- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was keep - Atmoz ( talk) 14:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Hardcore images
To preface, I am not against an essay regarding the use of hardcore images or when editors should show restraint in using such images.
I do see a problem with this particular essay and do not believe it is fixable. There is a difference between a "minority viewpoint" (mentioned in the template) and one that is "found to contradict widespread consensus" (as clearly stated in the relevant procedural policy). If such an essay is to exist it should pull from guidelines and policies (for example: WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IMAGES) and the related talk page discussions. There was recently a decent sized incident regarding such images here and at Commons. Some standards came out of that discussion that could be used to draft a essay. However, this essay is currently one editor's argument. This would be acceptable if it was not such a contradiction to how the current policies and guidelines are written and implemented. And do we call readers and editors "customers" now?
I have already asked the creator to move it into their user space. This was refused. [1] Cptnono ( talk) 04:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, although of course I'd say that since I wrote it. Nevertheless, I think it's a reasonably written essay and as good as some of the others, I guess (and there is additional material in the first three sections of the essay's talk page). There were a couple of recent or open RfC's on this issue, at
Gokkun and
Creampie (sexual act) which are both pretty close to tied, although granted in both cases there are complicating issues. So I don't think the essay is some kind of extremist rant. The nominator or anyone else is encouraged to write an essay with a different viewpoint, which I think would be more in keeping with the spirit of the the Wikipedia than deleting this one (and I'd be most interested to learn how the nominator feels editors should "show restraint"). A couple of notes:
- I expect we'll see some comments to the effect of "Delete, WP:NOTCENSORED, period" which in my opinion is, if no further exposition is provided, circular reasoning (see the essay talk page for further exposition on this). Although in any case I don't think that is really germane here, as WP:NOTCENSORED contains links to several essays and I haven't seen any policy with an admonition to the effect "Essays which support an expansive interpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED are permitted on the Wikipedia, but essays which support a restrictive interpretation are not".
- If anyone wants examples of the kind of articles the essay refers to, Bukkake and Creampie (sexual act) and Cum shot are a couple. (Note also that if, for example, the Cum shot image ( File:Wiki-cumshot.png) was in Oral sex, the essay would not have an opinion on the matter, as I hope is made clear in the essay.)
- But at any rate I thank Cptnono for the extra publicity. You can't buy this kind of attention. I encourage all and sundry to put the essay on their watchlist and link to it, let's get it up to Category:Mid-impact Wikipedia essays! Herostratus ( talk) 05:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like another editor pointed us to an essay which is not problematic for the most part (a little one sided but it is an essay) by adding it to the see also. [2] I would argue that this essay is a duplicate but it is far from that since it does not point to reasoning based on previous discussions, guidelines, or policies as that one does. Also, I am proud of the mid-impact essay I wrote. Note that it is devoid of soapboxing. Cptnono ( talk) 06:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, I doubt that the images in Bukkake and Creampie (sexual act) and Cum shot represent a widespread consensus. When viewing the images at MediaWiki:Bad image list, I think you move further away from widespread consensus. In addition, if there "was recently a decent sized incident regarding such images here and at Commons," how can there be WP:ESSAYS widespread consensus. Maybe the essay contradicts consensus, but I don't think it contradicts widespread consensus. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 06:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with what I was referring to or are you just arguing? If anything, that incident led to less explicit images. And the conversations were in such length and so centralized that I think it would be hard to argue that there was not consensus. If the essay pointed to that in a way that the PRON essay did then I would be all for it.
- This discussion is not about those particular articles.
