Wikipedia talk:Hardcore pornography images

Background

I disagree with this revert.[1] A major concern with this essay is that it is not inline with policy and guidelines. Pointing to these standards is appropriate since it clears up any confusion the reader may have. It also links to discussions that people might be interested regardless of their position. I did not bad mouth this essay or "undermine" it with my edit. I simply expanded on information that the reader should be aware of if they are considering the question of such images. I would appreciate it if the reverter detailed their issues with the subsection since it is only of benefit to the reader. Do we not wish to give the complete picture to the reader who may not be familiar? I think it also acts as an important disclaimer. If this clarification was in the essay then I would be happy in supporting it being in the main space instead of userfied.Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It was as much the location as the content that was the issue. Slipping that large section in near the top of the essay was clearly designed to break up the argument this essay puts forward. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It was not at the top or even that close to the top. It was the second subsection of the first section. No other section seemed applicable. At the bottom would be fine too, but I don;t think it would be better layout wise. Note that the lead is the bulk of his essay. I didn't even touch the lead which is where most of the conerns with it are. So why don't you partially revert and move it when you get back from your RL business?Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reintroduced the paragraph, albeit a bit reworded in a more nuanced fashion. Other editors are welcome to edit it but it is only fair to give the reader a background on the ongoing discussion. I'll go so far to give an "advice to the enemy": it could include Jimbo's quotes and statements on such images, if you feel they may be useful, for example. --Cyclopia^talk 01:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue? Essays don't have to be inline with policy or guidelines. They don't have consensus. They may represent minority viewpoints. Nowhere do they have to present an opposing or undermining argument. That section only and blatantly serves to undermine the opinion presented in this essay. I don't have an opinion on the essay, and from my point of view there are multiple users who feel they have the right to try and counter or weaken the essay. It's a shame. Jimbo probably did more harm than good by keeping it in the WP space. Though there's no basis for "banning" such editors, it really should be in the user space with a redirect. At least that would ensure that its original opinions wouldn't be destroyed. The fact that the reinstated paragraph actually used the term 'purports' makes it immensely hard for me to believe that all the users involved are acting in good faith. Swarm ^X 08:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reverted, per Sxeptomaniac. Please, as suggested by Jimbo and others above, write an alternative essay to this one, laying out the arguments in favour of including hardcore images, photographs, videos and so on in Wikipedia. This essay will link to it, and I would appreciate it if your essay could likewise link to this one. This is the best solution at this time. --JN466 18:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Loving the edit warring. I think I might join in. The background does not undermine the essay. The background simply provides details on how the standards are applied and does not dispute the moral objections laid out. This is turning into a vindictive game for some it appears since it improves the article.

I would also like the recent revert to be explained. The text has not been disputed but the placement. BRD was also handled well with another editor making changes. The straight revert was bad form and per usual, admins should be holding themselves to a higher standard instead of edit warring. Admins who edit war should lose access to the tools.Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And I did not realize until just now that someone had actually moved it down. So there is no reason provided for its removal that has not been addressed. Please do so or I am reverting.Cptnono (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Essays are there to present a point of view, and the concept of Wikipedia essays explicitly protects Wikipedians' right to express minority points of view in them. The argument that you are making is not in line with the point of view expressed here, a significant part of which is that the Wikimedia community consensus is itself biased, and cannot help but be biased, by our skewed demographics, and that real-world standards should take precedence over community preferences where those are found to differ. Just as Wikipedians' personal points of view are not the criterion for article content, but reliable source coverage is, community consensus should not be the final arbiter here, because a community which produces things like this, and considers them in line with the Foundation's educational goals, is guilty of immaturity and poor judgment.

So, once more, please write your own essay arguing your own point of view, and leave this essay to express its point of view. The two essays can have symmetrical titles, and the shortcut can be changed to a disambiguation.

