Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey pops up in various articles (together with people having the same surname), though he doesn't yet have an article of his own. (See this.) He even found a rather unusual way into a category.

Not wanting either to be or to appear vindictive to Dr Pandey, in this edit to Azamgarh and this one to Allahabad University, I decided to be BOLD, simply removing every redlinked and nonlinked person (as well as miscellaneous other junk).

Nobody's yet complained or reverted, but did I overstep myself? (Is there any policy on this?) -- Hoary ( talk) 11:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If they are not notable enough for an article, how can they be notable alumni? Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 11:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite. But it could be said that they (or some of them) do deserve the articles that they haven't yet got, and even that listing them in this way encourages people to write those articles. To which my own response would be: Fine, then list them in a WikiProject page or similar. However, others might disagree. -- Hoary ( talk) 11:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

People confusing Wikipedia with Facebook and adding themselves to articles like this is a constant niggling problem. Being notable enough for their article should be regarded as an absolute minimum for including someone this sort of section. In fact, even genuinely notable people don't always merit mentioning; otherwise the articles for places like University of Oxford and Harvard University would contain lists of hundreds or thousands of names. Don't think we have or need a formal policy on this, just discuss on the relevent talk page if anyone reverts you; I suspect that most editors will agree with you. Iain99 ^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

and so they will have the thousands, when the relatively few people here interested in academic articles do the job properly. We can deal with lists of that length: usually, we divide them into groups by occupation. Anyone with a WP article qualifies to be listed as a notable alumnus of their university or universities. As for the ones who dont have articles and are listed, the advice is to make the articles & see if they stick--or, as Hoary suggests, ask for help doing it in a wikiproject. DGG ( talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A never-ending argument of course, but personally I think categories work as well in many cases. But I don't plan to go on any of blue-link deletion crusades at the moment.

To Hoary: Sorry, I misread exactly what you'd done - when I said "notable enough for their own article" I didn't necessarily mean having their own articles already. I've reinserted some people whose entries made a reasonable claim of notability - our coverage of Indian topics is far less complete than our coverage of western ones, and there's a big difference between having a redlink for " Ranganath Mishra, former Chief Justice of India" and one for a post-doc who decided to deposit his CV on Wikipedia. Iain99 ^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Still less a post-doc who insistently deposits his CV on Wikipedia, most lately in an article that you have rightly prodded. (Have these people no shame?)

I see your point. Still, List of photographers has got on pretty well with an absolute rule of "no article yet means no listing". This in turn means that a number of extremely deserving people -- e.g. Eugene Richards, let alone people I can't think of or have never heard of -- don't appear. That's what Talk:List of photographers is for.

That's a lovely sig, by the way. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! No redlinks whatsoever is certainly the pragmatic approach - it's the same on the "births" sections of articles for days of the year, which are even more plagued by teenagers inserting themselves. I suppose the counter-argument is that the list of photographers can afford to take that view, because our coverage of photographers is presumably good enough that everyone who must be on the list if it's not to look silly has an article by now. That doesn't seem to be true even of the upper echelons of Indian society - looking through that list I was shocked to see just how many prominent Indian people (up to and including former cabinet ministers) we don't seem to have articles for. And I suppose the main argument for having a list of notable alumni is to show the influence of the university... in this respect " Ranganath Mishra, former Chief Justice of India" is equally useful whether we have an actual article on him or not. Anyway, there are some disordered thoughts... as for me, I think I feel an evening of writing stubs coming on. Iain99 ^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of romantic novelists is doing the same thing as List of photographers. The coverage of romantic novelists on wikipedia was absolutely awful, and we had an overwhelming sea of red links on the list before. Now that we've separated out the names with articles and those without we are better able to identify which of the more prominent authors are missing and try to create those articles. We've also made it easier for the reader. I really like this method and think it would be useful for other groups at all. Karanacs ( talk) 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw this over at the RS noticeboard in somebody else's case (it's over here) and it occurred to me that this misunderstanding was what led me to butt heads with User:Sceptre a while back over whether to include the info about Gerstmann being fired from Gamespot on the Gamespot article. His objection was because "the sources were blogs." Technically, though, they seemed reliable at the time. I mean, Wired is just as reliable as postings made by the Gamespot company, right? Why not?

I propose the following (either to include at WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, or as an original policy at WP:BLOG).

It is not the technology used in blogging that makes it an unreliable source. The fact that a source is a blog, by itself, does not necessarily make it unreliable. What makes a blog an unreliable source is the same as with other independent news sources: the nature of the editorial process and the credibility of the editors.

Good blog: (wired.com, mainstream media blogs, etc.)

• Closed registration
• A handful of editors
• All editors are experts
• Always Usually accurate on the facts
• They're journalists who do original stories
• Value-free reporting

Bad blog: (freerepublic, dailykos, digg, little green footballs, etc.)

• Open registrations
• Hundreds of editors
• Editors are average people
• Prone to having incorrect facts
• They copy and paste stuff from CNN and Fox News
• It's an editorial\opinion\advocacy

