![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
How many edits must a user have made before his vote on this page is counted? 1? 10? 50? I'm assuming I should count everyone's votes, unless I hear otherwise. – Quadell ( talk) ( sleuth) 19:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I thought I'd be smart and click on the [edit] link at the End section at the bottom, and put my entry there, so I did not see this html comment at all in the edit box:
The result was of course my entry went below that very line. How about putting right at the top something like Please do not click the edit link at the End, or, maybe move and change the comments to just below the End section like this:
== End ==
<!-- Only edit *above* the == End == line just above to add an entry. --><br /> <!-- Only edit below, *after these comments*, to add categories and interwiki links. --><br /> <!-- Remember ALWAYS to alert the uploader of image via their talk page --><br /> <!-- Tell them their image may soon be deleted. You can use {{idw}} if you like. --><br />
- Wikibob | Talk 01:41, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
For some reason all the instances of "Autofellatio.jpg" have become "################" in the
March 30 section. I can't find the specific edit that changed this, and it seems very odd. Anyone know what's up?
TIMBO
(T A L K) 08:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have some queries on deletion of images.
= Nichalp ( talk · contribs)= 19:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
I also have a question. What if I upload an image, then I was told the image is not needed or will not be used. Can I request a speedy delete, since it not only it is an orphan, but I am the original uploader of that image? Thanks. Zscout370 19:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am unfortunately not sufficiently involved in this project to know exactly how to proceed with my idea as outlined below, but I hope someone who is might agree with me and follow up on the idea.
I think this page should be cleared of disputes.
They could be handled on subpages, in a similar way as the WP:RfA, and in my opinion better be separately listed on a page Wikipedia:Disputed proposals for deletion of images and media.
/ Tuomas 09:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page needs an administrator or two to process old deletion nominations. Quadell stopped doing it recently (come back!). Since then, I've been doing it, but I'll be away for six weeks. To whoever takes over: just be very careful not to incorrectly delete an image, since deleting can't be undone. If you delete an image that's been pushed to the Commons, make sure all relevant versions have been pushed, not just the latest one. And avoid processing your own nominations. dbenbenn | talk 22:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DrippingInk ( talk · contribs), together with at least one sockpuppet Drippinglnk ( talk · contribs) and a number of IP addresses such as 64.231.113.36 ( talk · contribs), hs been obsessively protecting a number of teeny-pop articles from attempts to improve and wikify them. He has, in the course of this, up-loaded a number of images. At first he didn't place templates on them, and when I asked him to do so he refused, and I listed them for deletion. I then found a couple of other images — one seemed clearly to be a copyvio, and I've listed it accordingly, and the other had a "fairuse" template, but no source. The user's history, as well as the lack of information, made me suspicious, and I asked him to supply information as to the source. Aside from his comments on my user page ( [2]), he changed the photo's template to "GFDL". Now, I'm morally certain that this is unjustified; there's still no information about the photo's source, and it clearly wasn't taken by him. What do I do in this situation? Should I take it to copyvio, IfD, or what? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks; I hope that he starts to calm down (but there seem to be a lot of short tempers around at the moment; is it the time of year?). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Is there a listing of deleted images somewhere? I don't want to have to slog through the general deletion log. JamesMLane 09:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if we can use a new two letter abbreviaton: WM. This is short for the term watermark. It is used to denote the use of a water mark in the image, like with images from Corbis or Getty Images. I wonder what do yall think about it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I made substantial changes to the above section on the main page. Superm401 | Talk 21:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Current state:
English Wikipedia has these templates:
Template:NowCommons,
Template:Deletebecauseoncommons
The problem:
People are often not aware of Commons' existence and that leads to double uploads of the same image to multiple national Wikipedias. Most of the time, copyrigt, licence and source info is not preserved. That's why moving all free images not specific to a national Wikipedia to Commons is desirable. Cleaning up is made difficult, because:
reverted with current version of MediaWiki ( user_talk:helix84).
