User talk:Torinir/MedCab OS Advocacy

Keep the discussion related to the MedCab case re: the bodypaint image in the article Operating system advocacy.

Try to keep your cool while discussing this case, and don't forget to sign your posts.

From what I'm seeing here, the whole case hinges on what exactly constitutes "advocacy." Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 16:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And whether nudity (such as it is) is necessary for the context of the page. --Justfred 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also whether or not nudity is necessary the same as tittilation or pornography. --tjstrf 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would not argue that, and it's far beyond the scope of this article. I would say, whether nudity in this case and context with this image, is necessary, or is only here for tittilation or pornography.--Justfred 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) The two arguments are synonymous. If nudity is not strictly the same as pornography, then an image's placement within those categories is dependant on their personal POV. --tjstrf 18:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Necessity has nothing to do with it, it is a question of improvement. The consensus so far has been that the image is appropriate, improves the article, your reasons for desiring to remove it are unconvincing, and no alternative image for that position has been suggested. NicM 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC).
 * You have also never helped your argument by rather offensively insisting that all who disagreed with you did so purely for prurient reasons, when it is quite clear that the image enhances the article aesthetically by adding colour and interest. It is also perfectly relevant to the text, and a lot more interesting and unique than the logos dotting the rest of the page, and most other images associated with computer science articles. Not that you bothered yourself to suggest even a boring alternative image, of course. NicM 18:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

Also, even if it were definitely pornography, wouldn't that simply make it an even more extreme form of advocacy/activism and hence even more appropriate for the article? --tjstrf 18:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

...and that's how we ended up here. I believe that finding an alternative image to support your position is your responsibility, because "body painting as os advocacy" appears to me to be only found in your perception of this image and nowhere else.--Justfred 18:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can believe that all you want, but the consensus is that this image is appropriate and should stay. If you want it removed it is up to you to convince everybody. Suggesting a suitable alternative would be an excellent first step, considerably better than what you have been doing so far. NicM 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC).
 * A question for you, fred: What other possible interpetation, other than OS advocacy or advertisment, is there for that image? It is an image of a woman being painted with Linux logos, what else could it possibly represent? --tjstrf 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Advertising, period. SUSE is a commercial product.  Body painting _like this_ goes on only at advertising-style events such as trade shows - and as I understand, is rarely used anymore because people complained that it was tasteless (LA Convention center, for example, would prohibit it).  A question back to you: why can't you show me any other examples of body painting as OS advocacy?  Or offer some explanation of what context you believe she might be "advocating".  As I've suggested, I'd think a tattoo would be a better example.  I don't know where to find GPL images, and as I've said I don't believe the article requires an image at all.--Justfred 18:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This nitpicking about semantics is silly. The image shows a women promoting, advertising and advocating an operating system. You have no evidence she is being paid or that she is not a genuine SuSE fan, and she perfectly well demonstrates a rare and distinctive form of advocacy. You may not think the article requires an image but most other people seem to disagree, and if you really want this one removed spending some time on Wikipedia and elsewhere looking for an alternative to suggest would be a step forward. NicM 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC).
 * MedNote - Justfred, is there an alternative image, with similar value that could be used in its place? There's likely to be some at the Creative Commons site. (I cannot access that site from work, as it's proxy blocked by my employer) Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe an image is necessary. But I'm pretty much done arguing about this.  The page was fairly useless after the OS comparisons were (probably appropriately) removed; this image just makes it more useless.  I'll concede to the other editors and remove this page from my watchlist.  Problem solved.--Justfred 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. Debatable images can be touchy, yet images sometimes are necessary to illustrate part of the article. If there's an image that will be equivalent in context without the nudity, that may be a best solution. Advocacy can involve bodypaints (just go to any major sporting event for proof), but you have valid concerns about nudity. It's a question of "is there a better picture to illustrate advocacy in bodypaint?" Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is my view too (as I wrote on the talk page before realising the discussion had moved): since the nudity is not the central appeal of the picture, a different photo portraying the same (or higher level of) dedication without nudity would be fine IMO. What is a big part of the picture's power, however, is that it is a person putting herself through the demanding act of (full-)bodypainting for the sake of advocacy. Not that easy to match. Arru 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel that this case should hinge on what exactly constitutes "advocacy" - however, Justfred appears to also be concerned about the nudity (as shown by his first comment here). Whilst these are both potential arguments for removing an image, they are still as far as I can see separate arguments. In particular, an alternative non-nude body painting picture wouldn't satisfy the first problem of whether it is advocacy.