May I ask why there is this reluctance to write an alternative essay? Cyclopia said he would do so; but I see nothing in his editing history to suggest he started one. Perhaps you might want to link up with him. This essay expresses a specific point of view; if you don't share this point of view, and are uninterested in presenting it in as convincing a manner as possible, please don't contribute. --JN466 12:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please reread the edit. I did not make any "argument". I simply laid out the relevant background and said that there was not consensus to remove such images and that it has been an ongoing discussion. So you still have not addressed what was wrong with it since it looks like you just assume it is there to counter the essay. Can you reread it and let me know where I made an "argument" against this essay?.Cptnono (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just reread it. You are linking to a number of guidelines that are already linked below at the bottom of the essay (if any are missing, please feel free to add them); you are linking to a one-sided selection of discussions that resulted in "Keep" for images (I could list counterexamples where images were removed); you are linking to a number of failed or stalled proposals here and in Commons; and you give a one-sided account of Jimbo's actions in Commons, which actually did result in hundreds of images being permanently deleted. All in all, the way you presented and selected your material amounted to a pleading in favour of the status quo, and this is not what this essay is about. --JN466 20:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start the essay because I am pretty busy in real life -in fact I was just checking the watchlist in a pause for the first time in a couple of days. I am still planning to do that. --Cyclopia^talk 22:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My material did not amount to pleading for anything. It is how you read it. Linking to that long discussion ad making note of Jimbo's previous actions actually give the arguments in this essay some merit. So how about you suggest some rewording instead of just assuming the point was to make any point besides "This essay proposes argues for something that does not have consensus". How about just adding that line in the lead. It is the way it is and it should be spelled out to the reader to prevent any confusion. I would still prefer some links since the reader should have all available info provided but they can always look it up themselves. So so far your reasoning is not sufficient for removal. more than one editor (I think 3 but will have to double check) have looked at the section and worked on it to be worthy of inclusion. While you and one other editor have simply assumed it had a purpose of combating this essay. I made a point of not saying "these images have consensus" or "this essay is wrong" so what is the actual problem? How would you reword the proposal? Or is it that you will not agree with any proposal?Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the single debatable example given below, we don't actually have stills from porn videos, or embedded CC porn videos, on the site right now, to my knowledge. To the extent that this essay says we shouldn't, it is actually pretty much in line with community practice. Also note the 2005 goatse poll, which was overwhelmingly against showing the image in the article, and opted for an external link only. An uploaded version of the image was deleted last April; deletion discussion here. --JN466 19:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you said addressed my reasoning for providing context. Please try again or stop edit warring. In the perfect world. you would take the content provided and merge it in instead of having a knee jerk reaction. Show us that you deserve to be an admin.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources section

This section makes a useful point, but so wrapped up in Wiki-speak as to obscure it - the final sentence delivers it reasonably well.

"To be true to its basic mission, which is to reflect reliable source coverage in a neutral manner, Wikipedia should take its lead from reliable sources in this topic area, both for illustrations and textual content."

Rather than reliable sources (which might well include hardcore pornography, depending what it is a reliable source for), though, an explicit appeal to the type of material mentioned in the section "reputable publications" or "reputable educational and instructional material" would be an improvement. (And of course dumping the Wiki-speak at the same time.)

Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

I like "reputable educational and instructional material". Suggesting that we follow the "reliable secondary sources" or "reliable WP:Independent sources" might also work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Our basic mission is to write an encyclopedia, not summarize and copy the style of reliable sources. These are closely related but not the same thing. Even if every mainstream news article says that "Bob Politician called Mr. Black 'the n-word'", Wikipedia still says "Bob Politician called Mr. Black a 'nigger'". We are not bound by a code of contemporary political correctness that other sources might be, and we do not sacrifice clarity to avoid offense.

Sex educational material in the US in particular must necessarily walk a fine line, sacrificing much clarity and candor, in order to sell to school boards who are very sensitive to public scandal. They are absolutely not a role model. Gigs (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not actually thinking of school educational material, nor were Rich and WhatamIdoing, I think. --JN466 19:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I added that wording earlier today. --JN466 19:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't thinking of educational handouts for teenagers. I was thinking primarily about what a scholarly work might do, in a "Journal of Pornography Studies" or "Journal of Sex and Society", and secondarily of 'serious' books (think "History of Playboy" or "Pin-up Girls from WWI to the Cold War"). If Gigs (a reasonable person) immediately thought the opposite, then we really need to clarify that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those were the kinds of publications I was thinking of too. Better? --JN466 10:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

While I still disagree that we should make it a goal to copy the self-censorship of reliable publications, at least that is making a more tenable point. Gigs (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

Per discussion n the talk page, I removed the section that said "The Wikipedia community is overwhelmingly composed of single, childless white males.[2] Yet Wikipedia is conceived as a reference work for the general population. In the war between the sexes, Wikipedia should not be taking sides."