- "Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women" and "It is not a good thing for young people to be viewing these images." as reasons to not use such images does contradict widespread consensus. We show images of Muhammad although it is offensive to some. We show images of genitals in other articles. The reasoning to not use hardcore images in articles about pornography provided in this essay does not have any basis on consensus and actually goes against it. I would be happy to see such an essay after the user familiarized themselves with consensus (that is more and more against hard core images) or added their policy based reasoning to the other existing and superior essay. I think it should also be noted that the the creator is attempting to change the scope of articles to be inline with this essay as opposed to them just being sex acts. Cptnono ( talk) 06:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep - essay represents a very common viewpoint which I agree with wholeheartedly. (That is not to say I endorse every single word in the essay, of course: it's an essay.) The essay is not at odds with policy and in part is an expression of longstanding policy and practice. Cptnono's objections (which I find idiosyncratic and at odds with longstanding practice) are not objections to the existence of the essay, but rather disagreements with the content of the essay. It is fine to disagree with an essay, but that is not a reason to delete it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- What is with this recent trend to move essays that some people don't like out of the projectspace? Keep, of course, (per above, really) and if you wish, start an RFC on the acceptability of any essay in projectspace. NW ( Talk) 19:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't agree with it nor do I like it. Yet, censoring an essay because it questions the "no censorship" policy is not a good idea. The spirit of the article is basically correct. It isn't necessary to include pictures of hardcore pornography to demonstrate the concept just like you don't need a picture of a person eating to understand the idea. My problem is with the essay's arguments. The three bolded statements in the lead all seem to be justifying censorship on pragmatic grounds. There are plenty of better reasons not to include hardcore pornography in an article like the fact that it's unprofessional and usually unnecessary. At any rate, there's no reason to delete this essay. The Dominator Talk Edits 21:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Good faith users have, and should have, wide latitude to write essays about content in the Wikipedia space. The nominator's points about the existing consensus are well taken, but it's okay for individual users to disagree with the consensus, and it's okay for them to write essays explaining why they disagree. This is even more important where there's a genuine discussion to be had about content. We aren't the essay police.— S Marshall T/ C 22:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep...the light at the end of the tunnel might not be daylight. WP:NOTCENSORED-- MONGO 03:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'd point out in the essay that our approach to illustrating articles should generally be modelled on the approach taken by reliable sources covering these same subjects. We have very strict guidelines in place for our texts, demanding that our texts reflect reliable sources. Our approach to illustration should be governed by the same principle: we should do what reliable sources do, and we should not do something our sources wouldn't do. -- JN 466 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - The scope of the essay is fine. The content is against consensus. Moving it to user space is not because I do not like it or due to censorship. It is POLICY. So fine, I will start editing the essay. It will be drastically different. The creator is obviously disregarding consensus by not even looking at the valid reasons to not have such images. Close this out per SNOW. Afterward, go feel bad for not following policy and getting duped.
Cptnono (
talk) 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Instead, it may be better to clarify what is being discussed in the project page essay by adding some images. Bukkake and Creampie (sexual act) and Cum shot (discussed above) have what appear to be softcore/encyclopedic images (at least to me), and its only when you look at some images from Category:Restricted images do you really get an idea of what hardcore is. Find a few hardcore images from Category:Restricted images and post a request at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list to use them in the Hardcore images essay. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your grounds for deleting the essay is that it contradicts widespread consensus. This is a highly debatable issue, and I'm not sure that there is a widespread consensus on this issue to contradict. What exactly is the consensus that this essay contradicts? A widespread consensus would be something more like "articles should be well-sourced." The NOTCENSORED policy states:
- "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article."
- Since what is "appropriate" or not cannot be decided on entirely objective grounds, I think it is perfectly reasonable to have an essay that argues that certain types of images are not appropriate to include in an article. I mostly agree with it, though I believe it could be argued a bit more persuasively. I think that if you carefully read the IMAGES policy that you mentioned, the original editor's viewpoint is not in violation of the policy. Jrobinjapan ( talk) 10:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as for an essay to express minority viewpoints, even (or perhaps especially) those that contradict existing policies and guidelines, is not in itself a justifiable rationale for deletion. Wikipedia has many problems, and if we are to close ourselves off from new or radical ideas, we may further ourselves from solving them. I find the sentiment expressed in the essay unencyclopaedic and morally indefensible, but that is no rationale for having it silenced. Skomorokh 13:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep An essay is allowed in projectspace. This is a valid opinion and an essay on it is fine. If there is an issue with the opinions, go write your own counter-essay. Otherwise, I'm not sure at all what the issue is right now. / ƒETCH COMMS / 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Userfy the creator of the essay refuses to let other people edit it. If he wants that level of control, it should be userfied.
