User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2011/February

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Lewis Post at Xenu.net
An interesting post purported to be from James R. Lewis (scholar) reading over it it seems very legit and probably is Lewis' work. I am unsure if we can use it all in anyway here on Wiki as source... but Either way its an interesting read. Lewis also seems to produced a short Auto-biogrphical article over at Marburg Journal of Religion which is useful for our purposes. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, interesting. -- JN 466  01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Red-barked-tree.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Red-barked-tree.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to some sort of malfunction The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, I had it wrong. Fixed it now. -- JN 466  01:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Overkill
You called this edit overkill. This is the problem with Wikipedia, and a primary reason I did not want to be an admin even though I was asked a few times to apply. You're going to tell me that I shouldn't have told someone about vandalism and why something is encyclopedic? My GOSH, you should be praising me for trying to nip that behavior in the bud! I cannot comprehend the way editors like you think. If you're going to patrol the site for quality and vandalism, you need to tell the vandals that their behavior is unacceptable. Instead, you yell at the people informing the vandals. Just unbelievable. Good day. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 21:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim, of course you were right that the article should be deleted. But did you actually watch the video I posted? http://wn.com/timneu22 This was a little kid you were talking to. There is a youtube craze about elevator videos (search me ...). There are some web references about it (but no RS coverage as yet). So the article failed notability, but you should have let down the kid more gently. Generally, I would like to ask you to consider several things:
 * Please don't speedy/AfD articles that have only been created 1 or 5 minutes ago, especially if it's a new contributor and there are no BLP violations or other red flags in them. Newbies sometimes hit Save when they meant to click Preview ... if the article looks like it was a good-faith effort, just give them a little time, an hour or two, and wait if sources are forthcoming in subsequent edits. I am really only saying here what it says in NPP – new-page patrollers should work on the bottom of the backlog first, not on the pages only just created a minute ago.
 * If an article looks like it was created in good faith, even if incompetently, run a quick google books/google news search to check for notability. This would have avoided the situation with the Paco Yunque article, for example. That, too, was that editor's first ever contribution, and it was made in good faith. We now have a referenced article on a notable subject that we did not have before, thanks to that editor. If they didn't cite sources, that is something that can be explained to them.
 * If an article is about a potentially notable person, but has just been written in a style that is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, please don't call it a "pile of s---". This is not how we should greet new contributors. Everybody here has made poor edits when they first started.
 * Lastly, please delete the references to "Whack-a-mole" from your user page. It makes a very poor impression on new contributors who go to your user page to see who has speedied or AFD'd their article. For those users who came here in good faith, it is dispiriting and mortifying enough to see that their work was considered too poor to be kept. To see that deleting what they did is a "whack-a-mole" game to editors here makes us look needlessly hostile and, frankly, a little childish. It makes good-faith novice editors feel that Wikipedia is not something they should bother with again, while it will be water off a duck's back, or even encouragement to play "whack-a-mole", to those who came here in bad faith in the first place.
 * I'll try to read up on NPP and deletion criteria and chip in from time to time. It might also be an idea to write a tutorial for the Signpost about NPP, to get more editors on board. Best, -- JN 466  22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I just saw the video now. I could not access it before and that's why I did not understand. About the video, I say simply: so? Honestly, do you think I knew that editor was a child? I'm certain that's not my responsibility.
 * I'm done editing your site. It's not worth the time or frustration. That said I have almost never checked the time the article was created. I've used CSD on articles that were three years old or three seconds old. CSD is CSD and AfD is AfD. The rules don't change. There are so few NPPers that you just have to make a judgment call and move on.
 * I did google that one, I got http://www.google.com/search?aq=0&oq=paco+yun&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=paco+yunque which seems unpromising, and I nominated it. Sometimes you swing and miss. I don't take it personally when I'm wrong, but holy crap everyone sure loves to jump on me when I do. Thanks for that great behavior.
 * That was done once, to an article that was a pile of shit and incomprehensible nonsense. Don't cite something I did once and tell me how wrong it is. I'm sure you tripped once; want me to explain to you how to walk?
 * I'm done editing here. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. Take some time cooling off, and when you come back, as I am sure you will, please think about it and go by the book. Cheers, -- JN 466  22:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Timneu22
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Timneu22 has been moved to a new page, apparently it should not have been on the user's talk page, and the comments you made there removed to the talk page of the RFC. Please add any comments you with to make in appropriate form at Requests for comment/Timneu22. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Red Barked Tree
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Klaus Schulze
Another Klaus Schulze fan I see. I have most of his early albums and a few of the more interesting later stuff (like Totentag). Kaldari (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. :) I am currently having fun at AN3 and ANI. Almost like Totentag. -- JN 466  05:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