A disruptive editor has reverted my changes.

The two problems with this, which caused me to edit it are pretty obvious.

• There is no such thing as the "War between the sexes". As such, usage in this context has no meaning. Even if this were some kind of reference to feminism or Misogny, clearly We would be on the "side" of prohibiting and not propogating Misogny -- and not neutral.
• The reference regarding the demographics is very unclear. Besides summarizing the whole reference to mean that Wikipedia as "overwhelmingly composed of single, childless white males". We then have to wonder what the point of that is. This topic is regarding "Hardcore pornography images". The paragraph does not make any point. Should we leap to the conclusion that "single, childless white males" prefer hardcore pornographic images? Or that they do not prefer such images? Are we suggesting that we should determine and follow the interests of our core demographic group? Or perhaps that we should change our core demographic group somehow? (Again these things are not on topic.) My feeling is that the editor who wants this in the essay is trying to be judgmental in some way to suggest/imply that single childless males are the primary participants if Pornography, or Hardcore pornography (whatever that is), and as such, are responsible for propgating that within Wikipedia. That seems like a leap from A to M without any of the intermediate steps. Don't we have a basic assumption of good faith on the part of all editors within Wikipedia? Regardless, unless some kind of point is made with this, supported by facts rather than implications, it should be removed. Atom (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, it is typically men who upload sexually explicit or nude images and argue strenuously in discussions for having multiple such images on Wikipedia pages, sometimes over objections from women who are outnumbered. I think we are all aware that we have about 1,000 images of editors' penises in Commons (and they are all white, except I believe for one single black one that is diseased), and this does not include the hundreds or thousands of white penis images that have been deleted over the past few years because they were of poor photographic quality. The number of women who have uploaded images of their vulvas pales into insignificance; most vulva images we have are indeed uploaded by male partners or acquaintances (sometimes former partners), and they often arrive in Commons with descriptions like "my girlfriend's butt, ready for re-entry", and with file names like "Black butt" (interestingly, women of colour turn up slightly more often in genital image categories than their virtually absent male counterparts). Anyone who has spent some time in Commons knows that there is undeniably a motivational element in this that has little to do with a desire to contribute to an encyclopedia, and that motivational element is a factor in how illustration of these topic areas is handled in Wikipedia, given our demographics. --JN466 22:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to our assumption of good faith, I think we've all also got a basic handle on the market for hardcore porn in the developed world (=our primary editor base), and it looks a whole lot like "single, white, childless males". (A description of who's willing to pay for porn would obviously be encyclopedic content; I wonder if the article covers that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

An interesting observation made by Christensen is that males' consumption of pornography is numerically approximately equal to women's consumption of romance novels; each genre serves its consumers as a fantasy substitute for a real-life experience that often proves elusive. --JN466 00:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wonder

I wonder if I could get some people here to wander over to Talk:J. Michael Bailey, where yet another dispute has broken out. The three folks who have posted so far all have real-world connections to the subject: James Cantor is a professor in the same academic field; Jokestress/Andrea James was involved in a campaign a few years ago to get the subject fired and in legal trouble; Dick Lyon is a personal friend and former co-worker of another person in that campaign.

I would really appreciate it if some people who really, honestly do not care about this latest incident would look over the sources and provide their opinions about whether and how to present information without needless sensationalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop with all the bloody accusations of misogyny

How many times do I have to bring this up? They are just not on. It represents only one viewpoint. It's not just ridiculous to baldly state that as fact; it's insulting and, worse, potentially damaging - you are creating victims who weren't victims before and I don't think you realise how harmful that is. Egg Centric 00:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)