Wikipedia talk:Hardcore pornography images/Archive 1

Note from the original creator of this page
In working through this fraught subject with my fellow Wikipedians, I (Herostratus) have come across various counterarguments. I address them here. I have divided them -- and this is strictly my own personal ordering -- into those I have found cogent and those I have not.

Uncogent objections

 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Well, yes, but in and of itself, this is not a cogent point: this page modifies WP:NOTCENSORED, adding a level of detail describing its application in a particular circumstance. Or, if you prefer, detailing an exception. Either way, referring just to the policy alone is circular reasoning. Saying "The Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and this exception [or: any exception] should not be considered, because [cogent reason]" is fine. But just citing the policy alone is like saying "I am against this amendment to the Constitution, because this amendment is not in the Constitution".
 * These images are not illegal. Non sequitur; nobody is talking about legality here.
 * Wikipedia is not concerned with morality. Non sequitur; nobody is talking about morality here, in the sense of sexual morality and certainly not religious morality.
 * Slippery slope -- where do you draw the line? We draw the line here. Some slopes are slippery. Many are not. This one is not especially slippery. It's a specific case. What would be the next step down the slope? I suppose it be would explicit images in articles describing actual human sexuality, right? But in that case 1) the articles have more encyclopedic value, and 2) the behaviors depicted are not as extreme, generally. So that'd be a different argument, with a significantly stronger case supporting the use of images. I consider it very unlikely that such an argument will ever be made, or if it was that it would garner much support. So let's talk about this issue and not worry about things that aren't going to happen.
 * OMGTHINKOFTHECHILDREN! is not an argument. Variations such as "It's none of my concern if young people are harmed or not" (yeah it is) and "They see it everywhere anyway" and "Aha! I have dug up an obscure and unreliable reference from a 1953 article by a dentist in Belize that proves that this stuff doesn't harm young people" do not, in my view, cast the people making these assertions in a very good light. I'm putting that as nicely as I can. It could be put a lot less nicely.
 * There is no rule prohibiting such images, if this is the only argument, is not especially edifying. It's one thing to say "Such-and-such would be a good thing, but it is prohibited by policy"; but saying "Such-and-such would be a good thing, but there is no rule specifically allowing it" is no way to run a business. If you must have a rule to point to, you have one now: this page. Sure it's only an essay, but essays are pointed to very often in Wikipedia discussions.
 * Muhammed and/or the little Vietnamese girl running down the street naked after the napalm attack. Somebody always brings up Muhammed, or the little Vietnamese girl running down the street naked after the napalm attack. I'm not sure why, and I don't know what they have to with anything, but somebody always brings them up. I think it might be something along the lines of "Well, we host those images, so we can/should/must host these images". I guess a reasonable reply would be "Sorry you can't figure out the difference, you have my sympathy".

Cogent objections

 * Wikipedia is not censored as a matter of principle and we should stand up for that even if there is a cost. In reply, I would say, this trivializes the struggle against censorship. Thomas Jefferson said "I have sworn eternal enmity... against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man", a statement I applaud and think is as good an expression of anti-censorship principles as any. And let us by all means take a stand to not redact our material in deference to the claims of ignorance, superstition, religion, tyranny, and profit. But hardcore pornography does not ennoble the human spirit. It enslaves, not frees, the mind. It tells a false story about human sexual behavior (and that for the profit of capitalists). It is not for this that we want to expend our supply of goodwill. It is not here that we want to take our stand.
 * Exceptions should not be made to the principle that, assuming a subject is notable enough to be covered, it should be covered as fully as possible. In reply, I would say, well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I have laid out my reasoning on the main page. It takes a certain subtlety of mind to make exceptions and distinctions depending on complex circumstances and competing principles, as we are here. It's much easier to cling rigidly to a rule. Easier, but not better. Herostratus (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (with some editing at later dates)

Integration of hardcore images
I don't have a complete list of which articles are hardcore-only. Such a list is difficult to compile because many of the articles mix references to real-life sexual activity with pornography-film scenarios. These articles need to have their references rigorously vetted and the real-life and pornography aspects separated. But just take one article, Bukkake, which after vetting some of the refs I think is only verifiably notable as a pornography scenario, and which (at this writing) has two images, I note that this article is not hidden away somewhere. It is two clicks away from the general-interest articles Edo Period and 1979 and Flash and Index of Japan-related articles (L) and LGBT history. And it's two clicks away from several articles of likely interest to young people, these being Anime and List of manga magazines and List of webcomics and List of fictional robots and androids and even Flirting (some flirting!). Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Essay
Please move this to your user space. "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." - WP:ESSAYS I'm not sure if you want people to edit this or not but it does contradict widespread consensus. Cptnono (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern, but I think it's fine here. Of course anyone can edit it, it's a wiki. However, edits should be improvements. You're free to write your own essay of course. Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to understand. Since your essay contradicts consensus it is not suitable for the mainspace.Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But essays often offer minority viewpoints. But you're welcome to take it to WP:MFD if you like. I don't think it'd be deleted, but you never know. Herostratus (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a minority viewpoint and contradicting widespread consensus. If you wish to pull from previous discussions and standards to create such an essay then it would be acceptable. However, you have not done that and instead simply provided your argument. If you move it to a user space essay then it will of course be acceptable. If you chose not to I will take it to MfD but would prefer it if you just respected the policy.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to voluntarily userfy it, so there's your answer. By the way, it's interesting to note that you are advocating for censoring an idea, are you not? Interesting twist. Herostratus (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That was cute. Moving it into your user space is not censorship.Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I see nothing in this essay which contradicts consensus or widespread consensus in any way that would suggest it should be deleted. This essay represents (imperfectly, since it is one person's well-written first draft) a viewpoint that is quite common and is worthwhile.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Argh, Help:Options to not see an image
OK. It's perfectly fine (of course) if editors improve this essay by adding various links, and links to essays and policies that contradict or refute this essay are welcome, and if you want to write an essay "Why WP:HARDCORE sucks" or whatever and link to it that's perfectly OK.

But please, not Help:Options to not see an image. Besides being mostly complete bollocks (and flat-out insulting in a number of places), it's completely out of context to link to it here.

What the page says, basically, is "If you are computer programmer, and you somehow know the file names of all the images that you don't want to see, here's what you can do"

[Redacted: an extended rant ripping Help:Options to not see an image to shreds. It was all true (and funny), but still a rant and not necessarily kind to the editors who worked on that page. It's in the history.] Herostratus (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, look. I'm not saying Help:Options to not see an image shouldn't exist. It's a help page, and (although it needs an extensive rewrite) it's possible that the number of people who have found it useful is not necessarily zero, and it belongs in with our other help pages.

But linking to it in this context is basically to say "Hey, here's a practical solution to this problem described in this essay!". And that's not true. And if it's not true, we shouldn't do it. Herostratus (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The game's afoot
Naturally, it's expected that this page will come under attack. An editor blanked a large part of the first section, and we'll likely see more of this, and I guess it doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

Again, improvements to the essay are welcome. Creating counter-essays and linking to them from here is welcome. However, hostile and destructive edits are not welcome, not part of way essays are generally handled here at the Wikipedia, and not in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia. I don't go messing with your essays, you know.