In general, blogs should be avoided, but in some cases (i.e., experts who run their own blogs), a "good blog," is not really a blog at all, but simply a mainstream news source that's being provided with a new form of technology, though it's still just as reliable and verifiable. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but change "always accurate" because you know that some pointy person is going to say oh well they goofed on that one little snit and so the whole thing is thrown out. Wjhonson ( talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.regrettheerror.com/ and United States journalism scandals -- SEWilco ( talk) 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. Looks like it's already there here and the fifth reference on WP:V. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 09:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I know there are differences between some British and American words (colour/color). Which is standard on Wikipedia? QuasiAbstract ( talk) 13:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is covered pretty well at WP:ENGVAR. -- barneca ( talk) 13:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is filled with data duplication. Look, for example, at the History section of United States vs History of the United States. Readers are confused, editors are waisting their time, contradictions are inevitable. This mess could be corrected with the generous use of soft redirects to channel everyone to a common article. Is there a policy against duplication and/or repetition? If not, why not? Emmanuelm ( talk) 14:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think think this is covered by WP:SS. Top-level articles (like United States) should be summaries of more detailed subarticles. In theory it works out pretty well - readers can get a broad overview of a topic, then read progressively more detailed articles if they want. -- W.marsh 14:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Per W.marsh, it's normal to have parent articles that summarize (and link to) detailed daughter articles. What we do avoid is articles covering the same identical material under different titles. For example, we don't want to have History of the United States, United States history, and American history all in parallel. Such content forks result in needless duplication of effort. Wherever possible, we deal with such forks by Help:Merging and moving pages#merging all the content into one page, and then Wikipedia:Redirect#redirecting the titles to point at the merged page. (In my history example, the last two titles both redirect to the first one.) Hope that clears things up, TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're always welcome to improve articles in collaboration with other editors. If you believe that United States has too much information in the summary sections and some of the information should be in the child articles, why not cut the summary, reducing the duplicate material and moving non-duplicated material to the relevant child article? You might want to discuss this with other editors first by proposing such a change on Talk:United States and seeing what other editors think. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A certain amount of duplication is IMO a good thing. Certainly there's an overhead in duplicating data, but there are also overheads in attempting not to. So there's an optimum amount of duplication - which might be zero as you suggest, but I doubt it. Andrewa ( talk) 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for mentioning and discussing WP:SUMMARY. This is the first time I hear of it; this policy is clearly not discussed enough. It certainly is not one of the big five and, as we all know, it is neither respected nor enforced.

Wikipedia has grown so bloated it is becoming too much for the average hight school student. Is it the time to make WP:SUMMARY more prominent? Is it time for a six pillar?

Another idea : the WP code could be changed so that summary articles would be a) transformed into a "master page" that would b) be locked, and c) be a code-generated display of the lead sections of sub-articles, with the titles as paragraphs. This would keep the summary short, up-to-date, would eliminate duplications and would ensure that readers & editors go to the sub-article. Emmanuelm ( talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Shirahadasha's comment below mine. Making a hierarchical structure is a bad idea. Just using the two examples you gave of United States and History of the United States already makes this point become clear because the US History article isn't really a child of the US article. The US History article is a parent article in itself branching off into even more detailed articles. Are you suggesting the US History article also be a "master page" simply made up of summaries from the more detailed articles below it and have the history section of the US article be a "super master page" of summaries from the lower US History master page? It's already getting confusing and it's already taking the Wiki aspect of the encyclopedia out of the equation. Contradictions may be inevitable but are easily fixable and I think everyone benefits from reading similar information from different perspectives with different levels of summary and detail. In short, my first impression of your idea is I don't like it much. LonelyMarble ( talk) 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Christianity and homosexuality the sub-article of Christianity, Homosexuality, or perhaps Religion and homosexuality? Is Shechita the child of Kashrut or Slaughter? Does Parenting belong to Family or Child care? Does Morality belong to Law, Philosophy, Religion, or Sociobiology? Attempting to use a wiki to implement a hierarchical knowledge structure is likely to lead to nothing more than endless arguments over what parent should "own" what child. If we want to keep using a wiki, we'd probably best stick with a flexible, non-hierarchical network structure with all its risks of duplication. I simply don't see how WP:SUMMARY applies. WP:SUMMARY describes a process for creating articles, not a command that articles stay that way following creation. Child articles, like human children, move away from their parents following creation and develop a wide network of potentially duplicative (but potentially rewarding) associations. Nothing in WP:SUMMARY prohibits this. It may seem untidy, but it's actually a big source of Wikipedia's value. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just referenced Taj Mahal. In it there are several references to the Smithsonian Institute. THIS IS INCORRECT - IT IS INSTITUTION, NOT INSTITUTE. Jim Froehlich

You are correct. Smithsonian Institute is a redirect to Smithsonian Institution for the benefit of people who don't know the correct name. You can edit Taj Mahal to correct those links. If you are really energetic you could correct the 200 other links that are misspelled. Sbowers3 ( talk) 18:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed ten of them. Someone else's turn now. Dsmdgold ( talk) 04:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. None remaining outside userspace + talkpages. Algebraist 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get a broader swath of community input on the articles at issue in this RfC. We have a small group of tax experts who routinely patrol these articles to prevent them from being used as founts of nonsense, but that makes us particularly susceptible to charges of bias. Therefore, I'd appreciate if some folks who have heretofore been uninvolved in these matters could evaluate this RfC. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved. I despise Libertarians, but I'm an independent-minded Liberal who recently somewhat came to the conclusion that, yes, taxation is theft. Still, though, a lot of tax-protesters are like 9/11 twoofers, totally off-the-wall. Saying "there is no law requiring me to pay taxes" is insane. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 06:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty trivial thing to bring up but I was wondering what is the correct punctuation to use when you mention the day of the week at the beginning of the date (do you use a comma)?

For example: Thursday, January 24, 2008 OR Thursday January 24, 2008 ?

Also: Thursday, 24 January 2008 OR Thursday 24 January 2008 ?

I didn't see any mention of this in either WP:MOS or WP:DATE. So does Wikipedia have a preference for this punctuation question? -- LonelyMarble ( talk) 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty rare to include the day of the week; that might be useful for scheduled events that are about to occur (say, an election next Tuesday), but generally it's unnecessary. The American style is to put a comma after the date, and I suggest you follow that unless the norm elsewhere is different, and the article pertains to a topic of that (other) country. (This is the way spelling differences are handled, in general.)

So no, we don't have a rule for everything; given that this question relates to a pretty unusual situation, feel free to just use your best judgment. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The naming convention for monarchs has previously been an exception to Wikipedia's general naming conventions. Efforts are now being made to bring them in line, with a propoasl for the most common name for a monarch to take precedence. (eg. William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Mary, Queen of Scots.) Please consider the proposals at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Proposals to change Monarchal naming conventions so we can get wide consensus on this matter. Thanks. Gwinva ( talk) 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors has led me to propose a guideline:

• On first reference, do not use the word "football" without a qualifier. Call it American football, football (soccer), soccer, Australian rules football, etc. Subsequent references can simply say "football."