About SPK
Hi there. Thanks for you efforts. May I ask you: is this really a reliable, verifiable source for such an accusation. For me it seems like a gossip never sourced but a WP:BLP. This book as any other with such accusation, fails to provide the source and the context of such an accusation although presented as a fact. Perhaps you should read and look for the parts related to president Heinemann. Also external authors have mentioned it was a desinformation campaign against SPK. It also seems like editing Nelson Mandela article based on the police warrants made against him which lead him to prison, with the difference that none from SPK was ever sentenced nor imprisoned for that allegedely "plan to bomb a president train". If you don't mind I could also mention here some concerns about the other sources and affirmations ("many from SPK bacem RAF", etc.). PD: a retoric question: should we consider SPK as terrorists just because MagisterMathematicae said that "SPK (is well known back from 2005) from using terrorist-like tactics"? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I would have to do some more research on this. I am not familiar with the history, or alternative narratives. Which languages do you speak? I could help with German sources. Rubin seems to satisfy WP:RS; but I also know that the quality of terrorism literature is variable. -- JN 466  16:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any source claiming that members from SPK were terrorist should be considered a dubious non-reliable source: that crime did not even exist in German Law at SPK times (70/71), but it was introduced in 1976, years after SPK self-disolution, years after the trials. None of SPK were accused of that crime ever. Calumny consists in accusing someone of a crime he/she did not commited. But not only for Grem Guma but for J.P. Sartre it was a political persecution against those people of SPK.
 * Off topic: well, for my part I'm really concerned that MagisterMathematicae published accusations of "terrorism-like tactics" refering to those people from SPK. And I'm also concerned with this sort of behaviour:, where admin-user Sabbut published a private name of a person, obviously without his/her consent and accused him/her of "threats". Exactly the same procedure was used also in the english wikipedia: by user unfortunate. It seems that demanding not to publish defamatory and offensive material -which is forbidden by the own policies of wikipedia but also by law- is assumed by some wikipedian-users and wikipedian-admins as an allegedly "threat", an allegedely disruption and as an excuse to publish defamatory and unsourced contentious material and even to accuse the people who try to stop that behaviour as people acting with "terrorism-like tactics". That is very serious, don't you think so? I read that wikipedia forbid legal threats but does it means a wikipedian is allowed to act against the law here and to accuse people of acting like terrorists? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've refactored the name on that talk page; there is no need to have it there. I agree that the edit by Unfortunate was "unfortunate", i.e. unsourced and a blatant BLP violation (even according to the version of WP:BLP that existed at the time). Do you have a link or source for the Guma/Sartre comments? Best, -- JN 466  22:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that the name of the SPK member is the same one who vandalized Discusión:Salud/Archivo 2004 and threatened to reveal the true identity of sysops Ascánder and JorgeGG . He has signed with his name in both places. However, it is true that he only signed with his given name and not with his last name, and even though he did sign with his full name in other articles in the SPK website, the best thing will be for me to hide from public view the edition where I revealed his full name. I just hope that Claudio Santos is just as vehement when it is the identities of Ascánder and JorgeGG which are at stake and compels the editor of the SPK website to remove immediately the threat against the Spanish Wikipedia sysops. Sabbut (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A link to the text from Greg Guma: and look there for "Shaping the environment", and also read this Connie Page "Vermont Town in Uproar over Baader-Meinhof Terrorist Who Wasn’t," The Boston Phoenix (Sep 30, 1978).
 * About allegedelly "SPK->RAF" have you read this? but you may ask yourself how can be that true if RAF explicity said:


 * About Sartre support to SPK:, one translation of the prologue from Sartre:, but why not to read directly the SPK site: which is in german?
 * I also noticed that spanish wikipedians asked you to translate some articles from Der Spiegel to source its article about SPK. Is Der Spiegle a reliable source? Here some examples which you should consider:
 * Here, they referes to the mentioned Krist. as a "terrorist" but as you could read before: each charge against her was dropped, and none of those charges was terrorism.
 * Here they said that Krist. and other guy "gemacht haben soll" the murder of the german attorney general Siegfried Buback. But from the same source Krist. was not related, nor accused, nor legally prosecuted neither sentenced for that crime, as you can read here:.
 * so it seems a non-reliable source.

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, these are good sources, and I'll do my best to see to it that the comments by Sartre, the German Embassy, and those about the philosophical proximity to Szasz etc. get representation. As for Der Spiegel, although I don't believe everything I read in Der Spiegel, the way Wikipedia is set up Der Spiegel is a "reliable source" -- by Wikipedia's criteria. However, that does not mean that Wikipedia can or should ignore subsequent reports in equally reliable sources showing that statements, or what amounts to mere speculations, made in Der Spiegel (or elsewhere) were wrong.
 * If you have anything that pertains directly to or invalidates the statements in those two Der Spiegel articles that I said I will translate for the Spanish editors, do let me know, and I'll present those sources at the same time. It will probably be a couple of days before I get back to the Spanish editors, as I'm snowed under with work. You're welcome to e-mail me too (see toolbox in left sidebar). I'd be interested in your view of the present German and English articles on the SPK, just to help me get my bearings with what is fine and where you have concerns. -- JN 466  02:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, by now, perhaps you should read: http://www.spkpfh.de/Kraken_jagen.htm
 * Have you succeed in finding the events around president Heinemann and SPK in http://www.spkpfh.de/Long_Letter.htm?
 * -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The text is clearly a translation; is there a German original version of the "long letter"? Has it been cited by any third-party source? -- JN 466  01:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC) And some sources claim she was RAF. Yes, the sources are contradictory (for example: she/he was SPK or not? exactly how many from SPK became later RAF, few or many? why if RAF rejected SPK, some sources claim SPK became/was RAF?). How to choose the right source? is the risk forbidden per WP:BLP? could you find the original source for that issues, for example a source for the train issue, in order to ensure that it is not a gossip-loop? So, as you realized, this woman not being from SPK, is only one of many details and contradictions emerging just from only one event. Therefore I do not want to prevent you from reading the very large sources I introduced and the other sources you found, but meanwhile perhaps you will be interested in considering the following proposal about the WP-article :
 * It should be noticed that on claims about president's train, Rubin fails to provide any source to validate it. I've exahustively looked for it, but it is not there. And perhaps you already realized that it lacks everywhere, as it is not in Rubin's book neither in other books claiming the same assertion. Is it a WP:BLP? Some sources claim mrs.C.R. was not from SPK but from RAF. Each source states she was arrested on march/1972 not in july/1971 when all SPK patients were certainly arrested. Also I could not find any source claiming she was sentenced because of planning a bomb against any train, ¿could you?. But certainly it should be more important to realize that sources claim: she was tortured ("zwangswaise narkotisiert") by prison doctors and there were legal procedures/trial against those doctors.
 * But, now let return to president's train and SPK. Then you succeed in finding the events around president Heinemann and SPK, as described in http://www.spkpfh.de/Long_Letter.htm, exactly in those paragraphs starting with "...the doctors behind the authorities put the things from the feet to the head in the case of SPK..." and ending with "...in order to-heal-illness-by-killing-those-who-are-ill.". All that letter was written in english, as it was a long letter to an American writer who has written a book based on it, as you also may find although not in fine print.
 * There are tons of documents full of details and contexts, denying such sort of gossips. Could you read: http://www.spkpfh.de/Kraken_jagen.htm?
 * I am sorry for the slow replies, I am currently working 18-hour shifts. The Hitler's Children book says Roll was "ex-SPK", i.e. a former member of the SPK. -- JN 466  03:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This source says "a few" ("more than a dozen") SPK members (a rather small percentage of the overall membership) joined the RAF, among them Carmen Roll. As far as I can make out, there are a lot of sources identifying Roll as an SPK member who joined the RAF some time in 1971 . I haven't found any sources yet saying what exactly Roll was charged with, or convicted of. -- JN 466  04:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here some snippets distancing Roll and others from Huber: -- JN  466  05:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me notice, that the current procedure used to write the WP's article about SPK, is basically to copy-and-paste isolated, decontextualized and dispersed data taken from dispersed sources here and there ; most sources dealing mainly with organizations (RAF, etc.) and marginally with SPK, contradicted by other sources and not to forget: data and sources denied by legal procedures from the people of SPK. Then, those disperse data/events are being placed together in the WP-article, joined without any other criteria but with the criteria/opinion of the wikipedia author, and presented as the history and theory of SPK. Certainly that is not the history neither the theory of SPK, but it is certainly a original research, thus forbidenn by wikipedia policies, not just demanding a lot of time to corroborate the large amount of data and emerging contradictions, but also risking to mislead the readers and to harm that people of SPK and other people. Instead of that, there is a lot of information and even history taken down in the SPK site and certainly the readers -even you- could contrast that info with external sources whenever they need. Therefore, I would suggest to leave a short paragraph about SPK and a link to that site. What do you think?