I reverted the edit, and if any fair-minded editors (you don't have to agree with the thrust of the essay) want to keep an eye on this page, that'd be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Porn is misogynistic" is absolutely a polemic statement that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If you want this to be "your essay", I can help you userfy it. Gigs (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, the essay doesn't say "porn is misogynistic", it says "many of these images are misogynistic". It's a polemic statement, but it's also a reasonable assertion that is supported by a number of scholars and erudite people. This doesn't necessarily make it true, but it does make it reasonable to make the assertion. See, for example, Bukkake, which IIRC has a whole section on assertions that it's misogynistic. It would have nothing to do with the Wikipedia if we didn't host these images. But we do. So it has plenty to do with Wikipedia. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. You should have said something at the MfD, Gigs. Oh well. It isn't your  essay, HS, since it is the main space. Sucks to be you, huh? I am currently debating with myself what to add to it. I would love to see it be open and honest about the dispute (both viewpoints) since it has such a good name but the scope is crap. Although I like such images I can even make an argument for when they should not be allowed. But a blanket statement that does not pull from any consensus (I still argue that it full-on disregards it) and instead is just personal arguments is problematic. Not problematic enough to delete according to some people (even the founder ignores policy!) but enough to edit.Cptnono (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts on your essay
I have been following the comments on this essay for a while, and I thought I should share my views. I fully agree with the sentiment of this essay, but have to disagree on some minor points. I want to address your three main points that you make. Jrobinjapan (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The cost to Wikipedia's reputation - This is a valid point. Although, I think most people living in free societies abhor censorship in any form, I don't think what you are suggesting necessarily constitutes censorship.  Links can always be provided to outside sources for questionable materials.  I think where the Mohammad image comparisons fail is that those who object to the prophet's images are a small minority.  On the other hand, pornographic images are considered objectionable by most cultures of the world, especially in places where children have free access to them.  I think, as a society, we have to be very careful about how we treat free speech on the internet.  In this age, anybody with access to a computer has a free and anonymous forum to slander with impunity, post pornographic or disturbing materials where anyone can see them, etc, while in the past most people only had access to major media outlets, where people and organizations can be held accountable for what they say and do - both legally and economically.  So, resources like Wikipedia are in many ways a double-edged sword.  I think the Wikipedia community has to decide how much it will adhere to principle even when that principle flies in the face of common sense, reasonableness, and the established values of human society.
 * Children can see it. - This is the strongest point of the three. As you know, most schools, public institutions, and many companies install web filtering software to block pornographic and other types of content.  Wikipedia has presented a bit of a conundrum.  Nobody wants to block Wikipedia, because of its great value and access to information.  But for most schools, giving children access to pornographic materials is simply not an option.  I think if things continue as they are, we are going to find more schools and public institutions having no choice but to block Wikipedia as a whole.  Most web filters can block based on the URL, but with constant new pages being added and titles being changed, it is difficult to catch everything.  One thing that might be useful is placing a banner on pages that discuss pornographic topics.  This is already done on the Japanese version of Wikipedia.  Web filtering software can pick up these banners and block based on that.  While nobody likes the idea of censoring content, it is preferable to blocking Wikipedia altogether.  Therefore, I think you can argue that including these types of images in articles can actually have the effect of restricting free access to information, which is Wikipedia's main goal.
 * The images are misogynistic and degrading to women - I think this is your weakest point. The images that I have seen are fairly accurate depictions of the pornographic materials they attempt to describe.  If anything, you might be able to argue that the original pornographic materials are degrading to women, but I don't think there is any clear consensus here, as there are many women who do not find it degrading.
 * (edit conflict):Islam is at 1.5 billion worldwide or something huge like that. Not all Muslims take offence but enough think it should be prohibited for the most part. It is at least a substantial minority if measured against the world population. A "small minority" seems a little off to the point that I could see it being offensive to Muslims (no offence here, of course). Pornographic images are not considered objectionable for consenting adults throughout much of the world. Some countries don't even care about age while some countries go even farther by allowing prostitution (again for both consenting adults and those who are underage depending on where it is) So your perception of human society might be ore based on your environment and personal beliefs. You think we have to be careful and the community agrees. Hell, I even agree. However, the community has allowed for it if done properly. That is what is wrong with this essay. This essay does not touch on how and when these images can be appropriate but instead is a soapbox that disregards multiple aspects. If this is to be an essay in the mainspace it should clearly point to firm reasoning and not the two others listed that you seem to agree are not exactly inline with how things are supposed to be working around here.Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be argumentative, but I think you need to consider the audience. If you look at the users of the English Wikipedia, the percentage of Muslims, while not insignificant, is indeed quite small.  By the way, I'm not arguing either way on whether Mohammad's images should be shown or not on the English Wikipedia.  (If you look at the Arabic version of the Muhammad page, you will see no pictures of the prophet, which I think we can all agree is reasonable.)
 * On the other hand, I think we can also agree that an overwhelmingly large percentage of the English speaking world's cultures do not approve of allowing children to view pornographic images. I agree with Cptnono that it could use some cleaning up to acknowledge more of Wikipedia's basic policies, however. And since this is not a user page essay, I think he should be able to edit it to make it better.  Since it seems that we agree there is common ground here, let's find it. Jrobinjapan (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the first place to look is "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The problem with this essay is that it assumes that pornography cannot be treated in an encyclopedic manner. Other strong arguments for not using certain images can be based on Florida law and that came up in the recent concerns over at commons and here with Jimbo Wales drawing frustration. This is even easier to write an anti-hardcore essay on when adding "hardcore". Of course "hardcore" as laid out in this essay is not "hardcore" as laid out in Florida state law. So if the essay is retitled "No hardcore images", I would be happy to ad all sorts of reasoning. But one user's soapbox does contradict consensus (the reasoning provided is not the reason the community is concerned with these images) and it makes it to broad of an essay to be workable since it is then an attempt at writing an (as of now) unattainable guideline.
 * So first step: Retitle. Second step: Use Reasoning that actually has some (even minority some) support.Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cptnono, would you agree that images are not necessary in an encyclopedic treatment of pornographic topics, for the most part? I've never seen an encyclopedic reference (other that ones clearly labeled as intended for adults) that show such images.  I can't speak for everyone, but most of the examples that have been pointed out so far have, to my sensibilities, detracted from, rather than added to the articles.  There was not a single case where the images clarified beyond what was written in the article.  I mean, a guy sucking his dick is a guy sucking his dick, you don't really need an image to illustrate it, wouldn't you agree?  Jrobinjapan (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all agreed. Everyone reads an article differently. One editor here had tons of stats on it but I don't recall who it was. Some people only look at the image and the lead. Others check every source. Being on the internet adds a dimension to it. Learning disabilities add another. Images are more than just decoration. We do not need them anywhere with that logic so strike them from everything then. We do not need depictions of oranges, wooden spoons, or Tic Tacs. Since Wikipedia does not remove images simply because they hurt people's feelings then yes: we certainly should have some explicit images. Keys to doing it right include not overdoing it, making sure it is inline with state laws (releases, concerns with age, and so on), and making sure they are not overly distracting from the text with unrelated material. Cptnono (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of responses to some earlier comments. Regarding "I think most people living in free societies abhor censorship in any form, I don't think what you are suggesting necessarily constitutes censorship." It doesn't just "not necessarily constitute censorship", it absolutely doesn't constitute censorship. Censorship is editorial control by an external entity. When people speak of censorship, they are first of all mainly talking about state censorship. This can take two forms, prior restraint - when the state has a Censor's Office and material cannot legally be published without their OK - or post priori censorship, where you can publish whatever you want but are liable to be arrested afterwards. Obviously this does not apply to the situation we are talking about.

Then there is censorship by non-state entities. In the old days, every American movie had to be approved by the Hays Office, which was set up by the movie studios. The Hays Office wasn't an arm of the state, but without their approval no theater in America would show your movie, and no studio would make if they thought it wouldn't get the OK from the Hays Office. The state wasn't involved, but the state allowed this to happen, even though it was a gross violation of antitrust laws. And in fact the Hays Office was set up to appease the state and head off any possible formal state censorship. (The rating system we have now is a remnant of this system, and like the Hays Office it would absolutely be illegal collusion normally, but special legislation has been passed to allow this.) The Comics Code is a similar example.

Then there are weaker forms of external control, like informal censorship, local censorship, and boycotts. If all the bookstores in my county refuse to carry works by Trotsky, that could - maybe - be seen as in informal form of censorship, even though there's no overt collusion. If my public library refused to carry works by Trotsky for political reasons, that is arguably censorship (the library is an arm of the state); but if they don't carry them just because no one wants them, it's not. Intent would be key in this case. Then boycotts - if an organized group agitates for people not to buy my newspaper unless it drops the "Trotsky Says" column, that's an outside entity trying to influence editorial content. It's debatable whether any of these rise to the level of "censorship", and it partly depends on the effectiveness of the effor - if I can get my Trotsky in the next county or in the next town's library, can we really say that censorship is in effect.

But if an individual bookstore or theater or whatever decides they don't want to sell a given work, that's not censorship. If I decide not to carry the "Trotsky Says" column in my newspaper, that's not censorship. That's just editoral judgement. Because there is no outside entity exercising control.

And that is the situation we have here. We are not talking about censorship here. Look, the Britannica doesn't host porn. Are they "censored"? Of course not. They are exercising editoral judgement. I think it'd be silly to say "The Brittanica is censored". The Great Chinese Encyclopedia (or whatever they have) is censored, and that's totally different, and to say "The Great Chinese Encyclopedia is censored, and the Brittanica is censored, and the two conditions are similar enough that we can use the same word" is silly.

In fact, our policy "Wikipedia is not censored" is badly misnamed. (In a narrow sense, the Wikipedia is censored, because the State of Florida won't let use host certain material - child porn, direct incitements to crime, deliberate fraud. There's no prior restraint (no Censor's Office) but we'd be liable to being shut down and whoever is legally responsible to arrest. We can host libel, but are liable to civil action in that case, which the state allows, so effectively we are censored from that too. (Not that we want to host any of these things, of course.)