Current policy seems to be that a qualifier is not necessary, even on first reference, if the meaning is "clear from the context." There are two problems with this view:

• Some Wikipedia readers will be unfamiliar with the use of the word "football" to mean anything other than the variety of football popular in their country.
• Wikipedia should be as easy to read as possible, and we should not rely on the reader to do the work.

The inclusion of a single word to make things easier on the reader is so simple that it should not be controversial. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 19:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that people who understand 'football' to mean 'Association Football' don't see any real need to qualify the word with a trailing (soccer). The only purpose for that, as they see it, is to help USAmericans understand that Association Football is being referred to. The point is that people who are perceived to need such help are not stupid and they will rapidly learn that, in particular contexts, football means Association Football. Thus in time, everyone will know what 'football' means in a given context. And the function of an encyclopaedia, to disseminate knowledge, will have been achieved at least in this case. -

But that's not how an encyclopedia should work. The reader should not be expected to do the work. It's no different than an editor who simply wikilinks rather than defines a term necessary to understand an article, thinking that the reader can just go to the wikilinked article. That's not reader-friendly. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 20:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we to be believe that the unqualified word 'football' in different contexts really presents some people with a reading difficulty? That does seem very hard to believe. Even so, familiarity with the different contexts will soon enlighten any persons with such problems.

There are only two countries in the world that use football to mean something other than Association football, Australia and USA, and they are both native English speaking countries so there is no language barrier to them understanding context. In the world in general football is considered to be Association football, you may need to qualify the other types of football since the majority of the world understands football to be Association football, however I do not think you need to qualify Association football as football(soccer). The second largest sporting event in the world is teh Football World Cup and they find no need to qualify it as the Football(soccer) World Cup. Pbradbury ( talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 77.6% of native English speakers live in the U.S., Canada or Australia. That doesn't mean 77.6 of English Wikipedia users are from those countries, but it does mean a significant number of English Wikipedia users are from places where "football" means something other than the roundball game. Adding the word "soccer" on first reference is so easy and unobtrusive that I can't think of a single reason why not to do so. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of Football (word) - the issue is one of if we are native-speaker-centric (and hence it is soccer and football refers to the country's predominant form of football), or if we serve all English readers, in which case the article makes it clear that not only is British English favoured in formal writings, but that football has become a loanword for soccer in a number of different languages (the notable exception being the german translation). As for the debate here, I feel that the standard wikipedia rules on language apply - the words used should be the one most appropriate for the audience. In US, Canadian or Australian/NZ articles, the local form of football should be preferred and used without qualification. It seems that from the evidence, UK and international articles can follow the same principle, to use football without qualification as 'soccer'. This may be debatable for international articles, were full qualification might be desired. LinaMishima ( talk) 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lina. I'm aware of the consensus that we generally use British English for British articles and American English for articles about American topics. I'm not contesting that. I'm just saying that we should use a qualifier on the first reference and first reference only, just to make it easier for readers. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The statistic sited is not relevant, since it cannot be extrapolated in any way to the English speaking (native or not) population that use Wikipedia as a resource. There are many words in the English language that have more than one meaning, you do not place the meaning you want in parenthesis after the word so people know what you are talking about. Language is about more than just words, it has grammer and context. There is already a mechanism in place to deal with the multiple meanings of a word, it's context. If you believe that the context is insuffecient, then you should improve the sentance with further explanation or add a footnote. This way you do not stop the normal flow of a sentance by interupting the prose. This is also likely to be contentious in both types of football articles and result in many an edit war when people don't understand or disagree with the policy. So in summary.

1. You are trying to solve a problem that is already solved using the English Language.
2. It is likely to result in edit wars (IMHO).
3. I see no compeling reason to change the way it is currently handled since it does not seem to cause any confusion (is their any evidence that people are confused, such as incorrect edits?)
4. Its current existance in the namespace is simply to solve the problem that you cannot have two things in Wikipedia with exactly the smae name.

Pbradbury ( talk) 11:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not suggesting that 77% of Wikipedia users speak American English. What I am saying is that there is a huge chunk of potential Wikipedia readers to whom football=something other than soccer. Many of those people have no idea the word "football" means something other than the pointy-ball game. I agree that they will be able to figure it out eventually, but why make them do that when the solution is as simple as a single word? It shouldn't result in edit wars if it becomes official policy. It's all about writing to make it easy on the reader, not the editors -- a practice all too often ignored on Wikipedia. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not convinced me on that any of the main points I have raised in objection are incorrect (those being, problem already solved by use of language correctly, that it won't result in edit wars and that you have provided no evidence that it actually is a problem). Having spent a large portion of my life living in the US I have not experienced it as a problem of understanding when used in context. Also wikipedia is not a static written page, words are wikilinked, if a user is confused clarity can be obtained in one click. What you give up by creating this policy is well written gramatically correct articles where the prose flows well. Having said that I will labour the point no longer. So far I have not seen any support for this policy from any other users, and several users who have raised concerns. I will step back and see if there is any support from the wider community and/or a good counterpoint to any of the points I have raised, which may change my mind. Pbradbury ( talk) 00:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the proposal is really necessary except in places where there are other sports regularly referred to as football. I mean in places like Argentina, Brazil and many other countries, there is not really much scope for confusion about which code we are talking about. The risk of confusion to people that may think that Gridiron or Aussie rules are played in Argentina is mitigated by the fact that the first usage of the word football in an article should be wikilinked to the correct context. The problem with the idea of including the full link is that both Association Football and Football (soccer) are unwieldy compromises that are rarely used in reality. King of the North East 12:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but how do you know who's reading the article? You can't assume that just because an article is about something about Argentina that only people familiar with Argentina will read the article. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Using a qualifier on the first reference seems simple. Mwalcoff doesn't seem to be saying editors should use International or US English - Mwalcoff seems to be saying that either use of the word football should be qualified the first time it's mentioned. It seems easy enough to say 'American Football' -or to say 'football (soccer)'- once and then use football. Why is that controversial? Dan Beale-Cocks 13:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Pbradbury. Football (soccer) is non-sensical grammar wise in an ordinary sentence. How do we explain the term footballer? Footballer (soccer player)? Context is key not the word itself. Otherwise we would have thousands of qualifying words in brackets.