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At present practically nothing in the Spanish article is properly sourced. The first source is the SPK"s own website, whose use as a source is not ideal, but defensible as long as it is compatible with WP:SELFPUB (I'm pretty sure the corresponding Spanish guideline is pretty similar). The second source, which is the basis for the bulk of the present article, is self-published. The third source is used for an isolated factoid. So yes, as things stand, a short article seems sensible, pending proper research. (A link to the organization's own site is standard and present even now). -- JN 466  06:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also encyclopaedias like Brokhaus and DTV have decided to do so and heed SPK.  -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you found the entrie aimed to Brockhaus, etc. ? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the text included on, correct? (I've read the above letter from dtv.) Best, -- JN 466  16:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this source; are there any major factual errors in it? -- JN 466  16:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well,
 * Yes, correct, that is the SPK text for encyclopedias, which is also included here: http://www.spkpfh.de/Gossipcide.htm, and in German here:.
 * About this source : I think yes, it has a lot of major factual errors and factoids. Have you compare that with this: http://www.spkpfh.de/Zeittafel.htm (also in english: )
 * Take a look on the following proposal . It is somehow the current spanish version, but corrected and reworded, thus refactored. I've cited the respective SPK sources, but to satisfy the WP policies and easy the thing, I also added some external sources which certainly you will find somehow approximate to the SPK sources (for example:); but when emerged any contradiction, be it in the wording, I just prefered and I suggest to heed and follow the SPK version:
 * -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're trying to do, but would point out that this version does not mention Huber's arrest, conviction and sentence (which is mentioned in the SPK Zeittafel), nor does it mention what they were -- rightly or wrongly -- convicted of, and it does not mention that, according to multiple sources, about a dozen former SPK members moved across to the RAF when the SPK was dissolved. Another fact that is missing is that the Hubers were denied the right to practice medicine (also in Zeittafel). Could we work on a version that incorporates that info? Best, -- JN 466  21:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have info on the event described in some sources as the suicide of a patient in April 1971? I note this suicide is disputed on the SPK website, but without further detail being given. What happened? -- JN 466  21:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * About details and contexts I have to recommend again the SPK site: www.spkpfh.de, for example: and . About the WP article, I believed that you have agreed that: it is better a short and a general article than a larger and more detailed but bad sourced and controversial one, builded by selecting isolated factoids or even facts from disperse sources (that is WP:OR). Leave aside the factoids. What about the facts? Of course, there are a lot of details (events, specificities, words, etc.) which are actually not mentioned in my proposal. For example it is not mentioned the first assembly of patients in favour of illness and against the doctors, and that is just a very important detail which is missed. There is not explicity mentioned the concept of illness neither its dialectic moments, although being the main core of SPK ideology-philosophy-practice. About legal perspective: it is not mentioned the legal procedure used by the SPK patients at those times against eviction, dismissal, etc. About the detention of patients of SPK, it does not mention the struggle of those patients inside and outside the prisons (cited by SPK sources but also by external sources like that from Guattari I cited), the hungerstrikes, the legal procedures against the responsabile doctors, and it is not mentioned the accusations, trials and sentences against doctors since those times; it is also not mentioned that the detention and imprisonement of SPK patients could be considered a sort of political persecution and a desinformation campaign as sources state (I've just added three more soueces in my last edition which claim that and even denounce tortures against SPK patients: ) -instigated by the doctors, as states the SPK. Yes it does not mentions that Hubers were forbidden to practice medicine but it also does not mention that Hubers had already rejected to be doctors forever and brand themesleves as patients, front patients. Abolition of the doctor-patient relation is certainly an important detail about SPK/PF-ideology and practice, but a detail not mentioned at all in the proposed entrie. There is not mentioned where were all the 500 patients before coming to SPK, neither where they were after SPK dissolved (abroad? working? in the PF/SPK(H)? no where?). About the allegedely dozen former SPK members allegedely moved across to the RAF, I believe that you could realize that they are mostly factoids claimed by sources which does not provide the original source for those affirmations, as we discovered with one single case (C.R. and train bombing). If you read the legal procedures from SPK, you will find that they even demonstrated that a lot of those persons were not ever in the SPK. But you also could realize that external sources are also contradictory in this issue, as I showed and cited: some sources claim this persons were from RAF but do not claim they were from SPK, so, per WP:BLP you should remain conservative in publishing that info. And you may notice that those sources claiming that "dozen SPK patients became RAF", seem to be very biased sources reducing all the history of SPK to that allegedely relation with RAF, trying to exemplify with those "dozen" persons that SPK became RAF and that SPK was barely nothing else but a terrorist group, which is a claim denied by other sources(, Spandler, etc.), denied by the Law (that crime did not existed then and nobody from SPK were sentenced because RAF and viceversa, and SPK was never forbidden) and a claim denied by RAF self (RAF rejected expresively and take distance from SPK, is it a contradiction that RAF agrees in this point with the Law?). A claim which was rejected by legal procedures (defamation, calumny, etc.) by the people of SPK, and a claim which was deleted from Encylopedias like Brockhaus and dtv, as you already realized. Certainly these last details (legal procedures against those false allegations against SPK) are also part of the history of SPK, but are also not mentioned at all in my proposal, and certainly you will notice that these details would be certainly related to a legal perspective on SPK, and not only the details around detentions against Hubers. Well, again: of course, this general short article lacks a lot of details, but we already discussed the reasons to do so. If the article would need to be improved then it could be done in the future. Do you agree again? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the article should be conservative, especially where facts are disputed by different sources, that it should not assign undue weight to the fact that some SPK members subsequently joined the RAF, and should restrict itself to high-quality publications. However, I cannot support you in your argument that the SPK perspective should be the only one represented, as that is not the premise upon which Wikipedia is built – no organisation or political actor enjoys that privilege on Wikipedia. However, each article on Wikipedia links to the article subject's home page, and so does and will the SPK article, allowing readers access to the subject's understanding of itself. -- JN 466  16:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I preferred to use those words used by SPK, like "collective" instead of "organization", "dissolved" instead of "disbanded", "patients" instead of "clients"; is it a POV?. But beyond that, my proposed entrie is not a perspective about SPK but it merely contains the following contents: what means the name SPK, where was SPK founded, who did found SPK, when was SPK dissolved, how and by whom was SPK continued until now, what is in general terms the SPK ideology, what is the internet site of SPK. So I can not imagine what sort of contents is proposed to "balance" that information and I do not understand how these facts could be considered POV, moreover I think that any fact can not be "balanced" but denied if it is not true. Does SPK not mean "Socialist Patients' Collective"? Was SPK not founded in Heidelberg?, was SPK not founded by Huber?, was SPK not dissolved in july 1971?, was SPK not continued by PF/SPK(H) as Patientenfront declared explicity by Huber self? Does SPK not enact that "doctors are the ruling class of capitalism and SPK fight asgainst doctors"? Is not the enacted SPK program: "turn illness into a weapon, in favour of illness and against capitalism"? is not http://www.spkpfh.de the SPK internet site? Is there any source claiming otherwise?