But WP:NOTCENSORED isn't talking about that. It's about editorial control. The core sentence of the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy is the last: "...'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content", so it really should be renamed to something like "Wikipedia contains 'objectionable' content" or, since it's part of WP:NOT, maybe "Wikipedia is not edited to remove 'objectionable' content" or something like that. And the shortcut could be WP:OBJECTIONABLE. It's a little less concise, but on the other hand more accurate. Maybe I'll bring this up. Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you there. When I say "not necessarily censorship", I'm using a broader meaning of the term, as it is used on WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm all for more editorial control on Wikipedia. Jrobinjapan (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As to the "misogynist" point - another editor brought this up also. The images are accurate (I think), but so? They just accurately portray misogyny. That "...there are many women who do not find it degrading" is probably true, and it depends on the individual picture. One could argue whether (some of) the images are misogynist in intent or effect, and there's no true right answer, I guess, but at least a reasonably strong argument could be made that they are (and citations to this effect could be included).

However, the argument is valuable from a political perspective. Most Wikipedian's don't have children (see chart in a section above) and many of these (and some that do) don't give a rat's ass about kids. (I just recently saw the following statement on an editor's talk page - actually, Cptnono who has commented here - "The children are of no concern to me", and you see that from time to time (although Cptnono's brutal frankness is unusually... bracing).

After all, young people can't vote, don't make big donations, don't edit encyclopedias that much (an those that do are self-selected cohort of unusual characteristics), and I guess from a Ayn Rand type perspective (and I think we have a high percentage of libertarians and Randians and so forth here, relative to the general population) I suppose that children, being weak, are actively contemptible.

But with women it's different. There are so many of them, for one thing - they're everywhere nowadays, doubtless to the dismay of some - and they won't necessarily shut up about this stuff (again, to the dismay...). And they vote, and write letters, and edit encyclopedias, and some of them are right there in your classroom or office or even your home. In short, they're a lot harder to blow off.

And actually I think a lot of this is backlash to that: "One of you people may have gotten that internship/promotion/plum assignment/A+ grade/etc that rightfully belongs to my kind of people, but at the end of the day you're still just meat, OK?" I can't prove this, but you have to wonder. And I don't like it very much. Herostratus (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that because an images portrays misogyny, that the intent of the article is itself misogynistic. There are many articles that cover topics, where the topics being covered are offensive to some readers and editors, but does that mean Wikipedia should not include them?  I understand if you want to make it a political point, but that is not the impression I got reading the essay.  Perhaps consider something like, "Some people may find some of these images to be offensive and misogynistic" and explain more why that is bad for Wikipedia, instead of saying "Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women".  Your statement as it stands seems to imply that the images are undeniably misogynistic and degrading to any woman who sees them.  This is a somewhat contentious statement (since it can not be proved with evidence) and more of an appeal to emotion that lessens the persuasiveness of your argument in my opinion.  Jrobinjapan (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm well. You may be right, I don't know. Let's get some more input and see where it goes. Herostratus (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The disclaimer
I've asked for the disclaimer to be amended to address a valid point here. Wikipedia_talk:Content_disclaimer Gigs (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I rather wish you hadn't used the wording that you did in your proposal there (which was to add "sexual acts" to the list.) To explain why I think this, consider two images:

(Sorry, I see that Image B is on the "bad image list" - which also tells us something I think - and the readier will have to click the link to see it.)

I think that most people, on seeing the term "sexual acts", will be put in mind of Image A. But that is not what I'm talking about in this essay, I am talking about Image B and like images.

Comparing Image A to Image B in the context of the three main points raised in the essay, I think that:
 * Image A has considerably more encyclopedic value (because it depicts a common-real life event that is highly notable). And at the same time it exacts a lower cost - it is less likely to alienate people, partly because it is so notable, and also for other reasons.
 * While I am not a child psychologist, I would think that Image A would be much less harmful. (I am not considering here the question of very young people (who presumably aren't interested in the Wikipedia anyway), nor am I saying that Image B is necessarily entirely unharmful.) If the images raise in the mind of (say) a twelve-year-old person the question (perhaps preconsciously) "Is this what grown-ups do, and will I likely be expected to do this when my own sexuality flowers?"), then the answer to the question for Image A is "yes" while for Image B it is "no", and there is a big difference between handing out truth and handing out falsehood on this important issue at this delicate developmental stage.
 * And Image A is not at all misogynist, while Image B is, or at least a reasonable argument can be made that it is.

In addition, Image B does not even portray a "sexual act", really. After thoroughly vetting the references at Bukkake, I determined that there is no reliable source indicating that people engage in this activity voluntarily in real life at all, especially in heterosexual groups. So it is depicting an image that effectively occurs only in fiction, and so we are looking at actors or models or imaginary persons. I don't think that performances of actors following a script on a sound stage are really "sexual acts" in the usual sense, any more than the activities of an actor playing Superman on a sound stage are really "heroic acts".

(N.B.: though I have used Bukkake throughout in the examples, there are several other articles and images to which all this applies.)

So your proposed addition to the disclaimer doesn't really address the issue raised in that section of the essay, and I wouldn't support making any significant change to that section if your proposed addition is adopted.

Now Gigs, let me ask you again: what is your actual attitude to the essay? I know you don't like the third main point, but what about the first two points - are you in general agreement, or not? Herostratus (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree that we put ourselves and our users in a very strange situation by being not censored in general. Schools can't really block Wikipedia since it's so useful, but we have content that would go far beyond the standards of a normal encyclopedia.   I think that's a worthy problem to think about, and I agree that there hasn't particularly been serious discourse on it because we have tended to take a hard line on not being censored.


 * I don't agree with you that picture B is less encyclopedic. Sexual acts in general are difficult to explain in words, and both pictures significantly add to the understanding of the readers who might be unfamiliar.  In some ways picture B is has more encyclopedic value, because of the relative obscurity of the act in English speaking nations, it is far more likely that someone would be familiar with the missionary position vs bukkake.   The image is more likely to be offensive than the other, but we've never let potential offensiveness stop us from hosting images with encyclopedic value before.


 * On the subject of misogyny, some people argue that all pornography is misogynistic. You, in general, aren't.  But what makes you right and them wrong?  You've drawn a line in the sand, and I assert that it's a mostly arbitrary one.  This was the motive behind my most recent edit.  I wasn't trying to "water down" your essay, I was trying to make it more applicable to a wider audience.  It is, after all, named "hardcore images", a very general name that includes your Picture A, and indeed, any penetration.   If it's really about a certain few subgenres then that could be clearer.  If it's not, then widen the scope.


 * My proposed addition to the disclaimer isn't really meant to satisfy you (though I hoped you might find it a step in the right direction), it's meant to satisfy me. You've raised a good point here with regard to it, and I think it's something that's good for Wikipedia to mention in the disclaimer that our potentially offensive content includes depictions of sexual acts.


 * Regarding your doubt that people voluntarily engage in bukkake; If you mean the highly organized events with large numbers of people, I agree, that's something that only happens pornographic films, just as banging the random pizza delivery guy is a film cliche as well.  If you mean on a smaller scale with 2 or 3 people, I'm sure that happens all the time every day, in a fully voluntary manner, and that some women find it enjoyable. Gigs (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking our lead from reliable sources
I believe there is another way this topic can be approached. We have very strong policies that tell us that our content should reflect coverage in the best, most reputable sources, and exclude original research. That is understood as a basic principle of Wikipedia. No one appears to have any problem with this. Of course we sometimes get editors arguing that most reliable sources are biased, prejudiced, or motivated by ideological hostility towards whatever person or topic has taken their fancy, but on the whole we give such editors short shrift. We point them to NPOV policy, which calls upon us to represent viewpoints in proportion to their published prevalence in reliable sources.

How we approach the task of illustrating our articles should, in principle, be no different. We should take our cues on how to illustrate our work from the sources we cite in our article. If our illustration practice differs sharply from that in the cited sources, then we are not reflecting our sources. It is fully analogous to presenting an argument that is not present in the sources.

Now, in my experience reliable published sources discussing hardcore pornography do not include illustrations. We don't need to ask why they take that editorial decision, just like we don't need to ask why all our sources are agreed about the validity of a scientific argument. But we should note the fact.