See also:
Look at these relevant pages before posting:
Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Images_moved_to_Commons,
Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2FMedia,
Template_talk:NowCommons,
Template_talk:Deletebecauseoncommons,
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/April_2005,
Category:Images_to_be_moved_to_the_Commons,
Category:NowCommons
Proposed policy:
File:Helix84.jpg helix84 15:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suggest to create pending deletion list for images moved to Commons similar to WP:IFD, so images will be alive for some times and several admins could review them. Comment and discussion about license could be placed here too. -- EugeneZelenko 16:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We should also discuss, if scaled-down versions of images are subject to deletion File:Helix84.jpg helix84 16:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep the {{ NowCommons}} template. It's quite useful for marking an image as having been moved to the commons. Whether the image gets deleted is a completely different issue.
User:Helix84 seems to be proposing a change to the criteria for speedy deletion. If so, the discussion ought to happen at that talk page, not here.
I like Eugene's suggestion about making a fork of IFD especially for images moved to the Commons.
Finally, a comment. Technically, any image licensed under the GFDL that is pushed to the Commons is a copyvio. Our GFDL has disclaimers, the Commons doesn't, and the GFDL doesn't allow discarding disclaimers. dbenbenn | talk 19:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now I actually read those disclaimers, and they don't differ, apart from that Commons adds something little at the end. Is there still a problem or was your info outdated? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 14:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see, the Commons GNU template doesn't say subject to disclaimers... So again, is it a problem to add that? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 14:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could someone clarify what is meant with "by permission only" images no longer being accepted? Does that mean all images have to be either fair use or some free licence, or is it enough that other entities apart from wikipedia (commercial or non-) are allowed to use them under the same licence as wikipedia? -- W( t) 17:00, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
On Slovene WP we have a lot of unverified images. Is there any rule about deleting such images? TIA, -- Klemen Kocjancic 2 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)
Hey yall. I noticed that many images have been in this category for ages. Do you think we could speedy delete most of them, if they are not listed on this page? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 3 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
OK, I notice the pictures have the option of deleting previous versions. If so, I request this string of previous versions for an image, Image:Zscout370 ribbar.png:
If any admins wants to do it, thanks, and if there is a better way to ask for this, let me know please. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
There's a debate on the use of an image in the watermelon article that I thought some of you might be interested in. Watermelons were strongly associated with racism, as the text in the article mentions, for many decades in America. But should the watermelon article include a representative caricature of a black person eating a watermelon, that some find offensive? There's a strawpoll going on at Talk:Watermelon#Straw poll on watermelon caricature image. – Quadell ( talk) ( sleuth) 11:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
We should probably add an explicit instruction that it is ok to speedy delete an image if it exists in the wikipedia commons. Thue | talk 17:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not just the history that's being lost-- what about categorization? I have placed at least 1300 images in Category:U.S. history images. As these get moved to commons, this is going to be lost. Is this a good thing? -- Mwanner 23:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Are images that are used solely in userspace considered orphans? I'm not talking about someone's photo of themselves, I'm talking about a subpage with a gallery of unused images – User:Evil Monkey/Nudity. I don't object to the images that are being rightfully used to illustrate articles, but those that aren't are just taking up space as vandalism bait. android 79 00:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Do images created by banned users is a reason for deletion or no? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Off subject, but I also noticed a lot of porn have been added and deleted from here. Is there wiki policy on porn? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I figured I'd ask here, since the people here are probably more familiar with licensing concerns than the folks at the Wikipedia:Help Desk. I've taken a photo that I'd like to upload of a Giacometti sculpture, since the article doesn't really show much of his work. However, I can't find anything on the Art Institute of Chicago's website explaining whatever copyright situation there may be, and no amount of reading on copyright issues (here or elsewhere) seems to be helping to clarify. I see similar photos released under GFDL, but it seems like this may not be allowable. If GFDL is actually appropriate, I'll just put it up on the Commons. Thanks much for any help! — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 05:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you both for the input. I was fairly sure it would be problematic, but since there were already a couple of photos up that must be similarly