I don't want to guess at the number of disambig pages. Each one has a similar article. Are we suggesting that each time we use one of them we have to put the qualifier in brackets? Peanut4 ( talk) 19:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also find it disingenuous to be assuming that because a reader is used to one form of football that he will not understand others exist. The context of the article will make it readily apparent that the it is related to Association/Australian/Canadian/American football. Reso lute 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of a parenthetical is completely grammatical. Take, for instance, the following sentence: "Sheila Jones (my mom) is the PTA president." Perfectly acceptable, if not ideal. I don't quite understand Peanut4's objection; I'd appreciate some further explanation. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and help, the analogy you use is not accurate to the situation we are talking about, it would be more accurate if it was written as "Sheila Jones, my mom(mother), is the PTA president" which is not grammatically correct. A book I find very useful for grammer and what is correct or not is Eats Shoots and Leaves, I would recommend it to anyone wanting to gain a better understanding of grammer, I refer to it almost daily. Pbradbury ( talk) 01:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I love that book, but I don't remember it discussing parentheses (brackets). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English does and says that parentheses "set off explanatory or other additional material not needed in the main sentence. Stylistically, parentheses are a way of setting off an aside in a syntactic structure." That page gives several examples of parentheses used in a similar manner to what you are disdaining. What is absurd about your example is not the grammar but the idea that there is a need to qualify the word "mom." Certainly, everyone with even the slightest grasp of English knows what "mom" means, and there is no other meaning to the word. On the other hand, perhaps a majority of the 320 million English speakers in North America think "football" always refers to something other than the round-ball game. Thus the reason for saying "football (soccer)" on first reference. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you love it, there is a whole chapter on brackets. BTW I simply corrected your analogy, I also think it is silly to put mom(mother), but it is analagous to what you are requesting be policy. Your original analogy would translate in a football sense to Miami Dolphins(American Football) or Manchester City(fottball(soccer)) which is not what we are discussing. Pbradbury ( talk) 01:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The "mom" thing is not anything like the "football" issue. As I said above, all English speakers know what the word "mom" means, and there is no other definition of it. You seem not to understand that millions of English speakers think "football" means something else. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually mom is an American slang term, different countries use other slang terms such as mum and may not be familiar with the term mom. I do not presume to know what people do or do not understand a word to mean. However if mom is used in proper context then I am sure most readers would understand what it meant. That being the whole point of what we are discussing. BTW even in countries outside of the US there is more than one type of football. For example in the UK there are three main types; Association football (slang term soccer derived from assoc.) along with both codes of Rugy Football, union and league, (slang term rugger derived from rugby). However given that people speak English they can understand context and therefore understand the difference without reverting to adding slang terms in brackets. This is my last post on this for five days I promise. Let's let others discuss it, you have stated your case and I have stated mine, I am not sure we are adding anything to them. If you want to debate it with me further, feel free to post to my talk page and if we have any more valid info, rather than tit for tat, to contribute following these discussions we can copy it back here. Pbradbury ( talk) 00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting for the record that, amongst all that I have met or heard the opinions of, virtually no-one in the UK would ever use 'football' to refer to any of the types of Rugby. Even though the sports share the same historical basis, they are now seen as entirely distinct and something that should not be similarly named. Most people seem to generally be of the opinion that American Football is a soft version of Rugby, anyhow :P LinaMishima ( talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The context issue

People seem to be failing to grasp why you can't just say, "Let the readers rely on the context." Well, you can, but not if you're thinking about what would be easiest for the reader.

Let's say there's a country somewhere where motorcycles are called "bicycles." You have no idea this is the case. One day, "Today's featured article" begins: "The Victory Vision Street is a luxury touring bicycle with engine displacement of 1,600 cc, a wet multiplate clutch and an aluminum swingarm rear suspension." You look at it and go, " WTF??? I know a lot about bicycles, but I have no idea what they're talking about." Eventually, by reading through the article and clicking on wikilinks, you figure out that the "bicycle" is really a motorcycle.

The alternative is for the article to say on first reference that the "bicycle" may also me known as a "motorcycle." This way, there is no "WTF" reaction, and the newbie reader is welcomed into the article.

I think if you read newspapers or mass-market books you'll see how everything is be spoon-fed to readers. For instance, American newspapers will say "Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama," when you'd think everyone knows who Obama is by now. It's about writing for the broadest possible audience. Never make the readers do the work to understand something. It's our job to make things clear, not their job to sort out all of our content. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you have started a sub topic about the central core of this discussion which you seem to not understand, I will jump back in and try to clarify

The example you yourself have provided above is a great example to illustrate the point. The fact that the bicycle (which means it is a two wheeled vehicle) has an engine (in this case a 1,600 cc one) makes it a motorcycle (a two wheeled vehicle with an engine).

The point you seem to be missing is Wikipedia is not a dictionary see WP:DICTIONARY. The fact that people do not understand the meaning of words when used in context is not the remit of Wikipedia.