I wrote and researched Creampie (sexual act). None of the sources I cited had a picture of a creampie; not a drawing, not a photograph. This is very different from an article like sexual positions, where reliably published sex manuals do present illustrations (usually drawings) of sexual positions, or medical textbooks, which include high-quality anatomical photographs of all parts of the human body.

If someone argues that all these reliable sources eschewing illustrations of things like bukkake, creampies, Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) or goatse are biased and prejudiced, and points to NOTCENSORED, we should give them the same answer that we give editors who argue that the writing in all reliable sources is biased.

That is not what happens at present. NOTCENSORED trumps everything, and no one even thinks of consulting published sources to help decide whether or not to include a given image. In my view, that is a problem. -- JN 466  04:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting proposal. However, would that guidance have lead us to not publish the Rorschach test ink blots?   Or paintings of Muhammad?  Reverse engineered lock designs?  Often coverage is done a certain way for political reasons or other reasons that Wikipedia should not necessarily be bound by (but that we should consider and discuss).  If it could be narrowly construed to apply to just the field of sexuality, that may be workable. Gigs (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never really properly looked into the Rorschach controversy. Were we the first to publish the images? I thought we weren't. But if we were, or had been, the first to publish them, then we'd have been, in a sense, a primary source for that content (which we don't want to be). I am pretty sure there are other publications showing images of Muhammad; I am not sure about reverse-engineered locks. But the sentence "Often coverage is done a certain way for political reasons or other reasons that Wikipedia should not necessarily be bound by (but that we should consider and discuss)" is interesting, because editors often argue that way on talk pages about textual content. Yet we don't usually accept that argument (and editors who persist with that line of argument in their editing usually get sanctioned quickly). There's an interesting dichotomy here: while we bind editors to closely map and follow the judgment of reliable sources in editorial decisions relating to text -- at least in theory --, we freely reject the validity of editorial decisions made by reliable sources when it comes to illustrations, aspiring to be different from published sources. I find that striking.
 * I hadn't really thought to apply what I proposed above to other contexts than the one we're discussing here, but we should ponder what our job is – to reflect published sources, or do something published sources don't do – and if it is the latter, then we should think about why we want to be different. -- JN 466  03:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We were not the first to publish any of those images. However, their display was not a normal part of coverage, and I think a test like you propose would have given a lot of ammo to those with a heavy COI who wanted to censor them. Gigs (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If they weren't a part of normal coverage in reliable sources, then yes, it probably would have. But by the same token, our including them then was technically a NPOV violation, as NPOV is not established by Wikipedians, but by reliable sources ... -- JN 466  18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a stretch. Gigs (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I don't know which position I would have taken if I had participated in those discussions at the time. I have no intention of proposing this as a WP-wide principle, but do feel it would help to consider this line of thought in discussions of pornographic illustrations. There should at least be some sorts of precedents in reliable sources for the types of images we include. We always have the option to add a Commons link to more graphic illustrations; that's an approach I would favour in the cock and ball torture article, for example. -- JN 466  10:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. Another point - we don't generally use fair-use unfree images in pornography articles. Most of the pornography images (and some non-pornography sexual images too) are the work of User:Seedfeeder, and are entirely his conception of the illustrated activity. They're probably mostly more or less accurate, although in at least one case Gokkun this is disputed. (But there is a policy or guideline somewhere addressing the veracity of original drawings, although I can't find it right now, and it does give some leeway if the image may be assumed to be probably accurate, I think.) Herostratus (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I do see that the opening of WP:RS is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." The people writing this policy were thinking about text, but it seems it would also apply to images, would it not? Interesting. Herostratus (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Herostratus, don't you think images like on Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) make a very good case for widening this past solely misogynistic genre images? If not, why not? Gigs (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Without checking the article in detail, this appears to be a real-life practice (it is also in pornography). If this is true, it wouldn't fall under this essay. Herostratus (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER. Things are going to be different here. Is Encyclopedia Britannica going to entries on these practices in the first place? If you want the entries gone altogether I would understand the argument. And funny enough, the Tea Bag page actually does have an RS (only 1, though) that shows an image.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Herostratus, it's becoming increasingly obvious that this essay is just a coatrack to argue against a specific image on the Bukkake article. You now claim it only applies to misogynistic sub-genres that don't happen in real life.  If you really cared about all those other arguments you made above about protecting children from fringe sexual practices and encyclopedic cost, then you'd apply them equally to the images on the cock and ball torture article. Gigs (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just Bukkake, there are few other similar cases. Only a few, I think, but as I said I don't have a complete list at this time. I agree that the images in cock-and-ball torture etc. are also possibly worth discussing, and perhaps I'll have something to say about them in 2011. But they are entirely different case from what is addressed in this essay (assuming that cock-and-ball torture is indeed a practice that is reliably sourced as occurring in populations at a notable level - I haven't vetted the refs). I prefer to define my terms as precisely as possible, and to work on precisely defined issues, one at a time. Herostratus (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not counting me and Cptnono, only two other editors (I think) have weighed in on the "misogyny" issue. Both think it should be removed or altered. I'd like to hear from more voices before making a major change in the section. Herostratus (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My position on it is a little more subtle than that. If you intend this to only apply to Bukkake and "a few others" (as yet unidentified) that are misogynistic, primarily porn, genres, then I think you should at a minimum rename the essay to something more specific (like "Misogynistic porn genre images").  If not, then expand it to actually give a position on hardcore image issues in general, and loosen up your control a little so that other editors can actually collaborate on it so that it represents more than the position a minority of one.  Gigs (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If others cannot edit this then it is time to move it into the userspace.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Note on demographic bias
OK, a few more points. It's difficult to get this across because of rampant Systemic bias. The typical Wikipedia editor is a childless single young male, and this is also (one supposes) the target demographic for pornography. Note the relative paucity of women, people with children, and mature people. Possibly at least partly a vicious cycle, as the frat-boy atmosphere that looks with favor on this sort of thing would tend to drive these people away. Herostratus (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * self reported online polls are a joke and meaningless. Hanging your hat on them while trying to toss around half-insults by the reference to things as a "frat boy" atmosphere, or your reference to things in the essay as "fanboy" context only weakens your argument and reduces your credibility.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on your proposal
I can see that you have given this topic a lot of thought, and have sincere and genuine concern for what is in the best interests of Wikipedia. You've even gone to the trouble of documenting and commenting on what you anticipate most of the disagreement with your position will be.

As I worked to try to do something similar to this, with roughly the same motivations in 2006 WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines I can sympathize with your position a great deal.

I think you are going about it the wrong way.

To start with you called the project "Wikipedia:Hardcore images" -- but then, immediately say "Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography" and then immediately try to define with "Hardcore pornography" is a fairly well-defined phrase".

Of course, you've jumped immediately from "Hardcore Images" to "Hardcore Pornography" in one fell swoop.

The first issue is that what we are talking about here really is self-censorship. What images do we wish to choose to leave out of Wikipedia for various reasons? That kind of voluntary self-censorship and restraint do we as a community desire out of the interest of keeping Wikipedia on the goal of being an encyclopedia, rather than other things?

The images that we choose to not be in Wikipedia cold vary broadly, and are not limited to what you call "pornography". That potentially includes images that do or could offend readers for wide variety of prospective reasons. It could challenge their views of morality or ethics, their political views, their religious views, or any number of other aspects of their life. "Pornography" frankly, is lowest on the list of possible reasons. Certainly graphics violence such as rape and murder would be worse. Blasphemy would be worse.

Next -- You use the term Pornography as if we all agree or understand the definition. You give a definition, and tell us that it is "well-defined". Of course we all use the same definition that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart used in Miller vs California. That is "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it." In fact, the only standard we have all (in the U.S.) agreed upon on for that is the Miller Test. That is a convenient standard, since Wikipedia servers are in the State of Florida, and bound by Florida state and U.S. federal laws (and hence, the Miller test.)

So, us self-censoring the broad range of potentially offense images on Wikipedia to focus only on "Pornography featuring sexual penetration and other sexuality explicit acts". "Explicit" is further defined as "very specific, clear, or detailed" and as "containing material that might be deemed offensive or graphic" is 'not okay.

The narrowing of your definition from the legal standard (Miller test) that we all agree on, to a narrower standard that is extremely subjective, and based on a specific list of content -- rather than on the context that a given image is used -- is not acceptable. Not at all. Not a little bit.

Using such a prospective subjective standard, we limit ourselves to the lowest common denominator. (and given a world with religions that require their women to be completely covered from head to toe) that common denominator is pretty low.)

One persons subjective opinion may be that because they personally find an image to be "erotic" or "arousing" in nature, that is is therefore "pornography" will not fly on Wikipedia.