infringing, it seemed worth a shot. The photo [5] was taken from within the museum, which I already felt slightly guilty about (sadly). I don't think the article will benefit enough for it to be worth uploading under fair use, unless there's some specific verbiage you can give me that will keep it off of IFD. Thanks again! — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 06:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Do you think it is a good idea to tell users not to blank images that are up for IFD? My reasoning is that, just like with VFD, people have to see what they are voting on before they cast their vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to help out with the janitorial tasks related to this page. However, it seems a bit daunting at first. What's the established procedure? Any pointers to write-ups would be most welcome. Thanks, -- MarkSweep 22:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how this is done, but I wanted to let someboday know that the image in the Samantha Fox article violates the nudity policy and should be deleted. Ksnow 13:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Ksnow
I think we could use a short line at the top discouraging people from listing every single image they see that shows more skin than a picture of a nun. Comments? ¦ Reisio 21:50, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
It is not "overtly and inappropriately sexual." It depicts, in as unpornographic a manner possible, the subject of the article from which it is linked. Not every image of sexuality is by definition obscene or pornographic, as we discussed at length the first two times we voted on this and similar images. Exploding Boy 02:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I know my own standards for an adult forum, but I would like to know a few things from the any-gross-act picture-is-encyclopedic crowd:
In the case of the Autofellatio image, there is already a drawing, so the hardcore pornographic image is inappropriate as it adds nothing to the article, is needlessly in poor taste, and ultimately unencyclopedic. Agriculture 07:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Sometimes, a photograph may be considered offensive or in poor taste, for example, if the article is about parts of the human anatomy, such as breast, penis, or clitoris. In those cases, a stylized photograph or drawing may be the way to go. [6]
makes it pretty clear that Wikipedia is guilty of this. Agriculture 05:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)(b) The knowing possession by any person of three or more identical or similar materials, matters, articles, or things coming within the provisions of paragraph (a) is prima facie evidence of the violation of said paragraph.
I have no problem with the odd sexual image. No one was hurt in the making of those images. But I find the various images on the lynching pages horrific. In my mind there is a huge difference between voluntarily demonstrating a sexual act (which the discussion above was about), and brazenly displaying someone's murder. It seems like a overwhelming breach of someone's human rights to show photos of their execution on our encyclopedia.
Most people would agree that to be killed is worse than to be raped. So would those who argue for the appropriateness of the photo on the lynching page (a 16-year-old being lynched) be equally happy if the image was of their 16-year-old family member being raped?
I don't think I'm arguing for censorship — I'm not saying the images should be illegal — I'm just saying that it's extremely bad taste to display those images in our encyclopedia.
Ben Arnold 08:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
How many edits must a user have made before his vote on this page is counted? 1? 10? 50? I'm assuming I should count everyone's votes, unless I hear otherwise. – Quadell ( talk) ( sleuth) 19:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I thought I'd be smart and click on the [edit] link at the End section at the bottom, and put my entry there, so I did not see this html comment at all in the edit box:
The result was of course my entry went below that very line. How about putting right at the top something like Please do not click the edit link at the End, or, maybe move and change the comments to just below the End section like this:
== End ==
<!-- Only edit *above* the == End == line just above to add an entry. --><br /> <!-- Only edit below, *after these comments*, to add categories and interwiki links. --><br /> <!-- Remember ALWAYS to alert the uploader of image via their talk page --><br /> <!-- Tell them their image may soon be deleted. You can use {{idw}} if you like. --><br />
- Wikibob | Talk 01:41, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
For some reason all the instances of "Autofellatio.jpg" have become "################" in the
March 30 section. I can't find the specific edit that changed this, and it seems very odd. Anyone know what's up?
TIMBO
(T A L K) 08:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have some queries on deletion of images.
= Nichalp ( talk · contribs)= 19:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
I also have a question. What if I upload an image, then I was told the image is not needed or will not be used. Can I request a speedy delete, since it not only it is an orphan, but I am the original uploader of that image? Thanks. Zscout370 19:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am unfortunately not sufficiently involved in this project to know exactly how to proceed with my idea as outlined below, but I hope someone who is might agree with me and follow up on the idea.
I think this page should be cleared of disputes.
They could be handled on subpages, in a similar way as the WP:RfA, and in my opinion better be separately listed on a page Wikipedia:Disputed proposals for deletion of images and media.