How US (or any other countries) Newspapers choose to write articles has no bearing on this discussion Pbradbury ( talk) 00:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crossword puzzle either. There's no point in forcing readers to scout around looking for clues to figure out what something is when we can just tell them. Your opinion that readers' failure to understand a word "is not the remit of Wikipedia" is all too reflective of an attitude I see way too often on Wikipedia: If readers don't get it, that's they're problem. No, it's not their problem; it's our problem, or at least our fault. We don't have to be exactly like newspapers, but newspapers are a good benchmark for how we should write because they are aimed at the widest possible audience, like Wikipedia should be. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 01:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect, I would also like to preface this with I did not make any of wikipedia's policies, and its not my opinion its wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not here to appeal to the widest possible audience, it is supposed to be an encylopedia. Please read up on what Wikipedia is before declaring it should be something else. A certain amount amount of basic language skills are assumed by an encyclopedia, it is not supposed to be dumbed down, or use broken English to make it more likely to be understood, which is unproven supposition on your part. Again stepping away Pbradbury ( talk) 01:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

/me bats head against the wall. You don't think an encyclopedia is supposed to reach the widest possible audience? What do you think it's for? -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

documentation of knowledge Pbradbury ( talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you go, that's the difference between your philosophy and mine. You think Wikipedia is there to show the world what you know. I think it's to help people seeking knowledge to find it and to help spread knowledge. Your view is editor-centric and mine is reader-centric. That's the difference. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 02:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think "motorcycle" would more clearly explain the subject to a general audience, why not be bold and change it or add an explanation? All content is supplied by editors. Nothing is fixed. Everything is subject to revision and anything can be improved. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 03:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is having difficulty keeping on track. The simple matter is that there are seven major codes of "football" (and probably still some minor ones), and they are all often called "football" by their players and followers. It therefore makes sense to disambiguate them at first mention. I see no problem with football (soccer), athlough Association Football would be a viable alternative. In New Zealand articles I tend to use soccer alone, since that is the most common name for the sport here (indeed, the main problem seems to be rugby league fans simply writing "rugby", which a majority would assume to mean rugby union). dramatic ( talk) 00:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the above. The main objections seem to be to the term "football (soccer)" (which is naturally parrallelled with "football (gridiron)" rather than "American football" - I suppose this could be an alternative solution). If, instead of this, we put "association football", would it be acceptable? Tevildo ( talk) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, chill! The fact that, as you referenced above, 77.6% of native English speakers live in the U.S., Canada or Australia can't be allowed to stand in the way of the other 22.4% prevailing in any discussion/argument. Rule Britannia! By the way, I'm saying this tongue in check to try to lighten the atmosphere. All the best to all of you in this matter. Thanks. 204.111.110.55 ( talk) 04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion on if Wikipedia:Ignore all rules should be expanded from its current version: [1] to a version with a story in it: [2].

Since this is a major change to core policy I think it important to get many points of view. We are having difficulty finding agreement, so please drop by WT:IAR and give your opinions. _{(1 == 2)} ^Until 15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Until(1==2)! In actual fact, that particular edit was not so important. What we're actually trying to do is to use such a particularly suited page to figure out how to solve the issues found in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. IAR is a very simple thing, so a very simple explanation (like the one that is there) is sufficient, IMO. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is not a topic anyone is really discussing there atm. (sorry about the misleading title earlier) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 00:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I created Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Workshop as a "joint workshop" for people to work together on any suggestions for the IAR page while keeping the main policy page stable throughout the work, since it seems there is some controversy (it is protected currently anyway). Hopefully if people want to work towards gaining consensus for some changes to this page (which I think we all agree is a pretty important one!) then this will be helpful to them. Happy editing! -- _{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created a new project space essay on non-admin closure. This was in response to a few delrevs that resulted in relisting some AFD's due to non-admin closure out-of-process, followed by an editor asking me where to find policy/guideline/instructions for it. Not finding any, I made this essay up, and am seeking input from others to improve it. I hope it will be promoted to guideline status after careful review and collaboration. The essay is located at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, and a shortcut has been made at WP:NADC. I am also attempting to usurp the infrequently-used shortcut WP:NAC, which two users are currently linking-to from their userspace. John Broughton has already made some improvements, and will be adding this to the Wikipedia editor index. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have usurped the WP:NAC shortcut now and updated the list of shortcuts. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change. -- VeblenBot ( talk) 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the information being posted about Jerome Kerviel. He has not been charged with a crime. All of the accusations against him are coming from the company. That said, it seems that every media outlet in the world, it seems, is assuming he is guilty of fraud.

Until a few minutes ago, our main page (on "In the News") said that Kerviel "is alleged" to have committed this massive fraud. It didn't mention who was doing the alleging. Now anyone who knows the first thing about media law in the U.S. knows that using empty terms like "is alleged" offers absolutely no libel protection. I reworded the In the News entry to eliminate Kerviel's name and had an administrator make the change. I also made changes to the Jerome Kerviel and Societe Generale articles to eliminate the most obvious libel risks.

We need to decide what to do about Kerviel across the encyclopedia. Obviously, we should ensure that every word of material is attributed to widely read media sources and that the source of every accusation is prominently mentioned. That won't provide 100% protection, since republication of libel is still libel. But with so many media outlets already accepting all of Societe Generale's accusations as fact, I'm sure Wikipedia editors will be averse to waiting before publishing ourselves. So the best we can do is make sure we are simply following the lead of the world's media. That may ensure that other media, not us, are the people who would bear the brunt of any defamation action taken by Kerviel's lawyers. (And that any future plaintiff with a libel case against Wikipedia couldn't establish a pattern of behavior of failing to address potentially libelous statements.) -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 05:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On the talk page of this article, Mwalcoff again asserted a claim that repeating libel offers no libel protection,etc, and I asked for a source which Mwalcoff provided here. However Mwalcoff's assertion can be plainly seen on-its-face to be a false characterization of the evidence. The link does not state that republication of libel is libel, rather it asserts that it might possibly be and after reading the entire article based on numerous cases by the way, we arrive at the final issue. A single, yes a single case, yes just one, where the US Supreme Court rejected without comment, a case submitted for docket. Since they rejected without comment, we will never know why, to turn and now assert that this proves that they are skeptical of the neutral reportage protection is surely a gross overstatement. To assert that some journalists might suspect the possibility that.... is pointless. Many state courts have asserted that neutral reportage is protected. I would conclude that the particular case was of a newspaper who reported the defamation of one public official by another, making the point just that much narrower. Wjhonson ( talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, and I submit that the rule on neutral reportage was *created* by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the first place. Wjhonson ( talk) 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's nearly 2 a.m., and I'm not going to go scour my bookshelf and the Internet for sources to prove to you the basic tenets of media law. Yes, it's more complicated than "republication of libel is libel." What is undoubtable, though, is that each repetition of libel is actionable. That means the plaintiff can sue the republisher. Think of it this way -- let's say a high-school newspaper in Nebraska libels someone. Then The New York Times reprints the libelous statement. Now the person's reputation is damaged because a million people have read the statement. The plaintiff can sue the high school newspaper, but he'll be far better off suing the NYT, which is really responsible for the damage to his reputation. That's what the republication rule means -- he can sue the Times, not just the first newspaper to print the libel.