An image that is directly related to the topic of the article it is in and illustrates the topic well (accurately) and benefits the article from an educational or encylopedic perspective should, as long it does not violate the law, be allowed in an article in Wikipedia. We should not give strong consideration to whether an image will be controversial, or whether it will offend "some" people, or whether "children" might see it. When given a choice of two or more images for an article that are equally good, of course, choosing an image that is less likely to offend or be controversial should be done.

A good example of this would be the article on sexual intercourse showing a real picture of a male and female (or more controversially, but just as appropriately two males having sexual intercourse.)  Such photos would not inherently be pornography (although I suspect you would insist otherwise.)  If used in the context of this encyclopedia, accurate, and tasteful. Showing a naked body is not erotica or pornography in an educational context. Showing one of the most common biological processes that we as humans experience is not pornography either. Yes, it could be "controversial". It could be controversial because the man is black and the woman is white. It could be controversial because the image *does not* show them using a condom. It could be controversial because the image *does* show them using a condom. It could be controversial because the man is "old" and the woman looks very "young". It could be controversial because it is two men. It could be controversial because the woman is on top, and not in the missionary position. It could be controversial because they are not married. It could be controversial because they *are* married, but not to one another. It could be controversial because they are married to one another, but they were having coitus for the benefit of the photo, and not to conceive children. There are numerous other reasons (as diverse as the diversity of humanity interacts with politics, religion and science.)

We at Wikipedia try to cut through all of that and warn people ahead of time that they could see controversial things in Wikipedia. We try to focus on our goal. What is our goal? Do we as editors know or remember that? Open and free access to the sum of human knowledge?

If we were in China, or Russia, we would have to accept the censorship (of all types of content, not just prospective erotic content), limiting that vision of "open and free and human knowledge" to some degree that was acceptable within those cultures and political structures. We do face the political reality and limitations of where Wikipedia *is* located. We do not have to limit ourselves based fear of controversy or bad public relations.

Out goal is to accumulate all of human knowledge and make it free and easily accessible. To stay on that task, we can't limit ourselves to trying to please and appease the specific moral tenets of every (or most, or the largest) religious groups.

You have gone to great lengths to pose this argument as something other than about censorship. But what it really is, at it's core, is an attempt to set up guidelines for Wikipedia editors to self-censor images that you or others subjectively describe as "Pornography".

To address your three main points:


 * There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to host these images. These few images are among the most contentious materials hosted on the Wikipedia, degrade the Wikipedia's reputation, create a political vulnerability for the Wikipedia, and drive away customers (including women; Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help).


 * We are not a business. Our goal is to accurately document human knowledge, not to drive up market share or broaden the diversity of our audience.  It is about factually accurate coverage of *all* notable topics.  It is what it is.  We should not change it to get more women, or minimize political vulnerability.  So, is your proposal be to limit some forms of contentious material(content) in order to gain more "customers"?  Sort of an approach that although we had less documentation of the sum of human knowledge, since more of humanity read it, it would be more useful overall?


 * It is not a good thing for young people to be viewing these images. Other images on the Wikipedia may also be problematic, but these images are especially problematic since they depict extreme sexual situations, and they depict events that occur in pornography but not (at a verifiably notable level) in real life. A picture being worth a thousand words, this point may be lost on impressionable viewers.


 * You state an opinion that it is not a good thing for younger people to see controversial content. How do you know that?  Perhaps growing up with a sense of reality, rather than being "protected" is better?  Maybe reality better prepares one for life than fantasy?  Perhaps children exposed to other humans who are also naked will help them grow up with an attitude that nakedness is a normal condition, and live a life finding nothing erotic about someone who is naked?  What it boils down to, is that it is not our job in Wikipedia to project others from reality.  We are talking about images here, not a car speeding in our direction.  It is in fact, our job to accurately document reality.  Should someone protect others?  The reason that we have laws, and parents and counselors and Priests and Imam's is to seek guidance from others through our travels in life.  None of those are our role.


 * If we wish to limit ourselves in some way, I suggest that we do it in the way we already are. We have laws in effect already regarding certain types of images, and defining what things are, in fact, obscene or not.  We have a plethora of Wikipedia policies to insure our content is on task.  That is, on a notable topic, with details in the article limited to the context of that topic, with content that is as accurate as possible, and images that support that topic and the applicable content on that topic.  We have sensible editors that generally follow our community guidelines, and when given a choice of options in an article on content, choose the least potentially offensive content, rather than the more offensive.


 * Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women, and this is by intentional design (since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women). While it may be appropriate to display images depicting the degradation of women in certain historical or sociological contexts, its not appropriate to use them in what is a least a borderline "fanboy" context. In the war between the sexes, the Wikipedia should not be taking sides.


 * As a feminist, I am fine with misogynistic images when used in the correct context within Wikipedia. I am fine if it accurately depicts the topic as it is or has been in real life.  Documenting misogyny helps to eliminate it, not to propagate it.  If we should not be "taking sides" then we should focus on factual accuracy.  Personally, I *do* take sides.  Exposing bad things to the sunshine of reality is the best way to get others to recognize the truth of it.  Jews do not want to hide and pretend that the Genocide of WWII never happened, they want to document every detail of the reality of that tragedy.  We would not make editorial decision to eliminate references to Genocide in order to protect the victims.  We don't need to make it a difficult issue.  We are here to accurately document the sum of human knowledge.

You said: "I applaud and think is as good an expression of anti-censorship principles as any. And let us by all means take a stand to not redact our material in deference to the claims of ignorance, superstition, religion, tyranny, and profit. But hardcore pornography does not ennoble the human spirit. It enslaves, not frees, the mind. It tells a false story about human sexual behavior (and that for the profit of capitalists). It is not for this that we want to expend our supply of goodwill."

Well, I applaud you! I doubt many people would disagree with your words, and share your good-hearted intent -- as I do. We want to tell the true story of sexuality and sexual behavior, and not a false story. We want the capability to boldy document and describe human sexual behavior accurately, and in proper perspective. We don't wish to be limited by moralistic and life sheltered individuals who oppose any form of acknowledgment that sexuality exists. We should have no problem with any type of explicit sexual images within Wikipedia, as long as it is educational, and on the specific topic, and benefits the article by helping people to understand that topic better. As long as we are careful to make sure that those images are not, in fact, obscene, and are valuable to the article, that should be enough. Atom (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know. This is quite long response and It's hard to digest it all. I do see some sophistry here, though: I talk about about images of women being degraded for amusement, and your response is "Perhaps children exposed to other humans who are also naked will help them grow up with an attitude that nakedness is a normal condition". We are not talking about anatomy pictures or the beauty of the naked human body here, and changing the subject in this way is not helpful.


 * We are not handwaving and talking vaguely of objectionableness in general. We wouldn't do that, because of course different people have different standards. We are talking about images which are problematic for specific, well-defined reasons.


 * Look. The river of sexual development is fed by many streams. And it is not fully understood. So we should be most conservative about the possibility of polluting any of those streams. This is our responsibility as adults. Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your last sentence seems more abstract. Of course we adults should all have s sense of responsibility. There are certainly a set of images which don't really have a need to be on Wikipedia. The ones of those that are sexually explicit should be the least of our concerns. Images that display graphic violence are much more offensive and damaging to all involved. Pictures of human skin are just that.

In my view the primary thing we should avoid is people learning about sexuality (which happens throughout the human lifespan) getting an unrealistic idea about sexuality. The problem with pornography in general, is that the people involved and the frequency of the acts involved are not representative of most people, or most human behavior. As for women being degraded for amusement, as a feminist, of course I agree they should be avoided, generally speaking. I think that accurately documenting history and how people have been misogynistic in the past is the best way to combat it in the future. So, for instance, although I abhor the sexual act now called Bukkake, documenting that a sex act intentionally intended to humiliate and degrade women exists and existed is important. That said, I am not sure how people learning that nudity is normal and healthy is connected to degrading women. Clearly images and artwork of human nudity abound in normal day to day life. Sadomasochistic images of non-consensual rape and bondage do not abound, and I can't see that such an image has a useful place within Wikipedia.

Part of the issue is moralists and ultra conservative religious types who classify anything that causes them or anyone else to be sexual aroused to be immoral, and therefore, pornography, and therefore, not useful regardless of any other context that image might have. What we can agree on, I think, is that we should never add an image to Wikipedia with the specific intent of causing sexual arousal. An image should be added to an article solely because it adds to the understanding of the specific topic of that article. If an image works well to help an article be understood, but also happens to be found to be arousing by some person, that is a personal issue, and not incorrect editing within Wikipedia. Otherwise, something as simple as an image of Mary Jane shoes would be omitted.