 * The entrie is limited to those facts, it does not include any perspective nor any allegation -true or false- about SPK.
 * So let me ask more questions: Are the defamatory and false allegations about SPK being a terrorist group linked to RAF, the data which should be inserted, despite of WP:BLP and despite of all that we discussed (allegation denied by RAF, allegations denied by the trials, allegations denied by the legal procedures from SPK/PF(H) against defamation, allegations denied by reliable sources -so you agree wikipedia article should remain conservative to avoid harming people-, allegations which were deleted from Brockhaus and dtv encyclopedias)? And, at any rate, those allegations do not deny the facts of my proposed entrie, so how exactly those false allegations could "balance" my proposed entrie? Is the insertion of defamatory contents a way to balance an article in wikipedia? Sincerely I know your negative answer to this last question, but why not to question it here?.
 * And let me propose even more questions: If actually those sources which mention some names of people from SPK who later were RAF, explicity do so in order to claim the alleged connection between SPK and RAF as well as SPK being terrorist; then would not be the insertion of those names, in any case, an insertion of "unduly weighted" content as it implies those harmful allegations? Why not to insert into each wikipedia's article of each kindergarten, school, university, editorial and company, the name of each RAF member who studied or worked there before becoming RAF?
 * I hope, I do not look rhetoric or mayeutic due my questions. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at the least the fact that the Hubers were arrested and imprisoned should be in the article, and also what they were convicted of. This, after all, led to the SPK being dissolved. Not mentioning this would be like having an article about Martin Luther King, and not mentioning that he was jailed.
 * I would support you in that the article should not state that the SPK was a terrorist organisation. I think the sources that you have brought to the table back you up in this regard. However, from what I have read, it seems undisputed that some members of the SPK -- but certainly NOT Huber himself, as the SPK's founder -- did move across to the RAF, and later became highly notable RAF members. -- JN 466  09:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me ask: what has SPK to do with the RAF members notoriety? Is this the RAF entrie or the SPK one? At any rate, none from SPK "did move across" to the RAF. If few from SPK were later a member of RAF, it happened after SPK was self-dissolved, be it years later . And every RAF member, even those who years before were SPK, but any member of RAF was compelled to absolutely break with SPK positions, even contact was forbidden[. In a general short entrie, the more relevant details about SPK would be obscured due iluminating these facts and explanations, therefore at any rate "unduly weighted". Certainly it is not irrelevant that the patients of SPK were object of persecution, jail and torture, neither it is less relevant that despite of and against that, SPK still exists and remains its struggle until nowdays. -- [[User:ClaudioSantos|ClaudioSantos]] (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I sympathise, but Wikipedia is set up in such a way that due weight is established by sources, and a significant proportion of sources writing about the SPK cover this aspect. Basically, if Wikipedia follows its basic policies, the article should reflect these sources:, (unless sources published later on definitely establish that some of these sources were in error). Where SPK members were subject to persecution, jail and torture, of course this is something the article should cover as well, as is the continued existence of the organisation, but we need to find sources, especially third-party sources. The best thing you and I can do here is to research sources which I can then drop on the Spanish article's talk page. The Google Books and Google News links are the best starting point for that; if you can help me identify the most reliable and well-researched among that lot (above all scholarly sources), I will pass them on and will have a basis for discussion with the Spanish editors. We should focus on identifying third-party sources, as these will be more likely to be adopted by the Spanish editors for sourcing article content. -- JN  466  18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've held back on translating the Spiegel sources so far because they are rather old, written at the time the investigations took place, and I am unclear as to how much the suppositions expressed in these articles were superseded or borne out by later developments. That is always a problem with contemporaneous sources; we should ideally use sources written later on, that analyse events retrospectively. -- JN 466  18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayen, I think there is no lack of sources for your concerns. About this I already gave these |+socialist-patients-collective&hl=en sources which denie those. Also this source denies the relation between RAF and SPK and a lot of twaddle; also this one denies RAF-SPK conection: and support all the facts of my proposal, and I also provided non-SPK sources for persecution, jail, torture: against SPK. Those sources were provided in the references of my proposal as you can check again. On the other hand: are you having any trouble or doubt about SPK current existence? That should be a consequence of those non-SPK sources claiming and spreading twaddle about SPK, therefore, not your fault, and since you learned the SPK-internet-site, then should not be a trouble too, at least not for you. Let me ask: if there are a lot of sources  which show that RAF-Ulrike Meinhof studied in University of Münster, why it is not reflected in the respective wikipedia article  in a statement in its first or second paragraph like "some members of this university became guerilla-RAF-members"? But if so, perhaps I would clap laughing, it means: certainly I will remain convinced that sort of idiotism must not be used in the SPK article. So let return and focus on SPK and let aside and don't you worry due my last (anti)rethoric question against high private and established institutions such as pride and arrogance. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, the article on the University of Münster lists Ulrike Meinhof as one of its "notable alumni". Truth is, she is listed at the very end of the list, whereas all the other notable alumni are ordered alphabetically, so I think I will correct that bit. Sabbut (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see you just edited your post as though you had originally meant to ask for something else.
 * Your original question is indeed thus:
 * Let me ask: if there are a lot of sources [51] which show that RAF-Ulrike Meinhof studied in University of Münster, why it is not reflected in the respective wikipedia article [52]? (source:, where [52] is the article on the University of Münster)
 * And my answer was clear: the article about the University of Münster indeed has Ulrike Meinhof as one of its notable alumni.
 * Now you have changed your question into this:
 * ...in a statement in its first or second paragraph like "some members of this university became guerilla-RAF-members"?
 * Well, the thing is, it is not notable that some members of the University of Münster became terrorists if said terrorists are a negligible proportion among all of the University of Münster's former students, similar to the proportion you will find among people with a different educative background. This seems not to be true if you take into account the proportion of members of the SPK who later became members of the RAF, which is significantly much higher than the proportion you will find among people from other backgrounds. According to sources, it seems pretty much clear that their affiliation to the SPK had a significant role in their later affiliation to the RAF.
 * I will keep lurking here from time to time waiting for any news. Please do not try to hide my last answers in a different section. And please ask the SPK website's admins to remove any threat against the Spanish Wikipedia's admins. Thank you. Sabbut (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Back on SPK

