need a nude picture to communicate the message of Cycling effectively. At this point the addition of a nude picture to that article would just seem incongruent and out of context since there is no need for, nor explanation of, the image. Where the dissenting editor sees NPOV and censoring, I can assure you my efforts were only for congruency and cogency. Padillah (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

Alright, thank you both for your statements. I think the dispute can be solved with effort on both of your parts. I personally would prefer to work in a format such that each of you proposes edits or solutions, and discusses it in order to reach a satisfying conclusion. What do you think? If there's a different way you'd prefer to work, tell me and we can give it a try. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a fine way to start things. Can you suggest a place to start? I've added a few issues on the main mediation page. I'm not here to just discuss a "lead Image". I'm going to bed so I will communicate later. Cheers, User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs) [reply]

My first suggestion would be to add one of the topfree/nude sun tanning/sun bathing images from the appropriate sunbathing / sun tanning Wiki Commons image galleries to balance out the exclusively clothed images. Perhaps Pharmboy could write a part of the article which discusses sun tanning dress preferences. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public support for nude tanning

In a September 2006 Naturist Education Foundation (NEF)/Roper Poll, 25% of poll participants indicated they personally have "gone 'skinny dipping' or nude sunbathing in a mixed group of men and women at a beach, at a pool, or somewhere else". Additionally, the NEF report indicates "nearly a third (32%) of the under-35 crowd have gone skinny-dipping or nude sunbathing." They conclude that based on poll response percentages, over 55 million have gone skinny-dipping or nude sunbathing.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough

That is all we have been trying to get accomplished since day one, and it looks fine. As to the content, we can tweak and work that out within the talk of the article, but I don't see any problems as it is now. I would also (still) suggest using it as a stub for a new article. I had suggested Sunbathing, which is currently a redirect but I wouldn't be the right person to decide the name. This will allow more information to be given about the topic in full, which would be linked within the summary in Sun tanning (ie: if they want more info). I agree that the new article should never be used as a reason to remove the summary within the Sun tanning article.

The majority have always fully supported Dandelion's assertion that topless/nude tanning is a culturally significant topic. I have already stated that it is worthy of more than a single section within one article, and instead is a worthwhile topic for a comprehensive article (over time) that will in the end make the summary in Sun tanning better, and not smaller.

Finally, please pardon my frustration over this process, but it is due in part to most of us SUPPORTING Dandelion's desire to add information about nude tanning. We just wanted MORE information than a single photo conveys by itself. Not brushing it to the side nor taking a political stance about it. IE: keeping it neutral, factual, informative and comprehensive. We aren't the enemy. Hopefully we can actually work together in the future, instead of butting heads. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you three are all happy with the content, then I can successfully close the mediation. Good work, I'm quite pleased that you were able to reach a compromise so quickly. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are still unresolved issues that brought me here, see main request for mediation page. Give me a few days to let things simmer. Thanks. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Alright, sounds good. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where the argument is. The context has been added, which is what I requested mediation for, the refusal to add context to potentially controversial images. If there is another issue, please state it so we can move on. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that the issue has been sorted out. I'll ask everyone involved, but if you all feel happy with what's resulted we can be finished here. I do commend you all on your excellent conduct and collaboration. Thank you for making this peaceful. Regards, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought all issues were resolved, or at least the issue that brought me here to request mediation. On my talk page, Dandelion says he still has some unresolved issues, however. The issue is over as far as I can tell and unless he comes forth soon with any new info, I would agree that the mediation is concluded. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask him, but if there's nothing else, I'll close this. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to call this closed. I've not heard back from anyone with any additional problems, and it seems that the initial problem has been resolved. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate efforts to mediate this. I apologize for my absence. I was vacationing in Florida. I would like to reopen this to look at issues raised in the dispute. Thank you for your consideration. I would like to return to this sometime after April 5th due to taxes. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not moving forward, focus on criticizing Daniel

Comment While I am the person who initiated this required step to resolving the issue, I am not sure what will help, Keilana. The reason we are here is because of Dandelion's initial unwillingness to work within the TALK section, then refusal to accept a clear concensus against using a nude image within the article. The only dissent in the talk section has come from Dandelion. This started with a series of disruptive revertions and unjustified personal attacks. His arguments haven't changed, nor has the concensus. Some of his arguments given in summary and talk include:

Women suntanning without Pharmboy's blessing.
Restoring top image, prudish image further down. Let's have some recognition on this page about how people choose to dress when suntanning. Wikipedia is not used soley by prudes like Pharmboy alone..
Your favorite image was moved below..
I do have an agenda.

He has maintained a confrontational attitude in an otherwise civil discussion. He has stated he an agenda and his other contributions and actions confirm this. Multiple suggestions from different editors have been met with insults and condescendance for not sharing his perspective and beliefs. Based on the totality of the evidence, it can only be concluded that he is not acting in good faith, as his goal is the furthering of an agenda. The revertions, histories, contributions and article talk make this abundantly clear. I am open to your ideas, Keilana, but feel that all reasonable solutions have been previously suggested, then summarily rejected by Dandelion due to philosophical and/or political ideals. His singular goal is incompatible with Wikipedia guidelines and no amount of discussion is likely to change that. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input. Would you like to suggest a version of the article, or other change? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]