What I dislike the most about what you have written is your use of the term "hardcore pornography" and "pornography" as if the terms were clear and we all understood and agreed on what those terms meant. In fact, they are relative terms, and one image can be wholly appropriate in one context, and pornographic in a different context. The terms "sexually explicit" and "obscene" are better defined individually and within the law and would be more useful to use. As we could lay down 100 sexually explicit images on the table, and sort them by our subjective opinion of how graphic they are, from very low to very high, and try to draw a line on where the images were "too sexually explicit" for Wikipedia, you and I, (and many others) would likely agree that image #1 was fine for Wikipedia, and image #100 was to explicit for Wikipedia, and probably nothing else -- certainly not on where the line should be. For any kind of proposal on sexually explicit images within Wikipedia to succeed, it needs to be as objective as possible, and push away subjective criteria. As the term "pornography" itself is entirely subjective, it is not a term that will ever be useful for this purpose. The other factor is that the context in how an image is used is important. Without the context, there is no way to classify an image as being anything other than sexually explicit. And there is nothing wrong with something being sexually explicit. Atom (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Userfy
This edit is exactly why I proposed userfying this months ago. HS is not allowing others to contribute so this belongs in their user space.Cptnono (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Herostratus; Hostile edits to essays are not welcome. Write your own essay." I'm confused. This project is in user space. The edits I made I felt were positive and constructive, addressing the issues discussed while removing the feel that it was just one persons personal opinion. Are you trying to say that you own the article and no changes can me made except by you, or with your approval? If you want to move this to your talk page, then please feel free to express yourself. But in a project space it belongs to all of Wikipedia.

Also, I am not sure why you would consider those edits to be "hostile". I will try another edit that is more gentle. I hope that it does not step on your toes. Atom (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my view this page is utterly ridiculous. It is not for Wikipedia to be claiming pornography is misogynistic; in fact it's not even for Wikipedia to be appearing to suggest that. Egg Centric (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently that is the essayists personal opinion, and not a consensus of editors. Atom (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, therefore userfy at the least. And it simply must be noted that this essay is in fact a polemic, it isn't just, or even primarily, about Wikipedia. Egg Centric (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the Wikipedia is not censored policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy."

If the issue were black and white, then there would be people for and people against. Non of us seem to be, in fact, for censoring Wikipedia. We all, for the most part, seem to be against images that are not appropriate for a given article. By policy, Wikipedia is neutral on images that have explicit sexuality. If the image is appropriate for the topic of an article, it may be acceptable. If the image is not appropriate for the topic of an article, then it may not be acceptable. The term used in this essay, hardcore pornography is subjective, and is used in the context by the primary essayist to mean "sexually explicit images that I don't like". As every editor can not like an image for their own personal reasons, it is not a term that can be useful to us. Perhaps some editors would like life to be easier, and have a very easy rule that no sexually explicit images may be used in Wikipedia. That is, however, not in alignment with current Wikipedia policy. To succeed in limiting images that are not in the best interests of WIkipedia, and yet not censor, we need objective criteria. This means there can be no hard and fast rule, that each and every image must be judged by the editors of a given article as to whether the image benefits an article or not. Whether the image is on topic or not is objective. Whether the image is sexually explicit or not is not a factor. Whether the activity and the image truly represent real life (versus fantasy/erotica/entertainment) seems to be a valid argument. Other objective and more concrete criteria could and should be proposed. But, the first thing that should go in this essay is the term hardcore pornography. I don't see any easy way to discuss a subjective term that varies bt context, generally in an objective and concrete way. Atom (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * HS has just axed more contributions. The essay was kept when the first deletion discussion came up. I think people were appalled since they assumed the request for deletion was some sort of censorship. "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." (WP:ESSAYS ) applies and HS has made it clear that the essay is locked down.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * People. For starters, please stop making hostile edits to the page. Of course this is public space. We welcome discussions and edits intended to refine, strengthen, and improve the essay. However, this is not what is happening here. These are edits designed to attack and weaken the essay. This is no more acceptable than blanking the page would be. This would apply to any essay. You cannot edit WP:DICK to say "Actually, it's OK to be a dick" or whatever. So cut it out.