 * Hi Jayen, let us back to our discussion about SPK entrie:
 * Just to remember, this was my last comment:


 * Let me ask: what has SPK to do with the RAF members notoriety? Is this the RAF entrie or the SPK one? At any rate, none from SPK "did move across" to the RAF. If few from SPK were later a member of RAF, it happened after SPK was self-dissolved, be it years later . And every RAF member, even those who years before were SPK, but any member of RAF was compelled to absolutely break with SPK positions, even contact was forbidden[, and you could clearly contrast the warfare of the SPK, patients figthing pro-illness and against doctors, being absolutely different than RAF crying for doctors and health . In a general short entrie, the more relevant details about SPK would be obscured due iluminating these facts and explanations and comparisons between SPK and RAF, therefore at any rate "unduly weighted". Certainly it is not irrelevant that the patients of SPK were object of persecution, jail and torture, neither it is less relevant that despite of and against that, SPK still exists and remains its struggle until nowdays. -- [[User:ClaudioSantos|ClaudioSantos]] (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And this was your last comment:


 * I sympathise, but Wikipedia is set up in such a way that due weight is established by sources, and a significant proportion of sources writing about the SPK cover this aspect. Basically, if Wikipedia follows its basic policies, the article should reflect these sources:, (unless sources published later on definitely establish that some of these sources were in error). Where SPK members were subject to persecution, jail and torture, of course this is something the article should cover as well, as is the continued existence of the organisation, but we need to find sources, especially third-party sources. The best thing you and I can do here is to research sources which I can then drop on the Spanish article's talk page. The Google Books and Google News links are the best starting point for that; if you can help me identify the most reliable and well-researched among that lot (above all scholarly sources), I will pass them on and will have a basis for discussion with the Spanish editors. We should focus on identifying third-party sources, as these will be more likely to be adopted by the Spanish editors for sourcing article content. -- JN  466  18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've held back on translating the Spiegel sources so far because they are rather old, written at the time the investigations took place, and I am unclear as to how much the suppositions expressed in these articles were superseded or borne out by later developments. That is always a problem with contemporaneous sources; we should ideally use sources written later on, that analyse events retrospectively. -- JN 466  18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thus Jayen, I think there is no lack of sources for your concerns in your last comment ("...I sympathise..." ). About this I already gave these |+socialist-patients-collective&hl=en sources which denie those. Also this source denies the relation between RAF and SPK and a lot of twaddle; also this one denies RAF-SPK conection: and support all the facts of my very conservative proposal which is strictly full of facts and empy of any allegation on SPK; and I also provided non-SPK sources with some illustration about histeria, persecution, jail and torture against SPK; but there is also mentioned the warfare of the SPK imprisoned patients, figthing pro-illness and against doctors, (Patientenfront) by radical means such as unconditional and unlimited hungerstrike, absolutely different than RAF crying for doctors, health and better confinement conditions, as you could also realize. Certainly those facts were not included in my proposal but they could be read in further reading. All those sources were provided in the references of my proposal as you can check again. On the other hand: are you having any trouble or doubt about SPK current existence? That should be a consequence of those non-SPK sources claiming and spreading twaddle about SPK, therefore, not your fault, and since you learned the SPK-internet-site, then should not be a trouble too, at least not for you. Let me ask: if there are a lot of sources  which show that RAF-Ulrike Meinhof studied in University of Münster, why it is not reflected in the respective wikipedia article  in a statement in its first or second paragraph like "some members of this university became guerilla-RAF-members"? But if so, perhaps I would clap laughing, it means: certainly I will remain convinced that sort of idiotism must not be used in the SPK article as being used for those sources to imply false allegations and false accusations against SPK, thus misleading the readers with garbage. So let return and focus on SPK and let aside and don't you worry due my last (anti)rethoric question against high private and established institutions such as pride and arrogance. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It would indeed be ridiculous to mention in the first or second paragraph that some of the alumni of the University of Münster became terrorist if there is only one notable example. It would also be contrary to NPOV, as you could also argue that some of the alumni became notable architects, lawyers, mathematicians, writers, singers, poets, businesspeople and the like. To put emphasis on only one of the outcomes among notable alumni of the University is to add an unnecessary and unacceptable bias to an otherwise perfectly acceptable article. As for the previous versions of that question of yours, they have already been answered by me at the previous subsection. Sabbut (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And yes Jayen, I also found a waste of time translating those Spiegel articles for the same reasons I exposed. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to SPK