Now the Times, like any libel defendant, has some possible defenses. This is a separate issue. As Wjhonson points out, one defense is that of neutral reportage. I don't know if neutral reportage would cover what an employer says about an employee. I wouldn't count on it. I know that in 1996, NBC News aired a defamatory story about Olympic Park bombing suspect Richard Jewell that was based on information provided by his former boss. Jewell sued and obtained settlements from both the network and his former employer. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to work, but the source that you cite is a business journal. Someone should cite a reference in a legal journal, as that really is the bare minimum for legal discussions. superluser _{t c} 2008 January 25, 12:46 (UTC)

Here are two sources to look at: Barring the bar. By: Leslie, Gregg. News Media & the Law, Winter2005, Vol. 29 Issue 1, p16-16 and CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- FREEDOM OF THE PRESS -- PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO ADOPT NEUTRAL REPORTAGE PRIVILEGE. -- Norton v. Glenn, 860 A.2d 48 (Pa. 2004). Harvard Law Review, Apr2005, Vol. 118 Issue 6, p2029-2036, 8p; superluser _{t c} 2008 January 25, 12:51 (UTC)

Repeating libel is legal so long as there is no malice, but anyone can sue anyone anyway. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in Barrett v. Rosenthal, it was established that, in the US, repeating libel on the Internet is legal regardless of malice. Still, anyone can sue for anything. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Sullivan case only applies to "public figures," as the article on the case clearly states. "Public figures, the (U.S. Supreme) Court reiterated (in Hutchinson v. Proxmire), are those who (1) occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes or (2)have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved, and are public figures with respect to comment on those issues." That's from the Congressional Research Service's excellent Annotated Constitution. We're probably on safer ground under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (the legal basis for the Barrett opinion, but as our article on the topic makes clear, the law in this area is not settled.

The problem MWalcoff with your unsourced assertions is that you are not an authority in this area. Neither am I. That is why we use sources. The source your provided does not, in fact, back up your claim, in fact it says the opposite, or rather it presents the case that the case is not actually known. It's a null paper. It collects together various cases where the status quo was upheld, and where it was not. We, as fellow journalists, are certainly in the same boat, as other publications. We, have no reason not to follow the same standards as other publications. If an article in the Los Angeles Times, on Britney Spears can state that she was "thrashing about wildly when arrested" then we can certainly quote it, standing on the same legal ground, as that initial publisher. Wjhonson ( talk) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Although I have worked in the media and been instructed in libel law, I am not a lawyer. However, media outlets can and do get sued for libel, and Wikipedia needs to make sure not to repeat their mistakes.

In this case, many sources have printed the accusations against the suspect, so it would seem overly conservative not to quote those sources. (The original In the News item did not quote anyone but just said Kerviel "is alleged" to have committed fraud -- a statement with zero libel protection.) That said, editors need to know that just because something defamatory has been published somewhere doesn't mean they can repeat it.

If you're asking me to prove that the common-law republication rule exists, you might as well be asking me to prove that gravity exists. Most sources I've found assume the reader already is aware of the rule. The libel section of the AP Stylebook, for instance, discusses when potentially libelous material can be republished under the "fair report" doctrine but assumes the reader already knows he or she can't go reprinting defamation. (You may want to try Restatement of Torts (Second) 577A.)

Nonetheless, here are some websites that discuss the matter:

• Keith C. Buell, New York University Law Review: "(I)f publication A reports “Jones murdered Smith” and publication B reports “Publication A reported that Jones murdered Smith,” B is liable for libel even though the statement is literally true—that A reported the allegation against Jones." ( [3])
• Intellectual property office of the University of Texas system: "The fact that material has already been printed somewhere else is not a defense except in the narrow fair report circumstance. Republication of a libel creates another libel." ( [4])
• New Jersey Press Association: "Question: The newspaper has received a letter to the editor accusing a local business of bigotry. If the newspaper prints the letter will it be open to a libel suit? Answer: Yes. As the re-publisher of the libel the newspaper is open to litigation the same way it would be if the newspaper made the statement in a news article." (emphasis mine) ( [5])
• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press First Amendment Handbook: "The media can be liable for the republication of a libelous statement made by another person or entity." ( [6])
• The Missouri bar Media Law Handbook: "One who repeats the defamatory statements of another is liable for that republication even if he attributes the statement to the original publisher. The republisher, however, may have privileges that are unavailable to the original publisher." ( [7])
• "Under the republication rule, one who repeats a defamatory statement is as liable as the original defamer, Lee,849 F.2d at 878, unless, of course, the repetition is a privileged one." Reuber v. Food Chemical News Inc., 925 F.2d 703 (4th Cir. 02/05/1991) ( [8]) -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change. -- VeblenBot ( talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't much discussion on this, for it to be a sitewide guideline there should really be some more comments on the talk page to indicate a consensus. Mr. Z-man 00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to analyse the block logs can be seen here. Comments and suggestions are invited. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the articles in the Category:Human sexuality. Is there any particular reason why almost none of them have photographs? Wikiproject Pornography has a rule that explicit images of porn stars are completely forbidden; perhaps this is creeping into general sex articles.-- Nydas ^(Talk) 21:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Although WP is not censored, it should not become a horrible pace for people to come to look at porn. Sex, etc. is already one of the most popular articles. I have no objection to encyclopedic images, but explicit ones should indeed be banned. They may be missing because free images of that could be hard to come by, especially encyclopedic ones. And even though we aren't censored, those who want it to be could have some influence there. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Largely the lack of free images for the purpose, and the controversy that tends to arise when people add explicit images to articles. It's difficult to find free images because amateur photographers don't frequently have access to subjects who are willing to give up their sexual privacy. I find it upsetting that articles like anal-oral sex censor their images, when it's very clear what the topic is. Some say that diagrams are more illustrative, which I disagree with - I think both photos and diagrams illustrate the subject differently and should both be included. And finally, I think it's entirely appropriate to include naked photos of porn stars, particularly ones who are known for remarkable anatomy. Dcoetzee 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You must be upset half the time then. That picture of simulated analingus keeps getting taken out and put back in about twice a day. As long as the motivation is encyclopedic value, proper tone, and perhaps good taste rather than censorship. If we simply couldn't remove naked pictures they would accumulate and every article would have ten of them. On the other side, nothing wrong with adding a naked or even erotic picture to an article if the point is encyclopedic interest, illustration, and completeness rather than titilation or making a point. That could imperil Wikipedia in schools, with the workplace filters, etc., but we've made the decision not to bow down to that. That should be an editorial decision for the best outcome of the article, not somebody's agenda. Also, when you're in the territory of a wikiproject it's good form to honor their article standards. I think there are good reasons for an adult entertainment centered project to use clothed pictures. Most adult performers are clothed in their within-the-industry publicity shots. And despite the occasional act of exhibitionism in the afterparties and convention lobbies, they pretty much stay clothed for the business meetings, award ceremonies, etc. Think of it like a pop singer or opera star - their head shots don't all show them singing. So it is with performers in the sex industry, the bio pieces are usually clothed. It's just a matter of being a little more formal and businesslike in my opinion. Wikidemo ( talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The workplace filters are capable of selectively filtering Wikipedia articles. A classic example is the user who created the sex kitten article during his lunch break at work and then was immediately blocked from viewing it by Websense, presumably based on a keyword. Sarsaparilla ( talk) 04:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think every photo of a porn star should show them naked, or that no naked picture should be removed - just that where they help to convey information about the subject they should be retained. For example, if a particular porn star is known for her large breasts, the article should explain this and show a picture of her breasts. This is particularly relevant to sexual acts where it's difficult to describe in words the relative position and orientation of things. And yes, redundant photos are to be avoided in any context - I think penis strikes a good balance (demonstrating a flacid and erect penis and ejaculation, all pretty different). Dcoetzee 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that only encyclopedic images should be allowed. We're not Hustler. JetLover ( talk) ( Report a mistake) 00:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine instances where the "pornographic" image is the most "encyclopaedic" image, meaning that it conveys the most descriptive visible information clearly and in focus/context. Wikipedia is not censored. Sometimes it is necessary to allow images to exist that you find personally "horrible" or " Hustler-like" just because that is the best way to illustate the concept. If it is a problem for *you*, then you can set your browser to always ask you before displaying images on *your* computer. Some of us, medical professionals, artists, visual historians, cultural critics, etc. look at images with a different frame of reference. We are not so easily disturbed or titilated (sp?) and thus see "information" where other people, for whatever reason, see "horrible porn." The Wikipedia cannot be redesigned to protect such easily disturbed or titilated people from their own subjective interpretations and perceptions. Saudade7 15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Censorship is a most dangerous business for a free society and is the basis of fascist, represive entities. for some reason sexual acts and similars are a taboo for humanity in general mostly -i believe- because it triggers maybe unwelcomed basic instinctual mechanisms in the person tat is watching it or hearing it. i dont think this kind of information should be censored; it should be treated as any other kind of information. ppl should be able to put watever they want whenever wherever in the net, trying also to preserve functionality. and if ppl dont want to see those images, they just shouldnt see them but not try to prevent someone else to see it WonderingAngel-aesc78 ( talk) 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship. The reason why most articles relating to sex don't have sexual explicit or pornographics photos is simple. They serve no encylopaedic purpose. Nearly every case which I've seen a diagram does a much better job of illustrating a concept then a pornographic image. As you youself mentioned, the primary purpose of pornography is to excite, not to educate. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Nil above. It has long been settled by community consensus that we use illustrations to depict sexual acts, and photographs to depict body parts. --David Shankbone 16:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember a previous debate on such a point, which one editor used the example of the Cleveland steamer as a case where words, images, ethics and censorship were closely interwoven on an article to establish consensus. Personally like him, I wish the article weren't here (ethics), but I'm glad it is because it shows we live the Wiki ethos (no censorship), and having WP:RS I'll hence defend its inclusion on that basis. The words describe that act sufficiently for an encyclopaedia - ie: describe what is it, in context. We don't need to go into more detail, as we are not instructing individuals on how to do it - just what it is, and in its sexual context what it involves. We apply the same "what in context, not how" procedure to many drugs related articles - we don't need to describe the detailed process of turning poppies into heroin! I'd add a note that the "how" issue gets rightly suppressed when it comes to health advice - quite often, for example on the anal sex article, we don't go into much detail about the act but do go into "how" detail on health and clean up issues. If we place pictures in the encyclopaedic context of wiki, then I think in general we get it right - a picture can summarise 1,000 words, but even in these days of multi-media a good line drawing meets our objectives without the need for "graphic" and hence possibly verging on pornographic images. I do however think rules on individuals bio's need to be watched carefully - for instance, some of the sports related articles show some athletes in skimpy/not a lot of clothing. I would imagine it difficult to source a good encyclopaedic picture of a high-diver for instance without showing them doing their thing - dressed in an Armani suit just wouldn't do it or meet our encyclopaedic objectives. Rgds, - Trident13 ( talk) 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay Shankbone, maybe I am confused, as I often am but do you mean that illustrations can never be pornographic and all photographs showing people having sex are pornographic? As a cultural/visual historian that's a new one to me, but admittedly I am not really into porn. I don't even know if I know it when I see it! That just seems like a weird division because I've seen some hentai illustrations that are much more graphic and seemingly explicit than some photos of two people touching each other's naughty bits! Does it depend on how unattractive the people in the demonstrative image are? This is all silly! We are human beings that do things. If there is an article about the things we do there shouldn't be hang-ups about showing people doing those things. Now I guess I will go find out what a Cleveland steamer is... Saudade7 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I raise no such argument. I am simply stating that when this issue has been broached (repeatedly) community consensus has come down to graphic illustrations for sexual acts; photographs for body parts (such as scrotum, chest, or glans penis). The arguments have been many, and in the end, this has been the "truce" of the community consensus. The question comes up regularly on individual pages. --David Shankbone 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this alleged consensus be mentioned on WP:CENSORED? At the moment, it fails to mention the 'no sex photos' policy, and wrongly cites pornography as an article which contains objectionable content.-- Nydas ^(Talk) 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to put a link (yes, a highly visible link... though may be at the bottom of the page) that leads to an image on a separate image page (not like the image description page which describes copyright status and stuff, but describing the content of the image... based on the article)? We can start to have NSFW image pages for explicit content. I don't agree to the reasoning that people would come to Wikipedia to take a look at porn (what would happen to all the books books on reproductive anatomy if we go by this line of reasoning?), but I definitely care about people trying to surf pages at work, shared space, academies (yes, you may need the article to write a classroom assignment, too) an so forth. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 13:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think NSFW tags are a bad idea. If one is going to a page entitled " Clitoris" which happens to have photographs of...a clitoris, then I think a person should not reasonably assume that the clit page would not have clits on it. Generally, graphic photos are found on relevant articles, whose titles themselves would not be "safe for work" - we can't hold everyone's hand for safety; let's not be that American about it. --David Shankbone 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet articles like missionary position are censored. Wouldn't one reasonably assume that it would have a photo as well?-- Nydas ^(Talk) 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at that articles history, I can't see where a "censorship" issue over an image has been raised? May be I am being slow here, but a direct example of what you see as bias or censorship on a specific article is normally better enabling for others to see your point. However, putting that aside, I can't see how an additional picture (photo or line drawing) would add to the current encyclopedic content of that article. Rgds, - Trident13 ( talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just an example of a typical photo-free sex article. Around half of them have had photos removed, though this is not one of them. Oral sex is one where a photo was removed. I'd still like an explanation of why body part photos are OK, but sex photos aren't.-- Nydas ^(Talk) 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nydas, the reason is a practical one, rather than the product of reasoned thinking: those Wikipedians who defend the use of images in sex-related articles have received more support for keeping body part photos than for sex photos from the rest of Wikipedia. I haven't seen this policy set forth until David Shankbone posted his comment above, but in my opinion (based on over five years of participation here), he did describe how Wikipedians handle the matter accurately. If you can find a way to change the situation -- either through education or by formulating a better rationale that is accepted as a guideline -- you are welcome to do so, as long as it is not disruptive. -- llywrch ( talk) 18:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Llywrch. I'm not saying that the general consensus is enshrined, but more what I have gleaned through arguments on individual pages, and in general discussion. I think most people think this is an adequate line to draw: non-sexual photographs of testicles are fine scrotum, but let's draw the line at every amateur shot of people in mid-coitus. But if you think this should be different, by all means spearhead a community effort to re-open the question. Otherwise, I think people with fucking photos are going to find themselves reverted every time. --David Shankbone 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