 * @Herostratus -- Well, I broke the changes I felt benefited the article into a series of small edits and explained each one. I reviewed them, and I don;t see how changing the style to be more like an essay, concise and cleaner is hostile.  I did not change the intent of one single paragraph.  What is it exactly about the edits that you disagree with?  Since the policy is BRD then why don't you discuss them and other editors could weigh in?  I know that with my edits -- it does not sound like you wrote it, but that is kind of the point.  I have always had respect for your editing, and even supported you in the past.  So, I am really at a loss to understand your hostility.  Sure -- we don't see this particular topic the same way.  But you will not that Not one word of the opinion I gave on the talk page was in the edits I made in the article.  I feel that the edits I made truly strengthened the article.  Atom (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see.
 * Your first edit, you removed the assertion that these articles are (arguably) fancruft. I realize that you to you this may be very very important stuff, just as Category:Pokemon may be to another user. This essay doesn't agree with you. They are fancruft. The other changes are arguably OK. Whether they weaken or strengthen the essay is a matter of opinion regarding prose style. But I absolutely question your motives.
 * Well, my feeling about that was that since fancruft is not a real word, and as slang, most people have no idea what it means, that it weakened your argument. As for motive -- If you had dealt with me more you would know that although I may disagree with you or others, that does not mean that I do not respect or like them.  I hope for your success in all things.  I hope to change others opinions through honest discussion.  Such discussion has often changed my opinions.  Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your second edit. Minor changes. In my opinion they slightly weaken the essay, making is just bit less forceful, but this is a matter of opinion regarding prose style. But I absolutely question your motives.
 * My perspective is that the word cost especially in the context where you use the word customers is oncorrect. Actually, in terms of $, it does not cost Wikipedia anything more, much less considerable cost to host the images.  I did not argue -- clearly your meaning was not cost=$, but cost in terms of public relations, people viewpoint and opinion of Wikipedia.  I tried to stay to whet I thought was clearly your intended meaning with my edit.  As Wikipedia doe snot in fact have customers, that is why I changed it to readers.  The term "most contentious" makes it sound like hyperbole, when saying contentious alone is accurate without a reader thinking you may be exaggerating.  Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your third edit is a spelling fix of the second edit.
 * Your fourth edit. Not counting minor changes, this was to remove the text "...(including women; Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help)." You are entitled to think that the Wikipedia does not have a serious serious deficit of female readers. You are entitled to think that this is not a problem. You are entitled to think that this sort of thing is helpful to attracting female readers. This essay does not agree with any of those. You are encouraged to write your own essay making these points. And I absolutely question your motives.
 * Of course, Wikipedia's goal is not to attract readers, or build an audience, but to make an encyclopedia of everything. Our main objective should be being as accurate as possible with our articles, and not readership.  Also, the statement itself is arguable, since we have no evidence that the kinds of images that you object to (whatever term we wish to use to call them) alienates anyone, women or otherwise.  Now I know that you can argue otherwise,  Argument is not my point.  To make you message clear, putting things that othes do not believe to be true will not help you win your point.  And, as I said, since most editors will say that your goal is not to attract women readers, it is not relevant anyway.  As an ardent feminist, of course I care about how women readers may feel.  But as an editor, we need to focus on the purpose of Wikipedia, not on how to market it best to any given target market.  Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your fifth edit. You pared down some text. Nothing major, but I think it makes the point slightly less forcefully, although this is a matter of opinion regarding prose style. But I absolutely question your motives.
 * I felt that the more concise wording made your point better. Of course it is fair for you to disagree.  Most editors would say that it needed a rewrite, IMO.  You rewrite it then with your choice of words.  It is a bullet point.  So, cover one thing and say it well as concisely as possible.  Trying to make multiple statements in a bullet point fails.  Making a bullet point to long means your reader won't read it. As for my motives, I offered good edits regardless of what you perceive my motive to be. Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your sixth edit. You removed "and this is by intentional design (since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women)" then replaced "its not appropriate to use them in what is a least a borderline 'fanboy' context. In the war between the sexes, the Wikipedia should not be taking sides." with "it is not appropriate to propagate misogyny ourselves." The first removal weakens the point. The second reduction is arguable and is a matter of opinion regarding prose style. But I think that it makes the point seem much blander and less vividly and forceful. And I absolutely question your motives.
 * I was focused in this section on making it more concise without damaging the point that you were trying to make. It needs to be cleaner.  First, fanboy is more slang that most of your audience does not get.  No one believes that there is a war between the sexes and so that does not help you make your point.  Perhsaps many people do not feel that pornography, in general, is designed intentionally to be misogynistic.  They think that it is primarily about people trying to make money.  Although I disagree with yo u on this point, I tried to follow what you intended to mean, and make the point in a way that would not make the reader doubt what you were trying to communicate was true.  I know you are trying to discuss a particular kind of porn, that you call hardcore porn, but as there are no examples given, the reader associates what you are saying with porn in general, not just the specific misogynistic porn that you may mean.  Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your eighth edit just removes some text. In my opinion makes the point much vaguer and is not an improvement. And I absolutely question your motives.
 * If you want your reader to understand you, make the point cleanly and concisely. My edit did that without harming your intended message  whatsoever.  Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your ninth edit is to remove the text ""Hardcore pornography" is a fairly well-defined phrase" and a paragraph supporting this, with an edit summary of "'Hardcore Pornography' is not, in fact, well defined at all. People can reasonably disagree pretty much anytime that term is used", which is not true, and I suggest you peruse any large dictionary or encyclopedia where the term is defined quite clearly. Obviously for the purposes of sophistry it is useful to muddy terms and argue that words don't mean what they do mean. This edit absolutely weakens the essay and attacks it at its core. And I absolutely question your motives.
 * We can agree to disagree on this. Since the term "pornopraphy" itself is a subjective term, and two different people can look at the same image as alternatively educational, scientific or artistic, and the other as pornography, adding the adjective hardcore does not clarify the issue.  You will see my edit did not damage the point that you were trying to make, even though I don't agree.  The second paragraph, although it has the aspect that you wrote it, does not clarify the first paragraph at all, IMO.
 * Your tenth edit is to remove a paragraph about the Wikipedia disclaimer, with an edit summary that it is not true. But it is true. Notwithstanding that this may be inconvenient for some. And I absolutely question your motives. Herostratus (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Disclaimer *does* say "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts." It does not, in fact, use the term "hardcore pornography".  Other editors (like the ones writing the disclaimer) also have the view that the terms pornography and hardcore pornography are too subjective.  In most editors opinions there are no pornographic images on Wikipedia, and hence, no need to warn people that it is there.  There are images that some may find objectionable, or offensive though.  If a sexually explicit image offends someone, that does not make it pornography.  If an image causes some reader to be sexually excited, regardless as to whether it is hardcore or not, that does not make it pornography either.  The paragraph is, again, too long, hence the need to make it more concise.  The second paragraph add little value in making your point, IMO.   Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just an essay. Why are you so hostile to its existence? My experience is: people who cannot abide any expression of any view contrary to their own are people who are troubled by a quiet fear that they are terribly wrong. Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not hostile to its existence at all. I disagree with your viewpoint.  At least if you are going to make the argument that there should not be sexually explicit images on Wikipedia, it could be made on a factual basis, rather than an elaborate "I don't like it" basis.  As I edit primarily sexology and sexuality articles, I run into, time after time, people who confuse that they are surprised or offended by an image, and try to get it removed because they think it is pornography.  I am find with helping you, and others, who want to remove images that genuinely do not need to be on Wikipedia.  I'd love to have a policy that can help us do that using objective criteria, rather than based solely on whether an image arouses them or not.  It could be that the next ten images that you object to that I would completely agree with you that they do not belong on Wikipedia.  You raise many valid points in this essay, but you don't give us any solution or bring us any closer to solving the real problem.  There are many people on the sidelines ready to take up your banner to move in and remove *all* sexually explicit images from Wikipedia, regardless of their merit or value.  Your essay should not assist them in that goal.  Atom (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is counter to consensus and possibly confusing to new editors (not enough to be deleted apparently, although I still believe much of the votes to keep were knee jerk based). I believe it is also first stages of an attempt to change policy and since I find the premise ridiculous, I would prefer a better channel with more visibility so that the community could remind you of that. But my "hostility" towards it has nothing to do with you not allowing other editors to edit it. That alone is reason to userfy it even if I thought this essay was fantastic. Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Plenty of other editors are welcome to edit it. Just not you. Herostratus (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps an admin could create an editnotice decreeing that only editors approved by Herostratus are permitted to edit this essay. I'll take it to ANI to make that request. Egg Centric (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Who's afraid of views contrary to their own again? Egg Centric (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

So per this, do you want this, Herostratus? I can make Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Hardcore images with:

/ ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are some problems with that template:
 * 1) It's too large.
 * 2) I think that our German brothers are probably weary of the implication that peremptory and officious pronouncements are best expressed in their language. See Godwin's Law.
 * 3) It's not true.

Look, here's an an example - the essay WP:COMPREHENSIVE. I don't agree with this essay at all, and in fact consider it loathsomely amoral (in fact its original title was "Wikipedia is amoral", as if this is something to be proud of). So should I go over there and weaken the language, intertwine arguments against the thrust of the essay into the essay text, rewrite or remove sections of text that make their argument too effectively, add quotations refuting the existing quotations in that section, and just generally seek to destroy the essay?

Of course not. Instead, I could write my own essay and add a link to at the bottom of WP:COMPREHENSIVE. And that's all I can do. How many times do I have to say this?

(Of course, I could correct grammatical errors and so forth in WP:COMPREHENSIVE or, if for some reason I wanted to, make other changes which improved the essay and made its arguments more cogent and compelling. However, even for that - since I hate the essay and openly say so, my motivation would (properly) be automatically in question and my edits would (properly) be subject to an extreme level of scrutiny from people friendly to the essay, and it probably just would not be a good idea for me to edit it at all.)

OK? Herostratus (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there's a difference between your example and this situation—you have clearly said that a specific user cannot edit this essay. Regardless of whether he/she is fixing a typo, rewording a sentence, fundamentally reworking the essay, etc., you have simply said "Plenty of other editors are welcome to edit it. Just not you." Do you see the difference? The reason this is now in userspace is because WP:ESSAY states, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." You clearly don't want at least one user to edit this. I'm not sure how this is difficult to understand? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As long as editors are banned from a page because of who they are, not because of particular problematic contributions (supported by consensus) the page can't be in wikispace. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have worked with this user for quite a long time. It is incontrovertible that he hates this essay with a passion and everything it stands for. The moment it was created he nominated it for deletion, argued vociferously for its deletion, and when it was not deleted he did not take this well. This is not even taking into account his edit history, talk page comments, and other actions elsewhere.


 * Now, you were saying, this editor should be welcome to edit this essay because... ? Herostratus (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually did not nom it for deletion immediately. I even made it clear that I was not against the idea of such an essay in that discussion. SO how about you apologize for not being honest now? Furthermore, I have never made any malicious edits to it. It doesn't matter anyways, as soon as you started edit warring with others you proved that you WP:OWN it which means it goes in your user space. Next time make your point without crating a polemic essay that's intent is counter to current guidelines and policies while also refusing to let others contribute. Not my fault you made those mistakes so don't twist the history and current discussion by telling it any different than it is.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
Well, we seem to be working at cross-purposes here, so I've asked for mediation, here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-14/User:Herostratus/Hardcore images. Herostratus (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that the place to object to parts of the essay? Indeed, I'm still unclear on whether I'm supposed to really! My objections are not about the policy, they're about the justifications (particularly the misogynistic bit) given which are not wiki related and are rather contentious. Egg Centric (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure. I understand that you don't agree with the misogynistic bit. If your general point of view is "I agree, in general, with this essay, as expressed in its nutshell, 'Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography'. But I think that the misogynistic bit is not true and, since its not true, it actually weakens the case", then we can talk about that. Maybe you can make a convincing case that none these images are misogynistic in intent or effect. Cites would be good here. Or maybe you can make a convincing case that, true or not, it's not tactically a good thing to say this. And so forth. So you can begin to lay out your case, I guess right here is a good a place as any, and let's keep the mediation simple with just me and Atom. (However, you can join it if you like, I guess; I don't really know how it works, what the practice is, or what would be best. Starting at WP:MEDIATION you can probably work through that.)


 * But first, let me start out by asking you, Egg Centric: do you agree that the Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography? Herostratus (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My view? Wikimedia certainly should. Wikipedia? Not sure. Certainly not in non pornographic articles. I'm uncomfortable with a blanket ban. Truth be told I'm not that bothered one way or the other.
 * I do not agree with you that the only reason for removing the misogynistic bit is because it weakens the case, however. Another good reason would be that it simply isn't true. Egg Centric (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that there is no need for mediation. If this is a personal opinion/essay offered on your user space, then more power to you. Please express yourself on the topic. Others should not interfere. If it goes back to main space, and it a vehicle for censorship then you will need to let all editors participate and express their viewpoints.