/ Tuomas 09:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page needs an administrator or two to process old deletion nominations. Quadell stopped doing it recently (come back!). Since then, I've been doing it, but I'll be away for six weeks. To whoever takes over: just be very careful not to incorrectly delete an image, since deleting can't be undone. If you delete an image that's been pushed to the Commons, make sure all relevant versions have been pushed, not just the latest one. And avoid processing your own nominations. dbenbenn | talk 22:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DrippingInk ( talk · contribs), together with at least one sockpuppet Drippinglnk ( talk · contribs) and a number of IP addresses such as 64.231.113.36 ( talk · contribs), hs been obsessively protecting a number of teeny-pop articles from attempts to improve and wikify them. He has, in the course of this, up-loaded a number of images. At first he didn't place templates on them, and when I asked him to do so he refused, and I listed them for deletion. I then found a couple of other images — one seemed clearly to be a copyvio, and I've listed it accordingly, and the other had a "fairuse" template, but no source. The user's history, as well as the lack of information, made me suspicious, and I asked him to supply information as to the source. Aside from his comments on my user page ( [2]), he changed the photo's template to "GFDL". Now, I'm morally certain that this is unjustified; there's still no information about the photo's source, and it clearly wasn't taken by him. What do I do in this situation? Should I take it to copyvio, IfD, or what? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks; I hope that he starts to calm down (but there seem to be a lot of short tempers around at the moment; is it the time of year?). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Is there a listing of deleted images somewhere? I don't want to have to slog through the general deletion log. JamesMLane 09:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if we can use a new two letter abbreviaton: WM. This is short for the term watermark. It is used to denote the use of a water mark in the image, like with images from Corbis or Getty Images. I wonder what do yall think about it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I made substantial changes to the above section on the main page. Superm401 | Talk 21:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Current state:
English Wikipedia has these templates:
Template:NowCommons,
Template:Deletebecauseoncommons
The problem:
People are often not aware of Commons' existence and that leads to double uploads of the same image to multiple national Wikipedias. Most of the time, copyrigt, licence and source info is not preserved. That's why moving all free images not specific to a national Wikipedia to Commons is desirable. Cleaning up is made difficult, because:
reverted with current version of MediaWiki ( user_talk:helix84).
See also:
Look at these relevant pages before posting:
Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Images_moved_to_Commons,
Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2FMedia,
Template_talk:NowCommons,
Template_talk:Deletebecauseoncommons,
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/April_2005,
Category:Images_to_be_moved_to_the_Commons,
Category:NowCommons
Proposed policy:
File:Helix84.jpg helix84 15:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suggest to create pending deletion list for images moved to Commons similar to WP:IFD, so images will be alive for some times and several admins could review them. Comment and discussion about license could be placed here too. -- EugeneZelenko 16:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We should also discuss, if scaled-down versions of images are subject to deletion File:Helix84.jpg helix84 16:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep the {{ NowCommons}} template. It's quite useful for marking an image as having been moved to the commons. Whether the image gets deleted is a completely different issue.
User:Helix84 seems to be proposing a change to the criteria for speedy deletion. If so, the discussion ought to happen at that talk page, not here.
I like Eugene's suggestion about making a fork of IFD especially for images moved to the Commons.
Finally, a comment. Technically, any image licensed under the GFDL that is pushed to the Commons is a copyvio. Our GFDL has disclaimers, the Commons doesn't, and the GFDL doesn't allow discarding disclaimers. dbenbenn | talk 19:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now I actually read those disclaimers, and they don't differ, apart from that Commons adds something little at the end. Is there still a problem or was your info outdated? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 14:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see, the Commons GNU template doesn't say subject to disclaimers... So again, is it a problem to add that? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 14:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could someone clarify what is meant with "by permission only" images no longer being accepted? Does that mean all images have to be either fair use or some free licence, or is it enough that other entities apart from wikipedia (commercial or non-) are allowed to use them under the same licence as wikipedia? -- W( t) 17:00, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
On Slovene WP we have a lot of unverified images. Is there any rule about deleting such images? TIA, -- Klemen Kocjancic 2 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)
Hey yall. I noticed that many images have been in this category for ages. Do you think we could speedy delete most of them, if they are not listed on this page? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 3 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
OK, I notice the pictures have the option of deleting previous versions. If so, I request this string of previous versions for an image, Image:Zscout370 ribbar.png:
If any admins wants to do it, thanks, and if there is a better way to ask for this, let me know please. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