David, I hope by "fucking photos" you mean photos showing their subjects engaged in sexual intercourse, & not that you are upset with people who upload scans of photographs. ;-) llywrch ( talk) 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) While we're on this subject, you want to know what I find upsetting? I find it upsetting that people jerk off on a table and take a picture of it just so they can put it on wikipedia. I find it upsetting that people are taking pictures of their own assholes and crapping on plates and then edit warring to keep them in articles. Wikipedia is not for exhibitionists and such things should be discouraged extremely strongly-- there's plenty of medical diagrams and so forth that would serve the same purpose. Jtrainor ( talk) 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think if you really want to produce these sort of articles we should create, a placement picture of not suitable for general audiences and then click on that to get the picture, though that might be a stupid idea. I think like most people the idea of getting an eye full when reading a article is very disturbing. I also think warnings of upcomming offensive material will scare more people off the entire article. I am not completley against censorship like most of the .... well people on here. I don't think a bit of censorship is bad if it is what we need to keep a G rating. I like to know I won't see certain things on wikipedia while browsing around and I will see things on my porn sites when browsing around (just kidding).-- AresAndEnyo ( talk) 15:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We're Wikipedians, not eunuchs! ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming a bit late to the party here, but I think this comes down to a general issue; images of objects or things -- body parts, famous people, pokémon -- can be easily represented with a photograph of an example or two. Images of more abstract techniques or processes -- bedroom activities, warp core plasma flow, Irish sea shipping lanes -- would tend more to be obscured by the details of a concrete "real life" example, and are better suited to a line drawing or other diagram that can better abstract and elucidate the concept. Sometimes you can make a case for a photographic image even of this more abstract category, of course, when there's some facet of it that a diagram simply can't do justice to. -- _{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For my opinion please see item 56.Censorship (look in contents table). -- WonderingAngel-aesc78 ( talk) 12:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)