 * Hi Jayen, let us back to our discussion about SPK entrie:
 * Just to remember, this was my last comment:


 * Let me ask: what has SPK to do with the RAF members notoriety? Is this the RAF entrie or the SPK one? At any rate, none from SPK "did move across" to the RAF. If few from SPK were later a member of RAF, it happened after SPK was self-dissolved, be it years later . And every RAF member, even those very few who years before were SPK, but any member of RAF was compelled to absolutely break with SPK positions, even contact was forbidden[, and you could clearly contrast the warfare of the SPK, patients figthing pro-illness and against doctors, being absolutely different than RAF crying for doctors and health . In a general short entrie, the more relevant details about SPK would be obscured due iluminating these facts and explanations and comparisons between SPK and RAF, therefore at any rate "unduly weighted". Certainly it is not irrelevant that the patients of SPK were object of persecution, jail and torture, neither it is less relevant that despite of and against that, SPK still exists and remains its struggle until nowdays. -- [[User:ClaudioSantos|ClaudioSantos]] (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And this was your last comment:


 * I sympathise, but Wikipedia is set up in such a way that due weight is established by sources, and a significant proportion of sources writing about the SPK cover this aspect. Basically, if Wikipedia follows its basic policies, the article should reflect these sources:, (unless sources published later on definitely establish that some of these sources were in error). Where SPK members were subject to persecution, jail and torture, of course this is something the article should cover as well, as is the continued existence of the organisation, but we need to find sources, especially third-party sources. The best thing you and I can do here is to research sources which I can then drop on the Spanish article's talk page. The Google Books and Google News links are the best starting point for that; if you can help me identify the most reliable and well-researched among that lot (above all scholarly sources), I will pass them on and will have a basis for discussion with the Spanish editors. We should focus on identifying third-party sources, as these will be more likely to be adopted by the Spanish editors for sourcing article content. -- JN  466  18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've held back on translating the Spiegel sources so far because they are rather old, written at the time the investigations took place, and I am unclear as to how much the suppositions expressed in these articles were superseded or borne out by later developments. That is always a problem with contemporaneous sources; we should ideally use sources written later on, that analyse events retrospectively. -- JN 466  18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thus Jayen, I think there is no lack of sources for your concerns in your last comment ("...I sympathise..." ). About this I already gave these |+socialist-patients-collective&hl=en sources which denie those. Also this source denies the relation between RAF and SPK and a lot of twaddle; also this one denies RAF-SPK conection: and support all the facts of my very conservative proposal which is strictly full of facts and empy of any allegation on SPK ; and I also provided non-SPK sources with some illustration about histeria, persecution, jail and torture against SPK; but there is also mentioned the warfare of the SPK imprisoned patients, figthing pro-illness and against doctors, (Patientenfront) by radical means such as unconditional and unlimited hungerstrike, absolutely different than RAF crying for doctors, health and better confinement conditions, as you could also realize. Certainly those facts were not included in my proposal but they could be read in further reading. All those non-SPK sources were provided in the references of my proposal as you can check again. Therefore certainly I will remain convinced that sort of ridiculous idiotism: forcing to include the names of the very few ex-SPK who later on became RAF members, must not be used in the SPK article, because it is being used by the respective authors just to imply false allegations and false accusations against SPK, thus misleading the readers with garbage.  For example and on the other hand: are you having any trouble or doubt about SPK current existence? That should be a consequence of those non-SPK sources claiming and spreading twaddle about SPK, therefore, not your fault, and since you learned the SPK-internet-site, then should not be a trouble too, at least not for you. And yes Jayen, I also found a waste of time translating those Spiegel articles for the same reasons I exposed. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Claudio. Sabbut, there are some worthwhile sources here among those that Claudio has brought to the table, and they do bear his points out; notably ("It was falsely linked to the Red Army Fraction"),  (pp. 480--481), and |+socialist-patients-collective&hl=en ("By all accounts—including the admission last week of a West German Embassy spokesman in Washington—SPC was fairly harmless.") The publishers (SAGE_Publications, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group) are highly reputable academic publishers. The continued existence of the "Patientenfront", the SPK's 1973 reincarnation, was attested to here. I'm looking into some other sources as well that provide a retrospective analysis, but Claudio's sources present the strongest statements I have found so far contradicting the alleged SPK/RAF linkage that was popular in press reports at the time. -- JN  466  02:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, a source attributed to the SPK like this one Claudio presented ("SPK Krankheit im Recht", which is also advertised here) would naturally deny any link between SPK and RAF.
 * On the other hand, the quote "By all accounts—including the admission last week of a West German Embassy spokesman in Washington—SPC was fairly harmless" does not really mean that much. I would agree that it was "fairly harmless" as per (Global Terrorism Database, endorsed by the University of Maryland), which only mentions a few violent incidents attributed to the SPK, but that's not the same thing as saying it was "harmless".
 * As for Ian Parker's book, I would take a bit of caution before believing everything it says, at least when it comes to the book saying that the accusations of terrorism were false. From his own critical view as a Marxist and a proponent of critical psychology, Ian Parker may have been more inclined to believe the SPK's stance than the German government's. It could be argued that the book written by Jillian Becker (a right-wing journalist) is "counterinsurgency tripe", but it can also be noted that third sources which say that very thing about Becker's book do not readily dismiss it, at least when it comes to facts and figures.
 * I will keep looking for additional English- and Spanish-language sources. However, I think it would be of great help to find a contemporary newspaper article on the SPK. Perhaps the Der Spiegel notice from 1973, a year after the incident, could be of help, but an article written in the 21st century would probably be more useful. However, I will have to consider any self-published source such as the aforementioned book ("SPK Krankheit im Recht") and others that Claudio has proposed as more than likely propaganda. Sabbut (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, Jayen. I would also advise you to check from time to time the history of your talk page. ClaudioSantos has this nasty habit of trying to hide my comments in a different section from his own, probably so as to prevent you from reading them. For example, he just striked all his text from a previous subsection (which had been answered by me) and copied it again in a new section. He also likes editing his own comments, arguably so that it seems that I'm answering to something else than his own comment.
 * Although my last comments were more a reply to Claudio than a reply to you, I think they also provide some insight on the subject, and they should definitely belong to the same section. Claudio was just blocked for a couple of days last night because of his attitude, although he might like to explain it here with more detail once his block has expired. Sabbut (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can exclude any self-published sources making potentially self-serving claims from our consideration, per WP:SELFPUB (or its Spanish equivalent). I am also not suggesting that we believe Parker, or any of the other sources for that matter, but we do need to take note of reliable sources that take alternative views. Where matters are contested, and there are various truth claims, we need at the very least to attribute statements to their authors – say exactly who says what – and cannot present contentious statements as fact. Claudio has delivered some reliably published independent third-party sources above (I would encourage him to use this opportunity to add more of them, especially third-party academic sources), and we should factor these sources in to arrive at something that is NPOV. I am currently looking at, a retrospective in a German historical journal, but it only has snippet view in Google Books, which makes it difficult and time-consuming to get the whole text.
 * I am aware that the thread is a little chaotic and my orange bar pops up quite a lot, but I don't think I have missed any of your posts. In the section above I noted that Claudio took care to only strike out his own comments, and leave yours intact, which I think means there was no ill intent; and he is welcome to refine his posts prior to your or my having replied to them (although note that posts should not be changed after they have been replied to, per WP:REDACT). -- JN 466  09:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Claudio, moving other editors' talk page posts is not considered good form; it's best to leave them in the place where the other editor originally put them. Best, -- JN 466  10:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bukkake article
I have placed an RfC in the article regarding images. My goal is to have the article (like all Wikipedia articles) remain stable for a period of time. That takes a genuine consensus, which can then be used to prevent others from changing the article every time they differ.