 * In response to nudity, my opinion is that this is not a reason to remove the image, though it could perhaps be substituted if an alternative exists. As for whether it's advocacy - I suppose there is the small doubt that this may have been someone hired commercially by a company, in which case it's not what people usually see as "advocacy" in my opinion. Mdwh 22:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that, particularly regarding open source, the line between advocacy and advertising can be fairly blurred. In this case it is impossible to technically resolve unless someone contacts SuSE or the women in the image and ask them whether or not they were appearing for love or money or both. NicM 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC).
 * I at least am more than happy to see an alternative image, so long as it is attractive and relevant to the text, or the text is adjusted to make it relevant, I am just a) not going to spend my time finding one, I like the current image just fine b) going to agree to it being removed on spurious or prudish grounds and without consensus. NicM 22:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

I am looking for, and have put out a request for, open-licenced OS-related tattoos. I believe this would satisfy both of my concerns as someone would be unlikely to get one as an advertisement (except and unless they're an advocate anyway) and it would not be necessary to show nudity in the image. I also believe it would be more likely to find a tattoo'd os advocate than a body-painted one; I think it's a better illustration of advocacy, so to speak. I found a bunch of them on BME but those aren't rights-released.--Justfred 23:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the tattoo idea. My main concern with this issue is as follows: it seems amateurish and adolescent to have gratuitous pictures of body painted women in serious encyclopedia articles. — Philwelch t 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say if it seems amateurish and adolescent to you then it is your problem not the article's. The picture is clearly demonstrating something mentioned in the text, it is not pornographic and it is not gratuitous. If you feel that a relevant image is made useless, gratuitous or adolescent simply because it happens to include nudity, that is really your problem, not anyone else's. However, in the spirit of compromise, if you suggest an alternative, reasonably attractive image, relevant to the article, for that position (how about an image of a Linux trade show booth? Linux stuffed toys? what about something to do with NetBSD? I can't believe I am having to suggest these things), I would have no problem supporting a change to it. NicM 08:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC).
 * Good news: I found an image of a person with a Linux tattoo earlier today. Bad news: it was a decidedly pornographic image, far more so than the body paint one. I looked at it, remembered this thread, and laughed. --tjstrf 08:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not support such a change, on the current grounds. Overlooking the fact that all those suggestions are boring (stuffed toy - OK but still bland), they are all paid for, commercial, no debate. While you can never see just from an image that a person is advocating something out of love and personal conviction, the bodypaint picture at least leaves open the possibility. Arru 10:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not necessarily true. OpenBSD's representation at events is often staffed by unpaid volunteers who chose to spend their time advocating the operating system (in fact, almost all of the developers are volunteers) and most of the funding comes from donation from the user community in any case. I'm sure there are Linux distributions that are similar. NicM 11:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

Note: - I'm seeing progress being made here. I'm going to let all of you continue discussion, since it's staying civilized and on topic. I'll keep an eye out for any thorny points, but since it's moving along well, I think hands-off mediation will work for now. :) Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And that is where the progress ends, well Torinir, how did this mediation end? Should the template be removed from the article now? Janizary 23:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still looking for an open-source image of a Linux (Penguin) or MacOS tattoo, which is far more clear and common form of advocacy. I still feel the original image is inappropriate as it contains gratuitous nudity and does not clearly demonstrate advocacy, but the edit wars have worn me out. Other editors have removed the content warning tag without this issue being resolved. Apparently I'm the only one who cares.--Justfred 21:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Damn. :( OK, I wonder if this might work: Instead of "bodypainting", reclassify as "bodyart" and perhaps get some kind of tattooing that may fit as well? I know one of my former coworkers had a large Tux tattoo on his arm. Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 21:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Still active?
Is this discussion still active? If not, I will close the case. --Ideogram 07:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)