Gigs (
talk) 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- But I haven't refused to let other people edit it (and don't have that right anyway, of course). You're referring to your blanking of an entire subsection. I did revert that, and I wondered why you did that. Now I know.
Herostratus (
talk) 03:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't a "test" if that's what you are thinking. I removed the paragraph because I think it's divisive, controversial, political, and not needed to communicate the point of the essay. I only decided to comment here after seeing your talk page comments subsequent to your reversion, where it seems you had a distinct tone of ownership
[3]. If you don't want people "messing with your essay", it should be in your userspace.
Gigs (
talk) 04:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. Well, if your intent is really to make good-faith efforts to improve the essay, then it sounds like our only disagreement is tactical, and we can discuss this further at the essay talk page. Herostratus ( talk) 12:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't a "test" if that's what you are thinking. I removed the paragraph because I think it's divisive, controversial, political, and not needed to communicate the point of the essay. I only decided to comment here after seeing your talk page comments subsequent to your reversion, where it seems you had a distinct tone of ownership
[3]. If you don't want people "messing with your essay", it should be in your userspace.
Gigs (
talk) 04:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- But I haven't refused to let other people edit it (and don't have that right anyway, of course). You're referring to your blanking of an entire subsection. I did revert that, and I wondered why you did that. Now I know.
Herostratus (
talk) 03:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Essays are in no way required to agree with Wikipedia's majority opinions. Access Denied – talk to me 00:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Again - "rightness" is not a criterion for keeping or deleting any essay. The only issue here is that it violates no rules of WP, and presents a coherent view. Collect ( talk) 08:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Userfy until the essay is in agreement with policy, per
WP:ESSAYS. --
N
Y
Kevin @930, i.e. 21:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note:That agreement with policy could come about by change on the part of the essay or change on the part of the policies. The point is, so long as the contradict one another, an essay isn't the correct forum for overturning established policy such as WP:NOTCENSORED. -- N Y Kevin @931, i.e. 21:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was keep - Atmoz ( talk) 14:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Hardcore images
To preface, I am not against an essay regarding the use of hardcore images or when editors should show restraint in using such images.
I do see a problem with this particular essay and do not believe it is fixable. There is a difference between a "minority viewpoint" (mentioned in the template) and one that is "found to contradict widespread consensus" (as clearly stated in the relevant procedural policy). If such an essay is to exist it should pull from guidelines and policies (for example: WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IMAGES) and the related talk page discussions. There was recently a decent sized incident regarding such images here and at Commons. Some standards came out of that discussion that could be used to draft a essay. However, this essay is currently one editor's argument. This would be acceptable if it was not such a contradiction to how the current policies and guidelines are written and implemented. And do we call readers and editors "customers" now?
I have already asked the creator to move it into their user space. This was refused. [1] Cptnono ( talk) 04:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, although of course I'd say that since I wrote it. Nevertheless, I think it's a reasonably written essay and as good as some of the others, I guess (and there is additional material in the first three sections of the essay's talk page). There were a couple of recent or open RfC's on this issue, at
Gokkun and
Creampie (sexual act) which are both pretty close to tied, although granted in both cases there are complicating issues. So I don't think the essay is some kind of extremist rant. The nominator or anyone else is encouraged to write an essay with a different viewpoint, which I think would be more in keeping with the spirit of the the Wikipedia than deleting this one (and I'd be most interested to learn how the nominator feels editors should "show restraint"). A couple of notes:
- I expect we'll see some comments to the effect of "Delete, WP:NOTCENSORED, period" which in my opinion is, if no further exposition is provided, circular reasoning (see the essay talk page for further exposition on this). Although in any case I don't think that is really germane here, as WP:NOTCENSORED contains links to several essays and I haven't seen any policy with an admonition to the effect "Essays which support an expansive interpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED are permitted on the Wikipedia, but essays which support a restrictive interpretation are not".