I would then work with editors, including those I don't agree with, in building policies to give us clearer guidelines. (See WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality for where I tried to do this in 2005.) Certainly it should be clear to you that building an essay to further your cause to censor and remove all sexually explicit images in Wikipedia has very little chance of succeeding. That being the case, how can this debate result in constructive and positive changes to Wikipedia that limit the scope of offensive images (of all types -- not just sexuality) and give all future editors a tool so that there is less bickering and time wasted constantly debating image appropriateness? Atom (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Atom: Essays express points of view. They can be, if necessary, renamed so they do not appear to be the "be-all and end all" on a particular topic area but it is OK for them to have a particular view. If you disagree with the point of view expressed.... then rename the essay and write one that has the point of view that you think is correct. This is an essay, not a policy page. You can write a competing one that makes a different point but you should not try to turn what it says inside out. ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not following what you mean exactly. I mean I understand what you are saying, but it does not seem to apply to this situation. If you look at my edits, I made a number of edits that all supported the theme of the essay, not edits that contradicted the point of the essay.  I was not trying to say that an essay must express all viewpoints, only that that would be a fair and constructive thing.  Can you point to an edit that tries "to turn what it says inside out"?  All of my edits were attempts  to improve what the owner of the essay was saying.  Do you really believe that the owner of the essay can and should revert an edit, or edits merely because someone who makes an edit is viewed as "hostile", or "does not trust their motives"?  Shouldn't the edit be based on how it actually changes the content?  Atom (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * H did an analysis of your edits. I find myself in agreement with him that this one, this one, this one and to a lesser extent this one do start the process of "turning the essay inside out". That said, I find Herostratus's repeated use of "But I absolutely question your motives." to be counterproductive. Even if your motives are questionable, AGF requires that, we evaluate outcome, not intent, until it is blazingly obvious that good faith is lacking, and I don't see that in this case. To go forward constructively, I think you need to show how removing criticism of the disclaimer and other problematic edits actually advance the point the essay is making. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, Atom (responding here to Atoms post above), I can do that. I'm disappointed that you chose to reject mediation, as I think that it would be helpful in this case, I think this is bad form and may limit the usefulness of this discussion. However, we'll try to do our best under the circumstances. But first just to make sure that we're on the same page, let me ask you a question.


 * The nutshell and first sentence of the essay are "Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography" and "Articles about hardcore pornography subjects should not contain images which are, themselves, hardcore pornography."


 * Now, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you do agree with those sentences, and you sole interest in editing the essay is to strengthen the exposition of those points - to make it clearer, or more cogent, or more compelling, so that a person reading the essay is more likely to to come away with the thought "That is convincing. I now do agree that the Wikipedia should not include images which are hardcore pornography".


 * Is this correct? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. There is no need for a long exposition. I'm just looking for a simple answer, so that we can then move on to the next step. Herostratus (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Where did oyu get the idea that I have "rejected" mediation. As I said, as long as it was your personal essay in your user space, there was no sense.  If you feel there is something to mediate, then as I said before, I'm happy to assist you.  Atom (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted userfication
I reverted the userfication of this essay. It is an important essay, representing an important perspective, and is the sort of essay which I think is consistent with the mission and purpose of Wikipedia. I encourage Herostratus to avoid language which might be incorrectly construed as ownership of the essay, and I encourage those who disagree with the essay to either write their own essay or, if you agree with the thrust of the essay but would like to reword some parts of it, to work thoughtfully here on the talk page and through careful and compromise-driven editing to the essay itself to improve the arguments that it makes.

I hope there is no reason for this to spin out of control into an argument that will end up in front of ArbCom. My reversion here should not be regarded as a dictate or pronouncement of any kind, and if the essay should be userfied, it should happen through some orderly process (and I will !vote against doing so).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this restoration. The essay survived an earlier MfD with flying colours. I do not find that as it stands it is polemically written, and would invite those who disagree with its message to write an alternative essay; both essays can link to each other. -- JN 466  14:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The scope of this essay is misleadingly small. It is not an essay about hardcore images.  It's an essay about "Herostratus' personal definition of hardcore" which pretty much amounts to only bukkake.  There is no compromise or consensus, the entire basis of the essay is defined by the owner of the essay.  Within this contrived framework, there is nowhere that this essay can realistically go.  Userfying this essay and starting an actual essay about exercising editorial discretion with hardcore images would be the way to go.   Gigs (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At present the community seems to be divided on what exercising editorial discretion in this area means, or should mean. Somewhere down the line, we may well have a policy or guideline on this that is supported by community consensus, but while consensus is unsettled, separate essays are the easiest and most effective way forward. -- JN 466  21:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that this essay is in no way representative of a reasonable position in this divide. Herostratus intends this essay to only apply to "specific misogynistic sub-genres that do not occur outside of pornography".  This isn't a normal definition of "hardcore" by any measure.  It's not a workable starting point. Gigs (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The essay says, "Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women, and this is by intentional design, since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women"; it does not say that all hardcore images are misogynistic. I think there is no question that pornographic genres like bukkake, gang bangs or scat have a misogynistic element to them. -- JN 466  01:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a recent change. I tried to change it to "many" in the past and was strongly opposed by Herostratus that said that this essay only applies to misogynistic pornographic sub-genres that do not occur in real life. Gigs (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would, Jimbo, refer you to WP:BRD and the discussion at the end of User_talk:Herostratus/Hardcore_images as well as the discussion at AN/I. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about "discussion" and WP:ESSAYS here? I'm not, as some people are, arguing over the content of the essay, simply over its location, which, according to the behavior of Herostratus and the policy at WP:ESSAYS, should be in userspace. I wonder why, Jimbo, (and this is not intended to be disrespectful) you continue to make these sorts of unilateral decisions despite the criticism you have received in the past. It is clear that your revert of the move was done at your discretion, without clear consensus, and apparently without looking over this talk page to see that attempts to compromise have failed. Herostratus is essentially controlling this page and reverting edits he dislikes. This page is not appropriate for projectspace not because of its content, but because of its authors actions and behavior. I request that you, Jimbo, provide a more descriptive rationale for this move back into projectspace. Particularly:
 * Do you see evidence of OWNership here?
 * How do you interpret WP:ESSAYS' statement, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit belong in the user namespace"?
 * Why do you think that your personal opinions on the content of this essay (which I am not questioning) allow you to ignore lack of consensus on this essay's location as well as the obvious OWNership issues and move the essay while discussion is ongoing?
 * I hope I am not coming off as unnecessarily accusatory or being rude, but I see little policy-based reason for this move. While it is true the initial userfication move was a tad hasty, I am a strong believer in WP:BRD and do not think adequate discussion has yet ensued. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your specific questions: (1) There will be no OWNer ship of this essay; I have asked Herostratus to refrain from any remarks that would give that impression. He has already said that he welcomes other people to edit, so if there was a problem at one point, that seems to be resolved.  (2) I interpret the statement about essays that people don't want others to edit belonging in userspace in no controversial way; it simply doesn't apply here - others are welcome to edit the essay (3) My personal opinion of the content of the essay is irrelevant to this discussion.  It is a valid essay, like many others on the site, and userfying it without first gaining consensus to do so is wrong.  Nothing in policy justifies attempts to shut down an opposing viewpoint by userfying an essay of this sort. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid excuse for censoring this essay in that fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to censor this essay, and while the ownership issue may (as you claim) no longer exist, I am still curious as to why you decided to circumvent ongoing discussion of this issue and essentially promised that Herostratus cannot bar people from editing this after you moved it back? Surely it would make more sense to wait for Herostratus to first agree no ownership will take place if the essay is moved back, let the discussion conclude, and then move it back? You say that userfying it without consensus is wrong; you reverted the userfication against consensus as well; how is that right? BRD, is, while not policy, something I expect you to follow as well; we all know that this sort of move warring can be disastrous and that you're lucky there's been some agreement over the ownership problem after the move. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  15:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are accusing me of here. I am following BRD to the letter.  "1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)" Someone did something bold: userfied an essay without there being any consensus whatsoever to do so. "2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person."  That would be me, a Most Interested Person.  "3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, " - that's what we are doing now, and indeed, I said in my original post about this "if the essay should be userfied, it should happen through some orderly process".
 * So what are you complaining about, specifically?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I think this is just an interpretation issue. I'm looking at the situation differently than you, and your point makes sense now. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)