There's a debate on the use of an image in the watermelon article that I thought some of you might be interested in. Watermelons were strongly associated with racism, as the text in the article mentions, for many decades in America. But should the watermelon article include a representative caricature of a black person eating a watermelon, that some find offensive? There's a strawpoll going on at Talk:Watermelon#Straw poll on watermelon caricature image. – Quadell ( talk) ( sleuth) 11:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
We should probably add an explicit instruction that it is ok to speedy delete an image if it exists in the wikipedia commons. Thue | talk 17:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not just the history that's being lost-- what about categorization? I have placed at least 1300 images in Category:U.S. history images. As these get moved to commons, this is going to be lost. Is this a good thing? -- Mwanner 23:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Are images that are used solely in userspace considered orphans? I'm not talking about someone's photo of themselves, I'm talking about a subpage with a gallery of unused images – User:Evil Monkey/Nudity. I don't object to the images that are being rightfully used to illustrate articles, but those that aren't are just taking up space as vandalism bait. android 79 00:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Do images created by banned users is a reason for deletion or no? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Off subject, but I also noticed a lot of porn have been added and deleted from here. Is there wiki policy on porn? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I figured I'd ask here, since the people here are probably more familiar with licensing concerns than the folks at the Wikipedia:Help Desk. I've taken a photo that I'd like to upload of a Giacometti sculpture, since the article doesn't really show much of his work. However, I can't find anything on the Art Institute of Chicago's website explaining whatever copyright situation there may be, and no amount of reading on copyright issues (here or elsewhere) seems to be helping to clarify. I see similar photos released under GFDL, but it seems like this may not be allowable. If GFDL is actually appropriate, I'll just put it up on the Commons. Thanks much for any help! — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 05:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you both for the input. I was fairly sure it would be problematic, but since there were already a couple of photos up that must be similarly infringing, it seemed worth a shot. The photo [5] was taken from within the museum, which I already felt slightly guilty about (sadly). I don't think the article will benefit enough for it to be worth uploading under fair use, unless there's some specific verbiage you can give me that will keep it off of IFD. Thanks again! — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 06:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Do you think it is a good idea to tell users not to blank images that are up for IFD? My reasoning is that, just like with VFD, people have to see what they are voting on before they cast their vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to help out with the janitorial tasks related to this page. However, it seems a bit daunting at first. What's the established procedure? Any pointers to write-ups would be most welcome. Thanks, -- MarkSweep 22:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how this is done, but I wanted to let someboday know that the image in the Samantha Fox article violates the nudity policy and should be deleted. Ksnow 13:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Ksnow
I think we could use a short line at the top discouraging people from listing every single image they see that shows more skin than a picture of a nun. Comments? ¦ Reisio 21:50, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
It is not "overtly and inappropriately sexual." It depicts, in as unpornographic a manner possible, the subject of the article from which it is linked. Not every image of sexuality is by definition obscene or pornographic, as we discussed at length the first two times we voted on this and similar images. Exploding Boy 02:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I know my own standards for an adult forum, but I would like to know a few things from the any-gross-act picture-is-encyclopedic crowd:
In the case of the Autofellatio image, there is already a drawing, so the hardcore pornographic image is inappropriate as it adds nothing to the article, is needlessly in poor taste, and ultimately unencyclopedic. Agriculture 07:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Sometimes, a photograph may be considered offensive or in poor taste, for example, if the article is about parts of the human anatomy, such as breast, penis, or clitoris. In those cases, a stylized photograph or drawing may be the way to go. [6]
makes it pretty clear that Wikipedia is guilty of this. Agriculture 05:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)(b) The knowing possession by any person of three or more identical or similar materials, matters, articles, or things coming within the provisions of paragraph (a) is prima facie evidence of the violation of said paragraph.
I have no problem with the odd sexual image. No one was hurt in the making of those images. But I find the various images on the lynching pages horrific. In my mind there is a huge difference between voluntarily demonstrating a sexual act (which the discussion above was about), and brazenly displaying someone's murder. It seems like a overwhelming breach of someone's human rights to show photos of their execution on our encyclopedia.
Most people would agree that to be killed is worse than to be raped. So would those who argue for the appropriateness of the photo on the lynching page (a 16-year-old being lynched) be equally happy if the image was of their 16-year-old family member being raped?
I don't think I'm arguing for censorship — I'm not saying the images should be illegal — I'm just saying that it's extremely bad taste to display those images in our encyclopedia.
Ben Arnold 08:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)