- If anyone wants examples of the kind of articles the essay refers to, Bukkake and Creampie (sexual act) and Cum shot are a couple. (Note also that if, for example, the Cum shot image ( File:Wiki-cumshot.png) was in Oral sex, the essay would not have an opinion on the matter, as I hope is made clear in the essay.)
- But at any rate I thank Cptnono for the extra publicity. You can't buy this kind of attention. I encourage all and sundry to put the essay on their watchlist and link to it, let's get it up to Category:Mid-impact Wikipedia essays! Herostratus ( talk) 05:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like another editor pointed us to an essay which is not problematic for the most part (a little one sided but it is an essay) by adding it to the see also. [2] I would argue that this essay is a duplicate but it is far from that since it does not point to reasoning based on previous discussions, guidelines, or policies as that one does. Also, I am proud of the mid-impact essay I wrote. Note that it is devoid of soapboxing. Cptnono ( talk) 06:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, I doubt that the images in Bukkake and Creampie (sexual act) and Cum shot represent a widespread consensus. When viewing the images at MediaWiki:Bad image list, I think you move further away from widespread consensus. In addition, if there "was recently a decent sized incident regarding such images here and at Commons," how can there be WP:ESSAYS widespread consensus. Maybe the essay contradicts consensus, but I don't think it contradicts widespread consensus. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 06:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with what I was referring to or are you just arguing? If anything, that incident led to less explicit images. And the conversations were in such length and so centralized that I think it would be hard to argue that there was not consensus. If the essay pointed to that in a way that the PRON essay did then I would be all for it.
- This discussion is not about those particular articles.
- "Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women" and "It is not a good thing for young people to be viewing these images." as reasons to not use such images does contradict widespread consensus. We show images of Muhammad although it is offensive to some. We show images of genitals in other articles. The reasoning to not use hardcore images in articles about pornography provided in this essay does not have any basis on consensus and actually goes against it. I would be happy to see such an essay after the user familiarized themselves with consensus (that is more and more against hard core images) or added their policy based reasoning to the other existing and superior essay. I think it should also be noted that the the creator is attempting to change the scope of articles to be inline with this essay as opposed to them just being sex acts. Cptnono ( talk) 06:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep - essay represents a very common viewpoint which I agree with wholeheartedly. (That is not to say I endorse every single word in the essay, of course: it's an essay.) The essay is not at odds with policy and in part is an expression of longstanding policy and practice. Cptnono's objections (which I find idiosyncratic and at odds with longstanding practice) are not objections to the existence of the essay, but rather disagreements with the content of the essay. It is fine to disagree with an essay, but that is not a reason to delete it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- What is with this recent trend to move essays that some people don't like out of the projectspace? Keep, of course, (per above, really) and if you wish, start an RFC on the acceptability of any essay in projectspace. NW ( Talk) 19:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't agree with it nor do I like it. Yet, censoring an essay because it questions the "no censorship" policy is not a good idea. The spirit of the article is basically correct. It isn't necessary to include pictures of hardcore pornography to demonstrate the concept just like you don't need a picture of a person eating to understand the idea. My problem is with the essay's arguments. The three bolded statements in the lead all seem to be justifying censorship on pragmatic grounds. There are plenty of better reasons not to include hardcore pornography in an article like the fact that it's unprofessional and usually unnecessary. At any rate, there's no reason to delete this essay. The Dominator Talk Edits 21:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Good faith users have, and should have, wide latitude to write essays about content in the Wikipedia space. The nominator's points about the existing consensus are well taken, but it's okay for individual users to disagree with the consensus, and it's okay for them to write essays explaining why they disagree. This is even more important where there's a genuine discussion to be had about content. We aren't the essay police.— S Marshall T/ C 22:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep...the light at the end of the tunnel might not be daylight. WP:NOTCENSORED-- MONGO 03:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'd point out in the essay that our approach to illustrating articles should generally be modelled on the approach taken by reliable sources covering these same subjects. We have very strict guidelines in place for our texts, demanding that our texts reflect reliable sources. Our approach to illustration should be governed by the same principle: we should do what reliable sources do, and we should not do something our sources wouldn't do. -- JN 466 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - The scope of the essay is fine. The content is against consensus. Moving it to user space is not because I do not like it or due to censorship. It is POLICY. So fine, I will start editing the essay. It will be drastically different. The creator is obviously disregarding consensus by not even looking at the valid reasons to not have such images. Close this out per SNOW. Afterward, go feel bad for not following policy and getting duped.