I know you feeling strongly about the subject, and that you find the images in the article offensive. But that is no excuse for disrupting the article in the manner that you have, nor claiming bad faith on the part of other editors who are as sincere and dedicated as you are to the quality of Wikipedia. Someone with your years of experience within Wikipedia should have been more familiar with how to build consensus by now. Consensus does not involve insulting other editors whom you disagree with, ignoring the opinions of editors who you disagree with or forcing a change in an article when you have one more vote for your position than an opposing one. I am asking you to be civil and actually work towards a real consensus, rather than coercing others. A discussion about such things can be brief when everyone agrees. When they do not, as is the case in the Bukkake article, it can takes weeks or even months. If you take the time to follow the process properly, and build a genuine consensus, then the end result is that the article will remain stable and we will not have to argue about the images every two weeks ad nauseum. Myself and others who monitor the sexuality and sexology articles can then rely on the precedent set by the consensus to keep it from being changed every ten minutes. Atom (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to change the article back to what it has looked like for months or years, then we can have the discussion within the RfC, and then we will all abide by the consensus generated from that. If you can't let that happen properly, I will need to ask others to sanction you. Atom (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's just note that you changed the article back 4 times, each time against clear talk page consensus (8 to 1 against you in the end). An 8:1 talk page consensus, including several admins, is a sufficient basis for removing a redundant image, even without an RfC. Apart from that, full marks for the "civil" attempt at mud throwing; it could always be that some sticks, eh? :) -- JN 466  17:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh
Heh, welcome to my world. I do appreciate the occasional friendly face, and I'll miss you when you've given up and moved on. Don't know what's wrong with me. Some attraction to lost causes, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going anywhere. :) Feel free to ping me any time if you want a third opinion. -- JN 466  17:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"This movie isn't about cream cheese!" - mother in old "Durbingle the Goat Boy" comic strip, regarding Philadelphia
That is unfortunate indeed. On the one hand, Wikipedia isn't censored, and there are instances where sexually explicit text, images, sound, or video may be appropriate per policy and guidelines, and beneficial to the article. And in such instances I think they should be there...

On the other hand (I have two free, since I am not a one-handed typist) I think they should be there... at least for adults who want them and knowingly consent that they may be shocked by something, if not for all. Wikipedia is a shock site encyclopedia in many respects. Sexually explicit content might not be limited to articles where the title subject is something which would necessarily imply anything sexual (and Special:Random certainly gives none whatsoever). If there are reliable sources that established "X in pornography" is a notable subject, etc. per policies and guidelines, where X is something not inherently pornographic or sexual or erotic or anything like, and X may even unfortunately be something popular with populations that disapprove of pornography for religious reasons, or populations that cannot legally be shown pornography, or sexually abused people who may find it traumatic, or other sensitive viewers, I'm not sure what means in accordance with policy and guidelines that Wikipedia has of keeping that subject and related images out of article X. Likewise, Wikipedia has no means of guaranteeing that any page regarding anything might for just a second or for a prolonged period of time have pornography (or hate speech, or whatever) added to it as an act of vandalism. Given that this is the case, it would be seemingly be prudent for Wikipedia to more actively consider more ways of largely or entirely preventing vandalism or unwanted (or illegal?) exposure to sexually explicit content from happening.