Cptnono (
talk) 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Instead, it may be better to clarify what is being discussed in the project page essay by adding some images. Bukkake and Creampie (sexual act) and Cum shot (discussed above) have what appear to be softcore/encyclopedic images (at least to me), and its only when you look at some images from Category:Restricted images do you really get an idea of what hardcore is. Find a few hardcore images from Category:Restricted images and post a request at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list to use them in the Hardcore images essay. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your grounds for deleting the essay is that it contradicts widespread consensus. This is a highly debatable issue, and I'm not sure that there is a widespread consensus on this issue to contradict. What exactly is the consensus that this essay contradicts? A widespread consensus would be something more like "articles should be well-sourced." The NOTCENSORED policy states:
- "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article."
- Since what is "appropriate" or not cannot be decided on entirely objective grounds, I think it is perfectly reasonable to have an essay that argues that certain types of images are not appropriate to include in an article. I mostly agree with it, though I believe it could be argued a bit more persuasively. I think that if you carefully read the IMAGES policy that you mentioned, the original editor's viewpoint is not in violation of the policy. Jrobinjapan ( talk) 10:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as for an essay to express minority viewpoints, even (or perhaps especially) those that contradict existing policies and guidelines, is not in itself a justifiable rationale for deletion. Wikipedia has many problems, and if we are to close ourselves off from new or radical ideas, we may further ourselves from solving them. I find the sentiment expressed in the essay unencyclopaedic and morally indefensible, but that is no rationale for having it silenced. Skomorokh 13:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep An essay is allowed in projectspace. This is a valid opinion and an essay on it is fine. If there is an issue with the opinions, go write your own counter-essay. Otherwise, I'm not sure at all what the issue is right now. / ƒETCH COMMS / 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Userfy the creator of the essay refuses to let other people edit it. If he wants that level of control, it should be userfied.
Gigs (
talk) 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- But I haven't refused to let other people edit it (and don't have that right anyway, of course). You're referring to your blanking of an entire subsection. I did revert that, and I wondered why you did that. Now I know.
Herostratus (
talk) 03:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't a "test" if that's what you are thinking. I removed the paragraph because I think it's divisive, controversial, political, and not needed to communicate the point of the essay. I only decided to comment here after seeing your talk page comments subsequent to your reversion, where it seems you had a distinct tone of ownership
[3]. If you don't want people "messing with your essay", it should be in your userspace.
Gigs (
talk) 04:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. Well, if your intent is really to make good-faith efforts to improve the essay, then it sounds like our only disagreement is tactical, and we can discuss this further at the essay talk page. Herostratus ( talk) 12:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't a "test" if that's what you are thinking. I removed the paragraph because I think it's divisive, controversial, political, and not needed to communicate the point of the essay. I only decided to comment here after seeing your talk page comments subsequent to your reversion, where it seems you had a distinct tone of ownership
[3]. If you don't want people "messing with your essay", it should be in your userspace.
Gigs (
talk) 04:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- But I haven't refused to let other people edit it (and don't have that right anyway, of course). You're referring to your blanking of an entire subsection. I did revert that, and I wondered why you did that. Now I know.
Herostratus (
talk) 03:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Essays are in no way required to agree with Wikipedia's majority opinions. Access Denied – talk to me 00:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Again - "rightness" is not a criterion for keeping or deleting any essay. The only issue here is that it violates no rules of WP, and presents a coherent view. Collect ( talk) 08:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Userfy until the essay is in agreement with policy, per
WP:ESSAYS. --
N
Y
Kevin @930, i.e. 21:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note:That agreement with policy could come about by change on the part of the essay or change on the part of the policies. The point is, so long as the contradict one another, an essay isn't the correct forum for overturning established policy such as WP:NOTCENSORED. -- N Y Kevin @931, i.e. 21:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.