At a bare minimum, one would think it would be reasonable for users visiting the site to make a self-attested statement of age and be required to turn on images, rather than turn them off (not that either of those address everything, given that age can be lied about, and adult content may appear in text and audio). IMDb and eBay, for example, both do age agreements and require consent to access adult content. Better that Wikipedia come up with workable solutions than say in the future the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers requiring all websites with sexually explicit content be placed in the .XXX domain and that internet service providers be required to always get validation of users' ages, and so on. Not to say that something like that will necessarily happen, though the history of film, TV, and videogames as well as some of the positions taken in debates over things like Net neutrality don't make it seem terribly far-fetched, at least to me. But I suspect anything I could possibly think of to address any of these problems has been shot down in the past and is already characterized as notfree, censorship, policycreep, and as a perennial proposal.

Back on the first hand, Wikipedia defines itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Anyone. If the sexually abused infant child of fundamentalist parents living somewhere where pornography is punishable by death somehow precociously made its way directly to e.g. Bukkake, Wikipedia freely gives that person the right to view the page and to edit it if they can somehow manage that as well. Or serial-killing necrophiliac zoophiles. Or immoral litterbugs. And we should be "open and welcoming" to them all, perhaps by assuming in good faith that no editor could possibly be these things, or be anything other than a good-tempered, law-abiding adult who knowingly consents to the possibility that they might see or hear anything here at any time.

Back on the second hand, maybe that's something of a slippery slope straw man or something, although the black letter definition's scope is plainly that unlimited. So perhaps it's an imperfect definition; it might be a little overbroad, possibly? Well, Wikipedia isWP:NOTDONE (odd that's an essay and not a pillar, otherwise WP could freeze all editing and new article creation, but I guess "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute" encompasses it). So, anyone might want to consider editing the definition sometime. But only if there can be said to be a consensus. Arglebargle. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have long argued that Wikipedia should have a system similar to Google and Flickr, requiring an age-related (Flickr) opt-in to see adult content. The 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content (3 parts) came to similar conclusions; current status is here. If that were implemented, that would be half the problem solved. My view on the Bukkake article specifically is: one of the drawings is okay (and I'll work on that graphic so we can swap them again), but two was too much. As for Pearl_necklace_(sexuality), I dunno.
 * Basically, my thoughts on the matter of appropriate illustration are summarised here: (this is the only section of the essay I wrote; for the rest, the essay is perhaps just slightly conservative than I would be, although I will defend the author's right to express this point of view) and here.
 * The only policy means concerning "X in pornography" sections I can think of is WP:ASTONISH (also see Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy).
 * The other thing is, all the pornography articles have very high viewing figures. It's important to get the text right. Let's do some more work on the Bukkake article; the Moore chapters look promising. Cheers, -- JN 466  22:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A problem with proposing with requiring an age-related opt-in to see adult content is that adult content can appear in text, audio, images or video on any page at any time (except presumably for the small percentage that have no edit tabs, like the disclaimer pages). Advice for parents does a poor job of explaining this, I think, and isn't all that prominent a page on the site.  Yes, " in relevant areas throughout the site, you will find possibly distressing content and pictures showing subjects like sexual activity or profanity in context" contains some things that are true, but it is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Such content may appear in irrelevant areas (including the page with this claim!), and it may or may not be in context in either of those kinds of areas.  It acknowledges the appearance in irrelevant areas to a degree: "Pages which are normally appropriate for children to use may be vandalized with rude words or content which may be offensive."  The words might be more than rude though, and the problem with text is not limited to individual words, but may be offensive clauses, sentences, paragraphs, or entire articles.  "Content" does encompass all that, and the images, audio and video, but it doesn't fully spell that out in a candid instructive way.  "Vandalism is normally noticed and removed within a few minutes, if not seconds (via the recent changes function); but sometimes it can remain unnoticed for days, and even if not, someone will have to see it before it can be removed, and this could be anyone."  Wikipedia's source for vandalism statistics and reversions for every single page is what, exactly?  It is known that vandalism can remain unnoticed for months or years too, but it doesn't admit that.  There is at least a disclaimer link on the home page, not that it's very prominent.
 * If I randomly cut together each scene of every movie that had ever been made, and started projecting it, I could say only parts of it have XXX content, and that the XXX content is a small percentage of the whole film, but I couldn't say when the XXX scenes might appear, nor could I admit minors. I could put disclaimers somewhere people might see it, if they came in a certain way.  But then still admitting everybody knowing that some of them are children and some of them haven't read the disclaimers isn't particularly responsible.  Having an age-related opt-in for adult content would only serve a purpose if it were required for the whole site.
 * The essay ASTONISH doesn't really address all the significant ways a viewer might be shocked. Wikipedia may have articles or sections of articles on things a person never would have expected an encyclopedia would.  The explicit content is not addressed on Wikipedia's home page.  Search autocompletion gives page titles but not descriptions or ratings.  A person looking up something the meaning of which they don't know may find something radically different than their expectations.  Someone following a link in from somewhere else wouldn't see a warning on the home page even if there was one.  Listing all the significant ways probably might go on for some time and might be impractical.  One can summarize some things by saying that vandalism means a viewer can be misguided, shocked, surprised, overwhelmingly confused, deeply offended, or traumatized by any page at any moment.  Unrestricted editing means the constant possibility of astonishment. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ruby-gate
You recently participated in a straw poll regarding the above article. New options have been crafted at Talk:Ruby-gate, and your input is welcome. -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)